terms of feeding the HUNGRY people all over the world....I am so
frustrated with people who are FINANCAILLY capable of doing so that could, that would buy alot of food...one would think with THAT kind of money, that person could buy a CONSCIENCE....personally, I would enjoy feeding the hungry rather then acquire a painting but to each his own I guess care to comment either way
2006-11-03 01:06:39 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
to me it dosen't matter if they have already
given, give until there is nothing left to give
and then give your compassion
2006-11-03 01:18:25 · update #1
where I come from, the LORD values your soul, MORE than you value your art.....INVEST in your SOULS people....it is
the best investment you can give to
YOURSELVES
2006-11-03 03:34:54 · update #2
For sure, I WILL sin again....however, my point is......if you have 140 MILLION you don't NEED to invest...you may WANT to
and have the right to, but you also have the
right to use good judgement and help the
less fortunate....How much rent to they charge in YOUR grave...and YES I AM very much a sinner....LORD willing, I will be
forgiven...no offense to anyone here...I just think it is a sad thing to value art more than
human life and their situations....PEACE y'all
2006-11-03 05:47:58 · update #3
People with money don't think like us "normal" people do. I used to work at a landscape design firm and it used to piss me off so bad when I saw people spending over $200,000 on their BACKYARDS meanwhile their are people in this country who are starving with no place to go. Unfortunantly, we can't do anything about it. That's just the way the world works: Rich folks could cares less about anybody but themselves and their money...PERIOD!
2006-11-03 01:12:18 · answer #1 · answered by SexyMommy2B 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Are we supposed to give all our money to feed the poor!
I'm sure there is a point beyond which you don't want to go, as far as giving to the poor or needy!
If I can't live the life that I feel is normal for me then I'm not going to be motivated to donate part of my income to people so they can live a better life!
The guy that just paid 140m is investing, which is a good thing to do when you have the money and want to make more!
He's going to make So much money that he'll probably feel guilty about those who have none and donate!
But, before he can "care" about people who need help, is it OK for him to "care" about himself?
If you knew anything about Christianity, you would also know it is wrong to judge anyone and you really don't have the right the judge someones ability to donate or what they think is "ALL" that they want to donate!
Greed works Both ways!
2006-11-03 12:57:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It can't be justified because it is an opinion. You and I look at it as an outrageous sum, but as mentioned in another answer, for the people that do purchase such items, it is an investment. We might put fifity dollars in a savings account, but wealthy people do things like buy scultpture or art made by dead people. The one good thing is that a lot of it is later donated to museums or other places where our future artists and creative minds can study them and expand their own imaginations. And as also mentioned in another answer alot of the people that do spend so lavishly on art also donate large sums of money to worthy charities and causes. Most of them do so in a way that we never hear of their generousity. The media these days is too focused on all the terrible things to report on when people do good deeds (unless it's someone like Bill Gates). Besides, if their names were reported every scam artist in the country would be beating down their doors. While it would be great if all the rich folks would just give money to the needy, it wouldn't solve the problem. There are many factors involved and changing people mindset is only one. You can give money to a poor person but it only solves the problem temporarily. You have to change the way they think as well or they end up right back on welfare again. Back when our great grandparents and great great grandparents worked, people were ashamed to have to be on assistance and worked to get off it as soon as possible. It was a way of thinking... people had pride and worked to support their families. Now days a lot (not all) of the welfare recipients have the mindset that they are vicitms and it holds them back. They get stuck in that thinking.
2006-11-03 09:37:17 · answer #3 · answered by jigsawinc 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Paying that kind of money for a painting is an investment for these type of people. But also, how do you know whoever bought doesn't give millions to feed the hungry? You're just assuming they don't. Not very fair.
2006-11-03 09:13:19 · answer #4 · answered by jim 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Remember that art is also history and part of our heritage.
Art is also expressive and inspires various emotions in the reciepeint of the artistic piece. That draws certain people to the piece.
While you would not spend that kind of money for a painting, somebody was compelled to and by this painting and made to feel better by possessing it...
We are all different & have various preferences. If the painting is making the purchaser feel better about himself & giving them a lil joy... who's to say we should knock it....
2006-11-03 09:15:34 · answer #5 · answered by Jennewren :) 2 · 3⤊ 4⤋
We all have more money than someone, but none of use runs out to feed the poor. It's just the way things are. I think if a person has earned what they have, they can do with it what they wish. And, the person who bought the painting might be helping people out. We just don't know that because it's not newsworthy.
2006-11-03 09:16:11 · answer #6 · answered by tsopolly 6 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Rather than worrying about one rich sob spending his own money on a trinket perhaps we should talk about the governments of rich nations spending billions of the tax-payers' hard-earned cash on weaponry that only serves to make more and more people hungry and destitute.
2006-11-03 13:00:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
It is easy to say that you should give money away when it is not your money. You never know how much effort was put into building a fortune, poverty is the result of wasting time, resources, and beliefs, why should we care on how people decide to live their lives?
2006-11-03 09:24:38 · answer #8 · answered by Pablo 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I feel that NO ONE can JUSTIFY this reality -
It's a reality that has existed since the beginning of human history, and it's doubtful that it shall 'go away', until we extinct ourselves.
The 'haves' of our human society (those who expend that kind of money on material items) do what they do, to maintain a level of status among their peers. . . Hungry? you say? They don't know what that is . . . poor? That's also an unknown in their realm.
2006-11-03 09:13:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
so you're asking why somebody can be so self-centered as to not hand over 140 million to a bunch of starving strangers?
simple. because the painting and the satisfaction of being able to spend 140M on the painting is more satisfying to the fuckr than giving it away.
2006-11-03 09:13:48 · answer #10 · answered by saturndescends 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