Who cares about QE being a contributing factor? The fact is that these art sales records actually happened and will likely continue to happen. You seem to be stuck in this infinite loop where you call anything that appreciates a "bubble". Last week you were calling the housing market a bubble. This week it's the art market. A couple weeks ago it was startup company valuations. Last Friday you called a bubble just because a freakin' chicken and biscuit company filed for an IPO. Give me a break!
you lost me, but I like your demeanor, sounds like you don't want to just argue, If I had a billion dollars I would not own a Picasso, because I am not responsible enough to own anything of value I don't know who the "owner" is and I don't give a shit how much they paid but I do know who the artists are These times are changing due to new technologies If you had the only recorded copy of John Coltrane or Segovia or Jimi Hendrix, how much would that be worth? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure you are intellectually superior to me so I'm not going to argue, but it is an awesome responsibility to own and preserve a work of art. And I like it every time one is sold for a profit because it gives the rest of us peons another crack at enjoying it.
This painting here? I bought it ten years ago for sixty thousand dollars, I could sell it today for six hundred. The illusion has become real, and the more real it becomes, the more desperately they want it. Capitalism at it’s finest." --Gordon Gekko, Wall Street 1987
I would argue that if any musician only made one recording it would be worthless. Since the person would by definition be unknown and unknown musicians do not sell. surf
Rembrandt only made one painting of his wife, and it totally changed my life, I don't know what it sold for the last time, but even by Bill Gate's standard, it was not "worthless."
it looks like we have just deteriorated to a pissing contest between money and art. You enjoy your money, I also enjoy mine, but I also enjoy my art, even though the crazy prices "they" are paying for it these days makes no sense to the common man, and probably wouldn't to the common artist who created them.
I don't understand why having a billion dollars would make anyone more or less "responsible enough to own anything of value." I'm afraid you lost me here. Regarding your comment about the awesome responsibility of owning and preserving a work of art, I would assume that anyone who acquires these things at such a price will probably take the necessary steps to preserve them. So I feel absolved of that responsibility, since all I would have in your either/or scenario is the billion dollars. You're the guy with the drawing, so it's on you to keep the item in properly controlled conditions to preserve it into perpetuity. That was your choice. To be sure, art adds value to the human experience. But let's try and keep the discussion on track, shall we? You seem to be all over the place.
Thought experiment: If that is so, then why, despite your many posts, does each subsequent post of yours not have all that much value? It would therefore appear that your argument is flawed.
I'm always "all over the place" especially when I try to write in English. God made me a musician, and that language is very quick and requires little thought. Now I even forgot what it was we were talking about. Other than trying to put a true dollar value on a work of art. (I know, it's not a complete sentence.) so how many dollars do think an original Picasso should be worth?