Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,205,285 members, 7,991,792 topics. Date: Saturday, 02 November 2024 at 08:35 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Science/Technology / Art, Graphics & Video / 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) (72754 Views)
Chinese Vase Valued Below $2,000 Sells For Nearly $9 Million After Bidding War / Adejoke Lasisi Makes A Portrait Of Ooni Of Ife With Pure Water Sachets / Ben Enwonwu's Portrait Of Tutu Sold At Auction For £1,205,000 (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by grandstar(m): 11:49pm On Nov 16, 2017 |
DeepSight: The number of super wealthy is increasing in an increasingly unfair world where the wealthiest are seeing their income rise at high rates while the middle class and other see the income either stagnate or rise slowly. China over the past ten years has produced many billionaires. This was a country of universal paupers as of 40years ago when it still practised communism. Now it has 100's of billionaires. In 1990, it was reported that there were up to 500 people in the world who could pay $25m for a painting and not feel it. The number is perhaps ten times that now. Check out the richest 20 richest men and none is worth less than $15billion. Mark Zuckerburg is worth 50billion. If his shares should rise by 10% within a year, that'll add $5b to his wealth. Best thing is google richest men in 2015 and that of 2016 and get an idea of how fast wealth can rise. |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by Paulpaulpaul(m): 11:59pm On Nov 16, 2017 |
DeepSight: Then if the egocentrics could stack such up for nothing, some other people can grab them for esoteric reasons. The buyer knows why |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by correctguy101(m): 12:05am On Nov 17, 2017 |
Billyonaire: And I thought I was alone and smart for thinking so.... It's now common knowledge... or is it just you and I? There's an Instagram post I made on such matters long ago.... SMH 1 Like |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by kayjay007(m): 12:53am On Nov 17, 2017 |
Paulpaulpaul:codes to unlock immortality? Please just shoot me |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by Nobody: 2:05am On Nov 17, 2017 |
correctguy101: Well, It is not common knowledge, it is an organic knowledge, but it is also a legitimate storage of value and transfer of value. The price of art increases with history, and does not loose its organic value as Humans seem to worship their past, instead of their present, or even the future. |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by Dracula07(m): 2:33am On Nov 17, 2017 |
Explorers: |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by Babacele: 3:39am On Nov 17, 2017 |
Beautiful. |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by adwem2003(m): 5:02am On Nov 17, 2017 |
fidet1: Sorry for making you angry. It was an autocorrect effect. |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by Paulpaulpaul(m): 5:43am On Nov 17, 2017 |
1 Like
|
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by Gerrard59(m): 6:30am On Nov 17, 2017 |
LordAdam16: Respect Sir. Individuals thinking they have a right to tell another individual how to spend his/her money. 3 Likes |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by Jethrolite(m): 6:38am On Nov 17, 2017 |
Paulpaulpaul:Hmm |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by bamoski(m): 7:00am On Nov 17, 2017 |
sisisioge: Have you seen Him before? |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by DavIkenna(m): 7:01am On Nov 17, 2017 |
Eaa247: Yeah people who r not eager to work for their income nd b lik d top guns. No wait sit nd wait, let d world come n put money n ur hand. The money they also made sitting nd waiting |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by DavIkenna(m): 7:07am On Nov 17, 2017 |
adwem2003: Wat dey know which we do not know. Knowledge, research, secrets - invest ur time nd money 1 Like |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by Nobody: 7:35am On Nov 17, 2017 |
after over 5century, this maestro is still making waves from the grave... oh lord, I tap into that grace... amen. |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by WizAkzy: 8:03am On Nov 17, 2017 |
centboy123456:i have forgotten the links i read it from. Don't worry i will find it |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by Vado(m): 8:45am On Nov 17, 2017 |
sisisioge: Indeed, He couldn't have been otherwise. I'm in shape like a fitness coach lol. What's goodie? |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by DeepSight(m): 9:09am On Nov 17, 2017 |
