5 ms·

The article doesn't say how much the Louvre paid for it. Did they really pay the €24.2 million auction price? Edit: The official PR from Louvre has a bit more

by gniv 3y ago

The article doesn't say how much the Louvre paid for it. Did they really pay the €24.2 million auction price? Edit: The official PR from Louvre has a bit more info: "For this exceptional purchase, the Louvre is using part of the revenue generated by the Louvre Abu Dhabi brand license - the Société des Amis du Louvre contributing the final million euros that made the acquisition possible."

orwin 3y ago
If the buyers were art investors (and didn't plan to expose it), an art piece that cannot leave a country and enter a free zone (were it will stay in storage until it is sold again) will loose a lot of its speculative value, all future transactions will be taxed.
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  It sounds like the painting was only prevented from leaving France for a limited time.
Tuna-Fish 3y ago
They matched the price. The French antiques law doesn't allow expropriation of French art owners, only temporary export bans and right of first refusal for any purchase. So the only way it got sold for less than the auction price is if the owner separately negotiated a lower price for the Louvre, but that would be against their own interests, since they'd either get the 24M from the art dealers or from Louvre.
- hnburnsy 3y ago
  > They matched the price. > > The French antiques law doesn't allow expropriation of French art owners, only temporary export bans and right of first refusal for any purchase. So the only way it got sold for less than the auction price is if the owner separately negotiated a lower price for the Louvre, but that would be against their own interests, since they'd either get the 24M from the art dealers or from Louvre.
- hnburnsy 3y ago
  > They matched the price. > > The French antiques law doesn't allow expropriation of French art owners, only temporary export bans and right of first refusal for any purchase. So the only way it got sold for less than the auction price is if the owner separately negotiated a lower price for the Louvre, but that would be against their own interests, since they'd either get the 24M from the art dealers or from Louvre. Do they pay the price including the substantial auction house fees?
- trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  Seems like a fair policy for all sides though I wonder how does that work in practice? This painting made waves of course but are they constantly monitoring auctions to see if anything of national interest turns up?
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    Its not really fair because the french government doesnt have to participate in the auction, increasing the price to keep it. They wait for private market to set price and then take it at that price. This deprives the private auction winner of price expression, as they may have been willing to pay more and it deprives the owner of price discovery. Its not really a good thing for anyone except the French government, who is abusing market power here to get a better price, which guarantees dead weight loss to society as a whole.
    - BobaFloutist 3y ago
      But it also increases the chances that significant art pieces are purchased by museums and that the public is given access to them, which is a net good that I consider far more valuable than auction fairness.
    - Loic 3y ago
      I am very happy to support this incredible burden to our society to get these arts in a museum instead of stored in a freeport[0]. [0]: https://curiousaboutart.com/business-of-art/list-of-freeport-art-storage-centers-around-the-world/ https://curiousaboutart.com/business-of-art/list-of-freeport...
    - cipheredStones 3y ago
      It's quite a rhetorical move to look at two people involved in a transaction and say "it's not a good thing for anyone", by implicitly excluding the entire public.
    - kergonath 3y ago
      > Its not really a good thing for anyone except the French government It’s a good thing for the people who will be able to see it, either now or in the future, and for the people who will be able to study it. It’s not great when works of art end up buried in archives, but it’s a disgrace when they end up in private collections, never to be seen again. The buyer don’t lose anything. They can throw a tantrum because they don’t get their nice picture and it’s really too sad. It’s a bad thing for the people who built a business exfiltrating artistic pieces out of their country, but fuck them. It’s difficult to feel bad for the guy who got only €24M instead of €26M, honestly.

by gniv 3y ago

orwin 3y ago

If the buyers were art investors (and didn't plan to expose it), an art piece that cannot leave a country and enter a free zone (were it will stay in storage until it is sold again) will loose a lot of its speculative value, all future transactions will be taxed.

ensignavenger 3y ago
It sounds like the painting was only prevented from leaving France for a limited time.

Tuna-Fish 3y ago

They matched the price. The French antiques law doesn't allow expropriation of French art owners, only temporary export bans and right of first refusal for any purchase. So the only way it got sold for less than the auction price is if the owner separately negotiated a lower price for the Louvre, but that would be against their own interests, since they'd either get the 24M from the art dealers or from Louvre.

hnburnsy 3y ago
> They matched the price. > > The French antiques law doesn't allow expropriation of French art owners, only temporary export bans and right of first refusal for any purchase. So the only way it got sold for less than the auction price is if the owner separately negotiated a lower price for the Louvre, but that would be against their own interests, since they'd either get the 24M from the art dealers or from Louvre.
hnburnsy 3y ago
> They matched the price. > > The French antiques law doesn't allow expropriation of French art owners, only temporary export bans and right of first refusal for any purchase. So the only way it got sold for less than the auction price is if the owner separately negotiated a lower price for the Louvre, but that would be against their own interests, since they'd either get the 24M from the art dealers or from Louvre. Do they pay the price including the substantial auction house fees?
trompetenaccoun 3y ago
Seems like a fair policy for all sides though I wonder how does that work in practice? This painting made waves of course but are they constantly monitoring auctions to see if anything of national interest turns up?
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  Its not really fair because the french government doesnt have to participate in the auction, increasing the price to keep it. They wait for private market to set price and then take it at that price. This deprives the private auction winner of price expression, as they may have been willing to pay more and it deprives the owner of price discovery. Its not really a good thing for anyone except the French government, who is abusing market power here to get a better price, which guarantees dead weight loss to society as a whole.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    But it also increases the chances that significant art pieces are purchased by museums and that the public is given access to them, which is a net good that I consider far more valuable than auction fairness.
  - Loic 3y ago
    I am very happy to support this incredible burden to our society to get these arts in a museum instead of stored in a freeport[0]. [0]: https://curiousaboutart.com/business-of-art/list-of-freeport-art-storage-centers-around-the-world/ https://curiousaboutart.com/business-of-art/list-of-freeport...
  - cipheredStones 3y ago
    It's quite a rhetorical move to look at two people involved in a transaction and say "it's not a good thing for anyone", by implicitly excluding the entire public.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    > Its not really a good thing for anyone except the French government It’s a good thing for the people who will be able to see it, either now or in the future, and for the people who will be able to study it. It’s not great when works of art end up buried in archives, but it’s a disgrace when they end up in private collections, never to be seen again. The buyer don’t lose anything. They can throw a tantrum because they don’t get their nice picture and it’s really too sad. It’s a bad thing for the people who built a business exfiltrating artistic pieces out of their country, but fuck them. It’s difficult to feel bad for the guy who got only €24M instead of €26M, honestly.