4 ms·

Sometimes, you need to be honest even if harsh - the people putting a picasso painting on that space to fall off are incompetent fools who should never touch ex

Sometimes, you need to be honest even if harsh - the people putting a picasso painting on that space to fall off are incompetent fools who should never touch expensive art in the first place...

heavenlyblue 5y ago
How much of your salary are you willing to sacrifice in order for police to be able to afford such competent smarts?
- subroutine 5y ago
  $3.50
  - dylan604 5y ago
    In other words, the same amount the government is willing to pay you to do your civic duty of sitting as a juror.
chmod775 5y ago
"Local man surprised police officer who makes $15.50 an hour lacks qualifications to handle $100m artwork." Who cares. It's just a piece canvas that derives its value from provenance, not condition.
- wpietri 5y ago
  You've confused value and price. Its price may not be affected by deterioration. But its value to people who study art is absolutely affected by the shape it's in. The most obvious example is "Ecce Mono", item 15 on a list of botched restorations here: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/art-history-restoration-fails-1591327 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/art-history-restoration-fa...
  - coldtea 5y ago
    > But its value to people who study art is absolutely affected by the shape it's in. Who cares for its value "to people who study art"? It's also contigent on BS cultural norms. It's not even some objectively impressive artwork. Not to mention that Picasso mass produced tons of them after he got famous, for easy money...
    - wpietri 5y ago
      Who cares? People who study art. People who care about people who study art. And almost everything is contingent on "BS cultural norms". Most of the rest is contingent on random evolutionary history. If your point is that everything is ridiculous, I certainly agree. But I disagree that the things other people care about are more ridiculous than the things I care about. It's all bananas.
  - stavros 5y ago
    > But its value to people who study art is absolutely affected by the shape it's in. > The most obvious example is "Ecce Mono", item 15 on a list of botched restorations here You are right, but probably not for the reason you think. Ecce Mono had no value until it was botched, and then it became famous. So, yes, its value to people who study art probably is affected by the shape it's in, but it's anyone's guess whether the value of the Picasso will go down or up now that it's "the Picasso that fell on the floor".
    - wpietri 5y ago
      You are also confusing value and price. Ecce Homo lasted 90 years and was important enough to the people responsible for it that they wanted to restore it. Those are clear signs of value. You're right that the open-market price of Ecce Mono, were it ever to be cut out and sold, has gone up due to its global meme status. You're also right that the price of the Picasso could well go up due to notoriety.
  - ddalex 5y ago
    You mean item 17. I would argue that the restoration is way more valuable than the original in this case. The original is a decently executed yet run-of-the-mill iconography with nothing remarkable about it. The restoration is a unique world-famous piece of art that draws thousands of visitors each year (before the pandemic) to see it.
- aledalgrande 5y ago
  > Who cares. It's just a piece canvas that derives its value from provenance, not condition. Apple II. It's just a piece of plastic and silicon that derives its value from provenance, not condition. See how that works? Just because you don't care, it doesn't mean that it isn't important to a lot of people.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >See how that works? Great? You kind of made the parent's point. >Just because you don't care, it doesn't mean that it isn't important to a lot of people. And just because it's "important to a lot of people" doesn't mean it should be.
- stavros 5y ago
  I doubt their salary is that high, btw.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

Sometimes, you need to be honest even if harsh - the people putting a picasso painting on that space to fall off are incompetent fools who should never touch expensive art in the first place...

heavenlyblue 5y ago

How much of your salary are you willing to sacrifice in order for police to be able to afford such competent smarts?

subroutine 5y ago
$3.50
- dylan604 5y ago
  In other words, the same amount the government is willing to pay you to do your civic duty of sitting as a juror.

chmod775 5y ago

"Local man surprised police officer who makes $15.50 an hour lacks qualifications to handle $100m artwork." Who cares. It's just a piece canvas that derives its value from provenance, not condition.

wpietri 5y ago
You've confused value and price. Its price may not be affected by deterioration. But its value to people who study art is absolutely affected by the shape it's in. The most obvious example is "Ecce Mono", item 15 on a list of botched restorations here: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/art-history-restoration-fails-1591327 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/art-history-restoration-fa...
- coldtea 5y ago
  > But its value to people who study art is absolutely affected by the shape it's in. Who cares for its value "to people who study art"? It's also contigent on BS cultural norms. It's not even some objectively impressive artwork. Not to mention that Picasso mass produced tons of them after he got famous, for easy money...
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Who cares? People who study art. People who care about people who study art. And almost everything is contingent on "BS cultural norms". Most of the rest is contingent on random evolutionary history. If your point is that everything is ridiculous, I certainly agree. But I disagree that the things other people care about are more ridiculous than the things I care about. It's all bananas.
- stavros 5y ago
  > But its value to people who study art is absolutely affected by the shape it's in. > The most obvious example is "Ecce Mono", item 15 on a list of botched restorations here You are right, but probably not for the reason you think. Ecce Mono had no value until it was botched, and then it became famous. So, yes, its value to people who study art probably is affected by the shape it's in, but it's anyone's guess whether the value of the Picasso will go down or up now that it's "the Picasso that fell on the floor".
  - wpietri 5y ago
    You are also confusing value and price. Ecce Homo lasted 90 years and was important enough to the people responsible for it that they wanted to restore it. Those are clear signs of value. You're right that the open-market price of Ecce Mono, were it ever to be cut out and sold, has gone up due to its global meme status. You're also right that the price of the Picasso could well go up due to notoriety.
- ddalex 5y ago
  You mean item 17. I would argue that the restoration is way more valuable than the original in this case. The original is a decently executed yet run-of-the-mill iconography with nothing remarkable about it. The restoration is a unique world-famous piece of art that draws thousands of visitors each year (before the pandemic) to see it.
aledalgrande 5y ago
> Who cares. It's just a piece canvas that derives its value from provenance, not condition. Apple II. It's just a piece of plastic and silicon that derives its value from provenance, not condition. See how that works? Just because you don't care, it doesn't mean that it isn't important to a lot of people.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >See how that works? Great? You kind of made the parent's point. >Just because you don't care, it doesn't mean that it isn't important to a lot of people. And just because it's "important to a lot of people" doesn't mean it should be.
stavros 5y ago
I doubt their salary is that high, btw.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]