LordAdam16: OH, Lord, Mr. Lord. I hope you know that you are the one who commenced with said mudslinging. More than that, your surmise and ripostes are riddled with untenable and unsustainable assumptions. I hereby grant that you are an international yabbis expert and concede defeat in my pathetic attempt to match you in your area of expertise - Yabbis. However I would now like us to settle down and examine properly what you are saying, especially the assumptions contained therein which have no basis. So here goes. Anyone who has $450m lying around isn't dumb. This is the first assumption. You have no way of knowing this. Your reasoning seems to derive from two unspoken assumptions here: first that a person who has that much wealth could not be dumb and second that such a person necessarily has noble, high-minded or strategic economc reasons for doing so. My Lord, this is entirely an assumption. Surely you must know in the first place that your first unspoken assumption has no basis: there are a great many people who have access to unlimited wealth without any special talents or any remarkable intelligence about them whatsoever. Such people include Royalty, Inherited Fortune, Corrupt Politicians and Egregious Businessmen - as well as many underworld characters whose wealth springs from such things as illicit trade in drugs, people, arms and all manner of unsavory things. The list is endless and although I could cite much more to buttress this point, I am sure you would be reasonable enough to agree that there are many wealthy people out there who are in fact dumb. In this, it remains a truth that time and chance happeneth to all men: the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong - "Money miss road" is everywhere in this world. I would not say this if I am not personally acquainted with billionaires who are indeed intrinsically daft. Your second assumption is that such a person must be purchasing such a work for a high minded reason. This is also an assumption. You have no idea whatsoever the reason for that purchase: you have no idea whether it is an ego trip and on this single point alone your entire argument must fail: for it rests on the assumption that the purchase is an investment. If you cannot prove that, however likely it may seem to you, then you also cannot insist as a matter of fact that the substance of your argument which rests on this assumption stands. It could have been bought by a Russian Oligarch, Arab Royalty, or a Rotschild? Whoever it is, this isn't his/her first buy, and s/he DEFINITELY has an idea about the intrinsic value of high-end art. This is another assumption. And you want to tell me that the last privately held work of art by Leonardo da Vinci WILL not appreciate? Has there been any top-value work of art by da Vinci that hasn't appreciated consistently for the past 1500 years? If that isn't enough proof that it would go up in price, what is? You seem to assume that it will appreciate forever. Beyond the half billion it has been purchased for, how much further do you expect it to appreciate? Ten billion? A hundred Billion? A trillion? A Zillion? All of that is not possible, and I use hyperbole for a reason nonetheless, we will return to this point form two other critical lenses later: the first shall be the changing value of appreciation through time and the second shall be the humanity of the matter. Are you MAD?! Or you get off on appearing st*pid in public! Neither condition (even if true) phases me: I am not given to being bothered as to other people's perception of me, thank you very much. Buying that work of art is way better than keeping the monetary equivalent in the bank. It is older than America and has consistently risen in value. In 500 years time, it'd still be valuable, while the dollar may be history. My Lord, you have no idea what the world will be like in five hundred years time. No Idea whatsoever. Nor can you have any idea what will be the drivers of commerce and the value system which would attach to such things at that time. And like all high-valued buys, it does come with its bragging rights. Now, you're coming around more closely to admitting the vanity involved in this sort of purchase. But whatever may be the owner's primary reason for buying it, it isn't a waste and it isn't excessive. No, my Lord, it is verily both a waste and it is excessive. Although I had intended to keep my epistle on death for a later time, perhaps I will start here. This discussion, you may not realize, goes to the root of the question as to what we do with our short time as human beings on earth. You come across as one who has not closely reflected on our mortality and this is part of the reason that I say that you lack the sensitivity to appreciate what I am trying to say. Sensitive human beings recognize mortality, the brevity of life and the vanity and vain-glory of material things. This is not to say that they are not given to enjoying of the material world and its pleasures, it simply means that they cannot and do not place such things at a premium: they do not prioritize those things: they recognize, for example that there is far greater artistic beauty in one single act of kindness to a needy stranger or an abandoned child, than there is in purchasing and analyzing the priciest works of art by the greatest artistic masters ever. This is a subtle and sensitive point which I do not expect you to grasp, given the gutter profanity of your world view, however please surprise me by showing that you grasp this point. And if it is put up for sale in a few decades time as it likely would, for any reason whatsoever, the owner or his/her protege would make a hefty premium on it. Again, regardless of his/her esoteric reason for getting it in the first place. One more time: this is an assumption: the work cannot appreciate indefinitely especially as it has crossed the Rubicon financially. Again