Imagine spending $500 million on a painting only to find out...
 

it was painted by the artist's assistant... DAYUM

Ouch!

Ray
Hardlinks.org

But that's the bullshit in art.

The assistant might have painted a lot of the art but could never survive on his/her own;
because he/she doesn't have the million dollar name.

Exactly. :helpme

Sorry, I don't think "art" is worth all too much. Not once in my life have I looked at a painting and thought to myself "Wow, that's amazing".

Photography is another story. I am not a photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I have a HUGE photo of my kid wearing googles and a snorkel in the water in Hawaii and I think it's amazing. Even more so knowing my kid is all grown up.

I'm sorry, but someone who pays millions to hang up a painting or photograph on a wall is stupid.

Money laundering on steroids.

So true :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Given that logic why are people still buying Andy Warhol's stuff. Warhol was famous for letting his assistants do his art... in fact, they silk screened that shit!

Buying expensive art is a well known form of money laundering among the rich. Record high anonymous bidders for hundreds of millions of dollars :2 cents:

Art Dealers Push Back Against the European Union’s New Money-Laundering Regulations

Does the Art World Have a Money Laundering Problem?

Super expensive indeed.

I bought an original Gerald Scarfe picture in the early 90's for around $500, sold it 15 years later for $7k.

Not millions, but if gives you an idea of how you can make very good returns holding original works for a few years.

Interesting

Indeed. The rich have a whole racket for legally laundering money via antiques, artwork, real estate, etc.

Yeah, some things are overestimated and people pay only for the created value or brand, but not the product itself :)

Now only name is what really matters talking about art. Talent goes after (: