Friday's ethical discussion - Expensive art and money

[Rabrrrrrr]

This week, let's look at the ethics of money.

DU has had threads in the past every now and again when a major artwork (generally a painting) sells at an auction for a very high price - in the tens of millions of dollars. But I don't think we've ever fully hammered out the nuances of these transactions. We've had some people question whether artwork should ever be worth that much any way, but let's discard that thought and not worry about the worth of the artwork and just assume that if someone is willing to pay that much, then yes, that painting is worth that much, believing in the old mantra "Something is only worth what another person is willing to pay for it".

No, let's look at the issue from another standpoint: the standpoint of, "Is that an ethical use of the person' money?" Some have argued here that the person could have fed a great many hungry people; or bought a great number of houses for the homeless; or done some other good for the society. On the other hand, I have yet to see anyone accuse of the SELLER of not using their newfound wealth for the good of society, nor have they derided the auction house for not using their share of the selling price for the good of many.

Others have argued that if a person has the money, they should be allowed to buy whatever they want with it: what's the difference between a billionaire spending $40 million on a painting versus a guy making $100K a year spending $4,000 for a painting? In the world of art, $4000 for a painting, even from a beginning artist, is a bargain.

But one thing I have not heard about this is: many people who buy these ultra expensive artworks aren't just buying it for the beauty (though hopefully they are), they are also buying them because of their investment value. I've not heard anyone ask the question, which question I think is very important, "What's the difference (ethically, not economically or financially) if the guy puts $40 million into one painting as an investment, or if he buys $40 million worth of shares of GM?"

My position is this: I assume that a person has a right to the money they've earned. It makes good financial sense to then save and invest that money for the future, and to earn more money from it. If they want to put $50 mil into a Picasso, I see no difference between that and buying corporate stocks or bonds or gold or whatever. Also, that $50 mil is not taken out of circulation - the painting's seller now has most of that, and the auction house has some with which they pay salaries of many employees, pay taxes to the community, and provide a service. The seller will likely then buy something with that money, which money will then help provide some jobs for others, even if it's only a broker and the broker's staff; but he might buy a yacht, the building of which employs hundreds of people; or buy another painting; or perhaps donate the money to a museum or concert hall or church (though he should have hired a different financial advisor who would have told him it made more tax-sense to donate the painting).

What say you, DU?

Please add your reasoning (not just "yes" or "no") to the discussion, and let's see if we can't nuance and edify one another.

[miss_american_pie]

1. Well, I can't really argue too much with what you've said

but "I assume that a person has a right to the money they've earned" could get interesting.

Does a person have rights to money that's inherited any differently than if he/she earmed it? Does working make frivolous (not the exact word I want) purchases more justifiable than living off a trust fund? I'm sure I won't be able to defend it, but that somehow makes a difference to me.

And economics isn't my thing, but your last paragraph sounds a lot like "trickle down" and how well did that really work?

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. No, it's not trickle down at all.

Trickle down is about taxes - the belief that if someone is taxed less they will spend more and thus provide more jobs, so by letting the rich go untaxed, we actually benefit everyone. Which is crap.

What I'm talking about is simple economics: when you buy something you are supporting workers in the long chain of workers that were required to provide that item or service.

[miss_american_pie]

3. Okay, thanks

Well in that case, I suppose the argument could be made that people who can afford it are morally bound to buy art so that artists can survive.

[supernova]

4. The only issue

I really have with the acquiring of expensive masterpieces is that a private owner often doesn't lend out the work to museums where the public can view it. It stays locked in the private residence, which I think is kind of a shame. Now, granted many people do lend their works out to be shown and they are rightly commended for that. The commnity gets the benefit of seeing them, most of all young artists who can see them, study them, and be inspired by them to, in turn, create more art.

I don't mind a wealthy person buying a piece for the investement value. I would if I could, frankly. I'd love to have Klimt painting in my house. I find it interesting that the experts usually tell you to "buy what you like." However, who is going to part with a work of art they really like, unless they fall on hard times?

[amitten]

5. Picasso painted pictures of ladies' boobies.

That crazy Picasso! :eyes:

[flvegan]

6. Depends on the reason for the purchase.

As you said, there really is no ethical difference than buying $40 million worth of real estate, stocks, bonds, etc as an investment. I think the ethical crossroads comes when someone buys it for bragging rights. While I agree that folks should be able to do what they want to do with their money, if earned, I also think that if one spends such a sum on bragging rights, then they should also be doing some charitable work with their money as well. If they do, spend it as desired.

[Orsino]

7. Rather than focusing on the rich asshole...

...who's just been separated from his money, let's look at the other end of that transaction. Would you rather that the corporate pirate or brainless heir held onto the sum in question, or would you rather see it in the hands of a creative soul who, in all likelihood, has pillaged no nations and is better equipped with a social conscience?

Is the artist more likely to do good with his cut of the money than his customer would do with the lot? If so, the trade-off is probably a good one. A few hours with paint and a canvas would seem to be a relatively benign way to separate the worthless from their money.

[greendog]

8. Let's look at it this way.

This painting by Van Gogh acquired all it's value (as a work of art) the day Van Gogh completed it. Any monetary value associated with the work derives not from the work itself, but from a game played by wealthy folks for their own amusement.

The bandage wrapped around Van Goghs head, if it was still extant, could be used to play the same game. Would it be an ethical use of money to bid tens of millions of dollars for a blood stained rag that was once wrapped around the head of Vincent Van Gogh?

I think probably not.

[rug]

9. When discussing millions of dollrs, why do you assume the money is earned,

let alone that one has the right to spend it without restriction?

When you're talking about these sums of money, you're talking about return on capital. This type of finance bears as much resemblance to earning as a delicatessen does to Hormel.

So, no, I don't agree that the money used to make these art purchases is earned.

Nor do I agree that the possesor of these funds can spend it freely simply because it's his. If a billionaire can purchase a Picasso, he can also burn a Picasso. It's his, after all.