So yesterday at work we got into a "discussion" about art at work. This article is what sparked the whole thing. One of the guys in my "pod" made the statement that anyone who bought a work of art of that caliber should have to give the painting to a museum where everyone can enjoy the work as the artist intended. So this led to a whole discussion on where you could draw this line. He claimed that anyone spending that kind of money on a painting was motivated by nothing but ego and greed. He refused to admit that appreciation could be a motivating factor. "All art is created for the people and meant for the people and private collectors are all greedy bastards." Now, to an extent he's probably right, but what about everyone else? Is it fair to deny me a work of art from an artist that I love simply because I'm able to afford it? When asked what the millionaire should keep at his house, he answered that there are enough high quality reproductions and prints that one could use in place of the real thing (which should be on permanent loan to a museum). Of course, it couldn't work the other way. Even though the reproductions are of a high enough quality, they aren't suitable for the museum and everyone else, but the millionaire should settle.
I'm eager to hear other people weigh in on this. I know it seems a little scattered and the way I'm putting forth the argument it's certainly skewed in my favor. Here's the argument I'm giving as one scenario. Let's say that Da Vinci lived next door to my great-great-great-great-great grandfather (yeah, not enough greats, but let's just go for the sake of argument). Da Vinci thinks my relative's house and grounds look great in the setting sunlight. So he paints the grounds and gives the painting to my relative. He gives it to his son. His son gives it to his son and so on down through the generations til it gets to my grandfather. Grandpa sits me on his lap in the living room at least once a visit and tells me the story about how the great Leonardo Da Vinci painted this painting of our relative's estate. Grandpa dies and wills the painting to my dad just like every generation prior. My dad dies and wills the painting to me. Now, everyone in the family suspects that this painting is worth millions and it probably is. But I'd never even consider selling the painting. I'd only have it appraised to keep the insurance accurate. But it would never be sold. Why? Because that painting means more to me as a family heirloom full of stories and sentiment than it does as a multi-million dollar Da Vinci. This argument was summarily dismissed. So, now I'm interested in how you the reader view the distribution of art and one of a kind treasures. Allowable for the private collector or only suitable for public consumption?