Comments on: The art market: just as absurd as the banking crisis A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: netvet Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:22:16 +0000 Richter has been my favorite artist for years. Personally, I believe he is this era’s Picasso. He has invented numerous forms of art and transformed abstract expression. I think it is wonderful that an artist gets to realize the value of the great work they create, while they are alive. It is all too rare.

Is any painting worth millions of dollars? Like anything, it’s worth what the market will bear, and his work is not high priced because it is “reassuringly expensive”. It’s high priced, because he evokes expression like few others, and in some cases, like no one ever has. Why should there not be an artist that is a billionaire? He makes millions of people feel better and as a result the world is better for it.

Richter will get richer.

By: KenG_CA Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:54:24 +0000 The income earned by artists like Richter is an effect of the warped distribution of income and wealth, not a cause. As wealth accumulates in a smaller segment of society, they have more money to spend on luxuries, which drives the price of those luxuries up. The art world (at least the small segment at the top) is not a contributor to this distortion, it just benefits from it.

I would expect most of the people in the financial industries (I will avoid calling them bankers) who receive 7-,8-, and 9-digit incomes believe that they have earned it. They played according to the rules (well most of them did), and that’s all they need to justify their reward. The don’t care about anything else. The problem is the rules are either ineffective or not enforced, and lead to an economy where there is no correlation between value provided and compensation. Those who benefit from the lack or rules or regulation use their inordinate wealth to insure the rules are not changed or enforced more thoroughly, by lobbying not just politicians, but the illiterate and uninformed poor and middle class that they, too, should also oppose rules and enforcement.

By: jomiku Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:11:05 +0000 Felix, consider retiring the word “banker”. These people are anti-bankers. Bankers lend money to borrowers based on credit and other underwriting. Bankers manage deposits and have fiduciary obligations to depositors and community obligations as well. Anti-bankers trade stuff. They bet. They are traders, not bankers.

I think the public image of the financial industry would be more realistic if we started referring to these people as they are: traders, speculators, not bankers.

By: Foppe Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:18:47 +0000 Isn’t it a wonderful thing when too much money is chasing to few goods, while at the same time the other 99% are struggling to get by, a month’s salary away from bankruptcy? ne-third-of-americans-one-paycheck-away- from-homelessness.html
But anyway, let’s not begrudge the buyers of such wonderful art works the feeling that they’re buying something “really expensive” when the primary reason it’s so expensive is simply because they’re making too much money to still have places to “invest” it in. Because that would be ‘socialism.’

(If only these twits understood the way money worked… Though I suspect they also just really enjoy feeling like they’re richer than other people.)