web analytics

OH NO YOU DON’T

By Pete Moore On April 10th, 2021

Spain has blocked the auction of a painting in Madrid, following suggestions it could be a long-lost masterpiece by the Italian Renaissance artist Caravaggio.

The starting price for Crowning of Thorns was initially 1,500 euros (£1,300; $1,800).

But if it is indeed by Michelangelo Caravaggio, it could be worth up to €150m.

The painting is being examined by experts and declared “not for export”.

I’m torn on these things. On the one hand, by what legitimate authority does the state block the sale of an object? On the other, we don’t want magnificent works of art disappearing into private collections or snapped up by gauche moneymen who might not appreciate them or know how to properly preserve them.

24 Responses to “OH NO YOU DON’T”

  1. Perhaps one compromise could be that the owners could still sell their property to whoever they wish but the State could still prevent any new owner (if he/she is a foreign buyer not resident ) from taken it out of the country.

  2. If the object of art is in the hands of a Private Collector the State should have absolutely ZERO say in the matter period….

  3. Oh yes they should you Capitalist philistine fanatic 🙂

  4. It’s PRIVATE PROPERTY…..

    too bad.

    At what point in value financially or culturally does someones Private Property default to OWNERSHIP by the STATE ?

  5. When I say so 😉

  6. Government does that the the first penny you earn.

  7. On the other, we don’t want magnificent works of art disappearing into private collections or snapped up by gauche moneymen who might not appreciate them or know how to properly preserve them.

    Exactly. It’s a no-brainer, provided that market price is paid. Great art should be available for all to see in public galleries, not stashed in some Saudi palace or Chinese cellar.

  8. spoken like a good true Bolshevik Peter….

  9. If I own it and choose to sit alone in my private gallery filled with Art by the Masters and drink a bottle of dom as I soak in their splendor without sharing with anyone so be it…..

    as long as they were acquired legally it is my right as the OWNER…..

    It may be a shame, it may be selfish, but it is NOT the states choice, unless you declare all works of Art Property of the State…. like good little commies

  10. Picturing PVR in his log cabin, the Dom Pom on ice, a cuban cigar glowing, as he longingly eyes his collection.

  11. spoken like a good true Bolshevik Peter….

    Bullshit comment. Show me where the Bolsheviks ever paid market value?

    If I own it and choose to sit alone in my private gallery

    As usual you don’t geddit. This is not about owning, this is about selling. When a masterpiece comes on the market the state should help to keep it available for public viewing by buying it in the auction. In the UK there are public appeals with the state usually contributing 50%. The seller is no worse off and the only losers are Arab and Chinese billionaires spending their stolen loot. But you are obviously on their side.

  12. you can’t sell unless you own…… sunny…

    If the State wants to appropriate Taxpayers Money and buy it for the Public that’s just fine, but the State has no other say than an equal shot at the bidding.

    Private Property belongs to it’s owner, if the owner wanted to burn it they have every right… you and the state have no say in it.

    Do I believe anyone should destroy any works of art…. no of course not but as a matter of rights if the owner of a Rembrandt, a Picasso etc etc wanted to destroy it that would be their right.

    Sorry

  13. but the State has no other say than an equal shot at the bidding.

    Yes, just like I said. The state pays market value and the seller is no worse off. The loser is the Saudi “prince” or Chinese “investor” wanting to acquire the painting for their private collections.

    Private Property belongs to it’s owner

    Where did I say otherwise? There is no expropriation.

  14. … but as a matter of rights if the owner of a Rembrandt, a Picasso etc etc wanted to destroy it that would be their right.

    I disagree, on libertarian, moral and contractual grounds.

    We’re not talking about cars, teacups or garden sheds here. If you want to destroy any of those you own then go right ahead. Artists (actual, proper artists) create for eternity. Unless they gave specific permission for their works to be destroyed then it is implicit within the work that an owner will preserve it for eternity.

    Look at the small print on a concert ticket. It will say that you cannot sell it on. You bought it and own it but you cannot sell it on. So you own it, but you own the obligations and restrictions that the creators put into it.

    So it is with works of art. When you own them you own the obligation to pass on the artist’s work to the future.

  15. The only person who has the right to make that judgement Pete is the Person that owns it.

    and Peter the State has to be the HIGHEST bidder if the Saudi offers more than the state is willing to or can pay than the Saudi gets the piece…

  16. and Peter the State has to be the HIGHEST bidder

    Yes, like I said.

  17. alright…

  18. We’re not talking about cars, teacups or garden sheds here. If you want to destroy any of those you own then go right ahead. Artists (actual, proper artists) create for eternity. Unless they gave specific permission for their works to be destroyed then it is implicit within the work that an owner will preserve it for eternity.

    Yes Pete, 100%. But in Patrick’s worldview, a few billionaires could get together and buy up all the masterpieces and have a billionaire bonfire party, and that would be good, because it would be asserting that private property rules uber alles. And it would own the lib-commies big-time, so what’s not to like?

  19. It wouldn’t be good Peter but it would be their right to do so if they choose…

    Pssst but if they do don’t worry will track everyone of the lunatic bastards down and stone them to death for general principal when no ones lookin….

  20. Pssst but if they do don’t worry will track everyone of the lunatic bastards down

    ?

  21. if you don’t get it I can’t explain it too ya….

    (Anyone who owns a rembrandt has the right to burn but if they do “someone” should burn them…. but said with kidding and sarcasm… a concept beyond your kind…)

  22. Pssst but if they do don’t worry will track everyone

    Who will track? Can you write in English please?

  23. apparently not…. sorry only murican

  24. Obviously I cannot reply if I don’t understand it, so I’ll just stfu.