Could Modern art be a money laundering scheme?

Rothko was financially successful from his art in his own lifetime.

Maybe he painted like that because some people are such pricks.

 

and at this rate, it will only take 465 years to make back the initial investment.

 

True, but you still have the picture. I imagine that it will be sold again in a few years time and values of works such as this normally well exceed inflation.
The start of this thread was about money laundering and I am sure that their are plenty of opportunities to add a few million along the way.
You have to ask yourself how you will invest YOUR next 40 million. As we have all seen, share prices of companies and banks are falling like dominoes.
Don't worry though. Just send us your money and Jane and I will keep it under the bed for you.

 

He should have got the last laugh by painting those pictures with paints containing pigments that would biodegrade after about 30 years. LOL.

 

mostly fast food.

 

It will be quite fun walking into KFC and telling them you want to buy the entire company.

 

It’s always a loss to humanity when someone takes their life, but I’m sure the art community will somehow manage to survive without his contributions

 

That's what I told myself after Bobcat Goldthwait stopped appearing in films and yet... I find myself asking, "Is the mere survival of art really enough anymore, McFuddy?"

I don't have the answers, hotwater, I'm just asking the questions. But goddamnit I miss Bobcat and that zany, comical voice of his.

 

my previous gf was an otis grad, (so she was exposed to and expected to participate in the gallery scene) and she said that money laundering /is/ pretty rampant in gallery art. a good portion of it's legit, if inflated, but there's also a huge amount that's just purely criminal in nature.

 

Well as long as he’s there for the Police Academy reunion, hey I’m good

 

I'm not sure how your professional athlete statement compares with modern artists. Professional athletes are performers and entertainers that people pay lots of money to see. They are highly skilled at what they do. And it's a very competitive field to get into.

Now, I could see this being a valid argument for high salary earnings for extremely talented artists like Alex Gray or Ron Mueck, but that's beside the point.

But my arguement is that if I wanted to purchase $46 million worth of contraband, I would use the easy-to-make modern art painting to cover up the transaction to make it look legal to the authorities.

 

It becomes a problem when your city or state government spends an absurd amount of your tax dollars on something talentless, or even ugly.

The city of LA spent more than $10 million on this rock

 

Money laundering happens anywhere its being made. Art by definition has no put pose but art. So if the average Fox news viewer does not think it's good or that it has a place in the market it's done its job.

 

Who determines what is talentless and ugly?

 

I feel qualified to answer that question based on the information provided by that photo. It looks ugly. to me it looks ugly. I don't really get city 'art' like that. Twisted pieces of steel that make no sense all of a sudden become monuments of importance but to me they look exactly like what they are. Twisted pieces of steel shooting off in all directions not making any sense, and yet, it's a memorial. Like the holocaust travesty in Berlin. A few hundred concrete blocks. They don't symbolise or identify as anything. Yet it's art somehow and a memorial. A memorial to me is a statue or something significant to the event being memorialised. Not just random stuff.

Take that rock there sitting there doing nothing, that's exact what the memorial looks like. Just odd. Now take another 300 rocks and place them in no particular order around a block of land and this is meant to mean what to people?

 

Nameless...random, uninspiring blocks in the middle of Germany's capital? Or symbolism for the random, nameless, unknown people who died? The fact that it looks like a mausoleum also symbolizes death. I think it's a brilliant and poignant memorial. It says so much by saying so little.

But that's what art does: It speaks to people.

 

Actually it's there to protect an invaluable golden idol, but you'd know that if only you spoke Hovitos

 

That particular Berlin art doesn't speak to many Berlin folks, if anything many folks believe it is oppressive and hypocritical. I've gone into it before. I'm sure there's info online somewhere but long story short, when the blocks came nobody wanted them, used to get vandalised with graffiti. They came up with a type of finish for the blocks that would easily wipe the graffiti away. Not a bad idea. But, the company that created the finish was the same company that had developed the Zyklon B gas. Once that was realised there was discussions of well what do we do? Should we remove it? The Jewish community said no we want the blocks. So, a company that profited from the chemicals used to murder the people were now again profiting from the chemicals used to memorialise the people. So a lot of people out there still think that isn't right. It shouldn't be like that. So it has this whole detrimental thing about it. It's actually quite controversial in Berlin. the residents cannot understand nor fathom why that significance has no impact or plays no importance to the Jewish community. Hence why it feels oppressive. It's like a big ugly Lego field that's only purpose is to remind a generation of people what their ancestors did wrong. Pretty much: As long as it's there then that's all that matters, we don't care about the details.

Personally I'd have built a nice park on the block of land. Berlin needs more green.

 

Many structures were built from stone in the ancient world and they all look far better than that one haha, but like neo says, it doesn't speak to me. It speaks to others so, can't really argue. It's like music. I don't expect everyone to like what I like. It's just all individual.

For me, I like fantasy art like Louis Royo. This stuff speaks to me on many levels, but would most likely be sinful and scary in the eyes of others. I actually have this piece in a frame. She looks like Britney Spears lol. To me is submissive, but also I look at her as quite a strong woman. Kind of like, she don't care what she's put through she remains strong and beautiful and she's broken those chains.