So they expect somebody will pay between 8 and 12 million for a dead bovine suspended in formaldehyde.:w00t:
I personally don’t see any “art” in this no matter how I look at it. I also can’t get my head around anyone paying this sort of cash for it…Surely if they have this sort of money to throw around they could put it to better use??
With all the misery that’s going on around the world ,which could be helped in a small way by this money, I find it obscene to spend these sums on (in my opinion) this cr+p:angry:
In the same way that a lot of people won’t understand the “need” to spend the price of a small car on a sports bike, you guys don’t get the way people will buy art. So let’s ban spending on sportsbikes and use it to eradicate world poverty?
If the headlines read: “Very rich person buys commodity for investment potential” (which is what’s actually going on here), would you think of it any differently?
It isn’t art!! It’s a dead animal FFS !Banning bikes would create poverty rather than eradicate it…We are talking of one person spending a huge sum on what?? It’s bullsh+t:D
Go to Sainsbury’s, buy two steaks and a bottle of malt vinegar.
Go home, empty out a big glass jar that posh people store pasta in… attach a fish hoook and string to the bottom of the cork stopper. Attach the steaks to the hook. Put the steaks in the jar (if you dun it right, they’ll be hanging and wobbling around), then before you add the stopper, pour in as much vinegar as you can… hey presto. £8 million.
No. But I AM saying that it’s up to the buyer whether he wants to buy it at that price or not, and take the risk that its worth will go up.I’m also saying that the people who buy these things buy them in the same way that they might buy £2m worth of gold bars, or forward contracts for copper, or shares. They are bought as investments, and may well never see the light of day until they’re brought out of secure storage and sold on at a profit. Once something gets that expensive, it is generally NOT being bought because the buyer loves it, or thinks that it’s a valid piece of art. It’s being bought as part of a diversified investment portfolio. The value of some paintings historically has gone up more than cash or shares. This isn’t because they have magincally become better quality art over the years since they’ve been painted. They sell for that much, because that’s the price that people will pay for them.IMHO if you’re looking for something that’s REALLY mad, then think about the last couple of generations of adults in the UK, who have bought into the dream that houses can never go down in value, and have “made” more on paper from borrowing to buy a house than their entire families will ever earn from their real jobs in a lifetime.
Of course it’s up to the buyer what he or she spends her money on…I would just like to think that if I (and most other people) had that sort of money to p’ss away I’d do some good with it rather than throw it away on this tat.Buying gold is just having money in the bank…a 12 million gbp lump of beef in your front room is something else again;)The only person I’ve heard say that DH is actually good …is the man himself…often:)
I’ll say it again: for the people buying these things, they are just the same as buying gold, shares, etc. And it’s VERY unlikely that they will end up in anyone’s front room. They’re not “p1ssing it away” (unless prices fall - but that’s the nature of an investment), and they’re NOT saying that Hirst is any good. They’re acknowledging the fact that enough other people think his work is worth those prices for them to make it worth buying (with a view to selling on in the future).Personally I don’t rate his art all that much, but that’s irrelevant.
But (and this is only about the 4th time I’ve said it), the people who are buying this stuff ARE NOT MAKING A JUDGEMENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ANY GOOD. They are buying it because they think there’s enough chance that it will make money to justify their risk in buying it.
It’s like the credit crunch. When the banks made lots of loans to people who couldn’t pay them back, secured on assets that were supposedly worth loads but actually worth burger all, it didn’t matter that those loans were rubbish. What mattered was that the whole banking world, at the time, was structured so that everyone was making lots of money on repackaging and selling their debt on (and on, and on). Anyone who looked at what kind of mortgagaes were being bought and sold would easily see that they were of little true worth. But that doesn’t matter in a scenario where you know you can sell it on at a profit.
Taste doesn’t come into it either. This is business. Do you think your newsagent has personally chosen every publication he sells on the basis that he thinks it makes a contribution to quality journalism? Or do you think he sells the Sport because people will buy it?
Errr, I actually really like his work (your thinking there’s always one ;)) Actually prefured the shark though. I do think Annish Kaphoor was robbed in the Turner Prize by Damien though.
