Those who own valuable pieces of art are taking out loans against their assets to raise finance

9 comments on “Those who own valuable pieces of art are taking out loans against their assets to raise finance
  1. Gregers Werle says:

    Only someone like Jim Rickards could think Damien Hirst is art. All this means is that rich people will bid up any POS in order to keep socializing, circulating and just generally keep themselves amused. Oh, and foremost to keep the Price Propaganda Mechanism alive!

    Britain has never seen nor created art. Ever.

  2. What-me-worry? says:

    Stone Henge?

  3. @Gregers said “Britain has never seen nor created art. Ever.” To which I offer this incomplete list of British artists (these are just a few painters): William Hogarth, William Turner, Thomas Gainsborough, Joshua Reynolds, William Blake, John Constable, Ford Madox Brown, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, John Everett Millais, Edward Burne-Jones, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Aubrey Beardsley, Francis Bacon, Frank Auerbach, Peter Blake, David Hockney… It’s fun to make sweeping generalizations, but they usually make the person who says them look ignorant. If you’re going to sum up Britain’s entire aesthetic output with Damien Hirst, then you’re a fool. And all Hirst really did was take American artists Warhol and Koons ideas of flagrant consumption and crass self-promotion one step further to it’s cynical self-destructive aesthetic conclusion

  4. Gregers Werle says:

    Britart is the ‘conclusion’. You’re mistaking the production of (at best) clever shit for art. It’s not even worth a debate. Art is the film Weekend At Bernie’s, or at least just as dead. Britain and the States, being spiritual and aesthetic vacuums, are an abyss… totally artless.

  5. Youre right no use debating if youre going to be so vague… What or who is the “clever shit” you’re talking about? Is modern art “over” in your opinion? I disagree because Art, unlike science, has no conclusions.

  6. Gregers Werle says:

    ‘Science’ has nothing to do with the topic, which is still about the mostly bored, empty boomer generation sad saps scraping together some ‘things’ and pretending it has meaning i.e calling it art. How do know it’s art? Well, it hangs in hedge fund managers’ offices and has been bid up to obscene price tags so it must be valuable.

    Art died, long ago. All art no exceptions. If art is timeless then why do you have to make distinctions by calling it ‘modern’? You’re dragging around a corpse.

  7. Don’t buy Art for an investment! … buy it only if you like it soooo much you can’t live without it!

  8. Gregers, Im not going to get into an art discussion with you because it would be pointless. But I’m curious what art you do possibly like? When was it still “alive” and when did it “die” in your opinion?

Watch the latest Keiser Reports:

Buy Gold Online
Buy Gold Online