you make an assumption on value systems remaining the same over time. In the fast moving and ever changing times in which we live, you cannot make this assumption. It is not only technology that is changing fast, world views are also evolving and a time may very well come when new age movements given to higher charitable thought would have overcome much more of the word than you expect. A time may come when such a purchase is looked upon derisively. You may not believe this: but in that you would belong with the sort of people who could never have conceived human flight, much less space travel. Next, unlike buying socks that actually address a need, beers do not address a need. And people buy beers 98% of the time for pleasure. See how inherently st*pid you are. Making a comparison between a sock and beer? I take serious objection to this and offense at it on behalf of all alcohol loving people. I resent this statement and will not dignify it for we know and insist - indeed we assert with sacred privilege - that Alcohol is a cardinal need of humanity. I will not dignify this example further. And then you use Bill Gates as a model of sensitivity? Why? Because he's pledged to give most of his wealth to charity when he passes on? He effing bought the properties of five of his neighbors for $28m mainly so his daughter could train for her pro horse riding. Are you going to tell me too that all the Olympic equestrian gold medalists needed $28m worth of real estate to become good at what they did? Sincerely I am not aware of all Bill Gates transactions but the point still stands if you choose to understand it. There remain sensitive people all over the world of fabulous wealth who live very humbly and would simply not do this. All you f*ckfaces thinking anyone owes you sh*t because you are unfortunate need to get a reality check. I do not believe anyone owes me anything. I speak in sensitive terms for the world. The guy who got the painting probably has business interests spanning several countries employing tens of thousands of people. With indirect impact on hundreds of thousands more. Those are people above the poverty line because s/he is adept at running a business that didn't become one of the 90% of businesses that fail within 5 years. I am very glad you used the word "probably" here. And this is to underscore the point that you have no idea if this is the case at all. No idea whatsoever. Therefore you cannot build an entire argument justifying the purchase on what you have no idea of, okay? Yet all of that is lost on you because s/he paid $400m for a painting THAT'S WORTH EVERY CENT. Pray tell, $1 trillion+ of illicit outflows has left Africa in the last 60 years. None of the cretinous f*cktards who did the pillaging were hounded. They all get cozy once in a year in Addis Ababba blowing steam off and laughing at your collective stupidity and you self-righteous pr*ck haven't started a campaign to hound any of them. No sub-Saharan spring or fall or summer or winter for that matter. And you think it is someone else's responsibility to take care of the same people that you imbec*les rape, siphon from and pay blind eye to. I cant see the relevance of any of this, given that you do not know me or what I do or whether or not I have devoted energies to any campaigns of the sort you referred to. Continue replying me, see how far you can go displaying your flagrant id*ocy! In closing, I did say above that I wish to address two things which seem to be eluding you. I mentioned changing values and I mentioned the humanity of the matter. With respect to changing values let me tell you something. Do not persist with your assumption that that which is valuable today will always be valuable in the future. History is replete with paradigm shifts and value shifts of the sort that render such a presumption untenable. You were so bold as to declare how valuable the work will remain in five hundred years time. You presume too much my son. You do not even know tomorrow. The second point is the sheer humanity of the matter. Now before I proceed bear in mind that I have shown you that all you have said about the buyer possibly being a job-creating magnate are all assumptions. You have no way of knowing that. You also have no way of knowing that it was bought as an investment at all. That is an assumption. Further, you have no way of knowing just how well it would do as an investment even if that were the case - which you cannot be sure of. Now in terms of humanity, what I mean is this. You seem to have some capitalist cold in your heart which leads you to disdain the worth of prioritizing the suffering of humanity as a whole over such things. This is why I said to you that I can hardly argue with you on this point because one who is cold in that regard and does not possess the sensitivity I speak of can never understand the point sought to be made. You would deride it as as emotional point, but please I would beg to be emotional on such a score. This is because the world is in such great distress and the suffering of people just like you and me is so great in many places - from hunger, disease and various unmentionable things - that the work of charity and goodwill is never complete, and there is no question that there is always more to be done. Sensitive souls would recognize the greater work of art inherent in diverting such funds to the next hungry or abandoned child, than could ever exist in hanging up a mediocre work of art in a room for the next 50 years waiting for it to appreciate, enjoying aristocratic bragging rights, and such other trifles while everyday - a work of art that is irreplaceable can be saved: the work of art which is the tear in the eye of that next starving child. End of. PS - And yes, as much as I love Da Vinci - that is a mediocre work of art. It is his name and the history that push the value. 1 Like |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by blingxx(m): 9:23am On Nov 17, 2017 |
sisisioge: Have you seen Jesus before? |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by DeepSight(m): 9:27am On Nov 17, 2017 |
Gerrard59: Oh, just shat ap. 1 Like |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by DeepSight(m): 9:30am On Nov 17, 2017 |
Billyonaire: LordAdam16 - you should also avert your mind to this. |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by blingxx(m): 9:32am On Nov 17, 2017 |
ogbiwa: I still don't understand why rich people value things over people when 80% of the world are living in poverty... Sometimes I just wonder how this world got so f*cked up 1 Like |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by emmanuelpopson(m): 10:34am On Nov 17, 2017 |
centboy123456: https://www.nairaland.com/3721445/black-africans-ruled-europe-711 go through this page..I think I saw it here...the picture of Jesus with Mary.. been viewed by the Popes... thank me later |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by DeepSight(m): 11:15am On Nov 17, 2017 |
emmanuelpopson: Nah, I cant't really buy that Alhaji Jesus was Negro. However the conventional image of him is quite certainly misbegotten. No way a Jewish fella looked like that. No way at all. Aside from all that, as much as I adore Da Vinci who I consider the most brilliant man who ever lived, the truth is that this art work is mediocre and pedestrian - if one is to look at the artistic skill involved that is. Any amateur artist could produce that. I have a collection of art works within an illustrated book in my collection which covers and discusses 1000 years of European Art - I know what I am saying. Even the Mona Lisa is nothing special at all in terms of artistic skill. What has driven the hype about these two works is the name of Da Vinci, his profoundness, his tendency to encrypt, his artistic, scientific and engineering vision, his charisma and brilliance and the esoteric aspects of religious history he sought to bring to his works. As for the artistry involved in it, its pedestrian. The chap down my street can do just as well or better. |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by LordAdam16: 12:07pm On Nov 17, 2017 |
DeepSight: Doesn't f*cking matter! People also launder money through religious institutions (churches, mosques, et cetera), as well as many high-traffic businesses from laundromats to fortune 500 companies. From art to real estate. What's the f*cking point? Still doesn't make the art worth any less than $400m. -Lord |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by DeepSight(m): 12:11pm On Nov 17, 2017 |
LordAdam16: Okay. Point taken. That does nothing to address my previous. Also does nothing to help your point at all. I await, Lord-Yabbis. I await your revert, high Lord-Yabbis. |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by ken55: 2:14pm On Nov 17, 2017 |
adwem2003: It's not madness. It's business. You will be surprised how much that piece can be resold a day later if the owner wants to. 1 Like |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by adwem2003(m): 4:34pm On Nov 17, 2017 |
ken55: Thank you for the clarification. |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by DeepSight(m): 5:00pm On Nov 17, 2017 |
LordAdam16: So is this all you managed? No response to my previous? |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by LordAdam16: 6:39pm On Nov 17, 2017 |
DeepSight: Just look at that. You can actually converse like a civil being? Who knew?! This is the first assumption. You have no way of knowing this. Your reasoning seems to derive from two unspoken assumptions here: first that a person who has that much wealth could not be dumb and second that such a person necessarily has noble, high-minded or strategic economc reasons for doing so. My Lord, this is entirely an assumption. Surely you must know in the first place that your first unspoken assumption has no basis: there are a great many people who have access to unlimited wealth without any special talents or any remarkable intelligence about them whatsoever. Such people include Royalty, Inherited Fortune, Corrupt Politicians and Egregious Businessmen - as well as many underworld characters whose wealth springs from such things as illicit trade in drugs, people, arms and all manner of unsavory things. The list is endless and although I could cite much more to buttress this point, I am sure you would be reasonable enough to agree that there are many wealthy people out there who are in fact dumb. In this, it remains a truth that time and chance happeneth to all men: the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong - "Money miss road" is everywhere in this world. I would not say this if I am not personally acquainted with billionaires who are indeed intrinsically daft. Chief, do you have an idea of what it means to have $450m in liquid assets and be ready to spend it on art? Not in stocks, real estate, but liquid assets? By my educated guess, whoever has that kind of money lying around is worth at least $10b. Both in the legal and underground world, the odds of having that much money and being dumb is larger than it is to win a global lottery. This is not some Arab millionaire flying his $2m lambo car to London during the shopping season. Or some guy renting the enter floor in Ritz Carlton for a bachelor party. It's a made man or family who is bold enough to pay four times the asking price for one of the highest profile piece of art and is willing to invest in the multi-million dollar maintenance and security it'd require. I can almost say with all certainty, this isn't a money miss road, because such a buyer would be a high-level patron of Christie's and most likely a frequent collector of art. Christie's and other high-end galleries don't accept random buyers for flagship sales. They already have a list of people with pockets deeper than Hades, and these people get front row seats in such auctions. Dumb people don't enter that list. If every high-end sports car maxing out at $3m straight-out-the-dugout price have their exclusive lists that they reserve one-of-a-kind production cars for, how much more a 350+ year old auction that has brokered over $100b worth of sales. In fact, take a few hours to research the high-end market of the art industry and you'd find out that only a small group of people snap up high-priced artworks. An exclusive group that know themselves with connections, and you think a dumb person who definitely has at least bought over $100m worth of art prior to this doesn't have the expected appreciation of HQ paintings at the back of his mind? Your second assumption is that such a person must be purchasing such a work for a high minded reason. This is also an assumption. You have no idea whatsoever the reason for that purchase: you have no idea whether it is an ego trip and on this single point alone your entire argument must fail: for it rests on the assumption that the purchase is an investment. If you cannot prove that, however likely it may seem to you, then you also cannot insist as a matter of fact that the substance of your argument which rests on this assumption stands. My assumption is fact-based. No one just makes billions of dollars and walks into Christie's to buy da Vinci's last privately held work of art. Christie's is not a car dealer. And that painting is not a Range Rover. Invitations were sent only to selected people who had been pre-verified to indeed have the capability to foot such purchase, as well as have the discretion to care for it properly, going by their recent buying history. It is not in Christie's, Sotheby's or any top-range auction house best interest to sell rare, extremely high-valued art to nouveau rich or people who do not have a credible art buying history or non-patrons. They'd want any brokered sale to be well taken care of and owned by a reputable owner (in the art world) so it can easily be brokered through them again sometime in the future. By some estimates Christie's made $50m for brokering this sale. $50m would get you a Gulfstream. This is another assumption. In less than 10 years, a string of computer data called a cryptocurrency with no inherent value has snowballed from less than $1 to $8,000. That work of art has gone from $60 to $450m, and you really want me to guesstimate how long it'd appreciate for? It'd appreciate until some cataclysmic event happens that renders humanity to waste. This work of art has seen the Napoleonic wars, the divide of the new world by European powers, the fall of the British Empire, two World Wars, dozens of economic depressions and it is worth $450m even after a global depression as recent as 2008. The question I should be asking you is how long do you think the dollar would remain the default international currency? How long before the dichotomy of superpowers upends and with it goes trillions of dollars of wealth (including the one in your bank account since it is tied to the dollar)? I'd tell you what, worry less about how much more that piece of art would appreciate. Because by the time it stops appreciating or is worthless, most things owned by the world's population would even have less worth. You prolly wouldn't be alive to see that day. Neither condition (even if true) phases me: I am not given to being bothered as to other people's perception of me, thank you very much. Yet, you felt I somehow gave a rat ar*e about what you thought of me. Interesting. My Lord, you have no idea what the world will be like in five hundred years time. No Idea whatsoever. Nor can you have any idea what will be the drivers of commerce and the value system which would attach to such things at that time. Exactly. This guy is betting that European art that has been valuable for around two millenia would still be valuable by the time he hands it over to his scion or sells it. Which is no different than buying an extra real estate property that you likely wouldn't be staying in, but simply to diversify holdings. As well as inform random guests at a UHNW party of your recent 6th penthouse purchase in a Malaysian high-rise. You see that, strokes your ego and preserves your wealth at the same time. Now, you're coming around more closely to admitting the vanity involved in this sort of purchase. No, my Lord, it is verily both a waste and it is excessive. Although I had intended to keep my epistle on death for a later time, perhaps I will start here. This discussion, you may not realize, goes to the root of the question as to what we do with our short time as human beings on earth. You come across as one who has not closely reflected on our mortality and this is part of the reason that I say that you lack the sensitivity to appreciate what I am trying to say. Sensitive human beings recognize mortality, the brevity of life and the vanity and vain-glory of material things. This is not to say that they are not given to enjoying of the material world and its pleasures, it simply means that they cannot and do not place such things at a premium: they do not prioritize those things: they recognize, for example that there is far greater artistic beauty in one single act of kindness to a needy stranger or an abandoned child, than there is in purchasing and analyzing the priciest works of art by the greatest artistic masters ever. This is a subtle and sensitive point which I do not expect you to grasp, given the gutter profanity of your world view, however please surprise me by showing that you grasp this point. And what makes you think both are mutually exclusive? That one can't indulge in, analyze, and purchase the "priciest works of art by the greatest artistic masters ever" and set money aside for "a needy stranger or an abandoned child"? Why must one cannibalize the other? Life is brief. And I wake up every day knowing I'm one day closer to not existing. And that whatever legacy I make (however grand) will be all but confined to the history books someday (and maybe statues or having your name appended to iconic landmarks, concepts and what not). But whatever satisfaction I gain from handing out money to a beggar or using same cash to see a live orchestra, is a feeling that is as fleeting as it is worthless to anyone but me. And giving to a beggar is not anymore noble than paying someone his due to stay above the poverty line and who would also likely give part of it to charity as well. And not all people who give are "sensitive." Many, especially the billionaires, do it to balance the perception of who they are by the hoi polloi. The Rotschilds is the wealthiest family in modern history. At a time, they had 52 palaces strewn across Europe, no royal family could equal their exploits without going knee deep in debt. But in WW2, that flagrant show of wealth haunted them as it contributed to the huge bullseye drawn on the ass*s of European Jews. All members of the family fled all their properties in Europe, and while no one met the Hangman's rope, over 6 million other Jews weren't as lucky. Post WW2, the family has crept into the shadows, donated some of their most iconic properties, and today you'd only find two Rothschilds on Forbes' list with a joint worth of less than $3b. When actually, the family is worth as much as $2t and manages the wealth of the richest private organization in the world-- the Roman Catholic Church. Similar thing happened to Rockefeller, when his Standard Oil company was strewn to pieces by the government. One part, Exxon Mobil is the world's third largest company. Bill Gates had to lend money to Apple his competitor when they were going through a rough patch to avoid the same fate. And the Billionaire's pledge and similar philanthropic activities are strategic ways to preserve their wealth without the hoi polloi calling for their heads (oh shoot, they still do, well let's just say reduce the intensity with which they call for their heads). That's one of the core reasons why Dangote, Otedola, Elumelu and many of Nigeria's wealthiest stay under the radar. If the Western billionaires displayed as much wealth as the Middle Eastern richest did, there'd be anarchy. So, when you talk about sensitivity, all I hear is ranting a purist who should be a monk, not a self-acclaimed hedonist who thinks he has an humane circuit breaker. One more time: this is an assumption: the work cannot appreciate indefinitely especially as it has crossed the Rubicon financially. Again you make an assumption on value systems remaining the same over time. In the fast moving and ever changing times in which we live, you cannot make this assumption. It is not only technology that is changing fast, world views are also evolving and a time may very well come when new age movements given to higher charitable thought would have overcome much more of the word than you expect. A time may come when such a purchase is looked upon derisively. You may not believe this: but in that you would belong with the sort of people who could never have conceived human flight, much less space travel. Pray tell, how has it crossed the financial rubicon? Apple is billed to become the first $1t company. Around one hundred years ago, US Steel became the first $1b company. In just 100 years, the highest value snowballed by 1000%. Who's to say what would happen in the next 100 years? Another 1000%? Maybe more. As AI, manned interstellar travel, neural linking, lightning fast terabit speed, extraterrestrial mining and colonies, the ability to store large amounts of energy, amongst other tech mature. We've had movements similar to the new ageys before. Read about the Renaissance period. The world is cyclical. I take serious objection to this and offense at it on behalf of all alcohol loving people. I resent this statement and will not dignify it for we know and insist - indeed we assert with sacred privilege - that Alcohol is a cardinal need of humanity. I will not dignify this example further. Just look at you. It is a cardinal need, and you can't make a two day sacrifice to feed helpless people for one year? So much for being sensitive. Sincerely I am not aware of all Bill Gates transactions but the point still stands if you choose to understand it. There remain sensitive people all over the world of fabulous wealth who live very humbly and would simply not do this. Read above about the strategic reason why the ultra rich live "very humbly." I do not believe anyone owes me anything. I speak in sensitive terms for the world. I am very glad you used the word "probably" here. And this is to underscore the point that you have no idea if this is the case at all. No idea whatsoever. Therefore you cannot build an entire argument justifying the purchase on what you have no idea of, okay? And you cannot build an entire argument trashing the purchase on what you have no idea of. Got it?! I cant see the relevance of any of this, given that you do not know me or what I do or whether or not I have devoted energies to any campaigns of the sort you referred to. In closing, I did say above that I wish to address two things which seem to be eluding you. I mentioned changing values and I mentioned the humanity of the matter. Firstly, the guy is making an informed bet. All investments are bets. Buying art like buying stock is a bet that the item will appreciate. Why put high-end art in a different column? Secondly, I'm assuming like you are assuming that appreciation isn't on this buyer's mind, and that it's all part of an epic d*ck-measuring contest. I'm letting you know, you could very well be wrong because you don't know this person. And that more importantly, your opinion is flawed because there's no reason to believe that someone can't get something valuable that would appreciate for bragging rights. Kill two birds with one stone. And your last paragraph is classic emotional blackmail. For all we know the buyer has donated millions to charity and starving children. Let him enjoy his wealth as he deems fit, he's earned the right to do so without moral policemen questioning his choices. -Lord |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by DeepSight(m): 8:23am On Nov 18, 2017 |
LordAdam16: Quick question: just how are you certain this person is one who earned their money with their savvy or intelligence? In the bold, you seem to hint that you are certain it could not be some chance billionaire. How are you certain it's not some Saudi Prince drunk on oil? Or some other inherited fortune elsewhere? With particular reference to the red bold do you think that high end inherited money would be turned down that list of yours if they have a low IQ? Or do you suggest that it is impossible for a Saudi Prince or other inherited money to have low IQs - and to patronize high end art even with low IQs? PS: Will respond to the rest later, you made several fair points which I do not dispute: none of them take away the kernel of my argument though. |
Re: 517-Year-Old Leonardo Da Vinci's Portrait Of Christ Sells For ₦162.3b (Photo) by LordAdam16: 1:24pm On Nov 18, 2017 |
DeepSight: A modern billionaire with a $10b estate would not pass all of his/her wealth to a dumb progeny. Best, he'll create a trust where proceeds from the trust would be paid to the heir on a monthly basis. And the richest billionaire Saudi Princes are not dumb. The house of Al Saud is like any Imperial Court. Only the smartest, ruthless, princes rise to the top. Case in point, the current Saudi Crown Prince. My point is that the odds of a dumb heir buying that painting is not 50%, it is less than 5%. Do a quick Google search of people rumored to have bought it. All of them are some of the smartest, most successful people on the planet, who by the way have spent hundreds of millions on similar high-end paintings. It doesn't make a dumb heir getting it impossible, it makes it very, very unlikely to a degree that makes it almost certain that a dumb heir could have gotten it. And about chance billionaires, anyone who became a dollar billionaire by chance (say an Oligarch who made his fortune during the fall of the USSR) sure knows how to seize opportunities, which is not something you can say for a dumb person. -Lord |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply)
Alex Peter, Nigerian Artist Who Draws With Razor Blade On Wood. Photos / Female Artists Staring At A Nude Man Standing In Front Of Them (Photos) / Adejoke Lasisi Makes A Portrait Of Ooni Of Ife With Pure Water Sachets
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 198 |