When that sort of money could be so much better spent on trying to find cure for cancer/aid for the starving in Africa/research into slowing down global warming...
in other words - IMPORTANT things.
What a crazy, mixed up world it is....
Sorry but I just had to get that off my chest....
2006-11-03 22:54:40 · 18 answers · asked by Bored at work 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I know what you mean. Everybody has the right to spend their money as they wish, but it does seem very frivolous when there are so many worthy causes out there- which are a matter of life and death.
It's ironic also that Jackson Pollock first started painting scenes of the american dustbowl- the 1930's era when people were starving from crops failing in the usa. He was a pioneer of abstract art which he constructed to prevent the politicians of the day hijacking his art and using it for capatilist purposes, but they still did. He also died young and suffered from depression. It's a shame the people that buy his paintings, don't have the same conscience as the artist.
2006-11-03 23:21:33 · answer #1 · answered by brainlady 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
How do you know that the money WON'T be going towards finding a cure for cancer, etc. Have you asked the seller what they intend to do with it?
As an earlier answer points out, the money hasn't gone away - it's simply now in the hands of someone else. Possibly the person who now has it is more likely to spend it on good causes, possibly they are less likely. Even if they spend it all on chocolate, that pays the chocolate shop owner and staff, the delivery van driver, the chocolate manufacturer, etc, and in addition to keeping them in employment, perhaps they in turn will donate money to good causes.
I think it is also worth noting that a great deal of money given to charity comes from a very rich people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, ie the type of people who typically spend £73M on a work of art. Perhaps if the buyer sells the painting it will fetch £80M, and he/she will give the entire amount to a medical charity.
2006-11-03 23:17:55 · answer #2 · answered by Graham I 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 73 million pounds are sitting in the bank gaining interests and are still sitting in the bank gaining interests for some one else. In fact the money itself is not there at all just gaining interests in one form or another. So you see the painting did not change anything and probably these rich people do their bit of charity theme selves! They all do, if not out of kindness then out of cv and pr portfolio. So please calm down now and have a nice weekend.
I would like you to consider for example cancer research uk,the charity spends approximately £213 million per year on cancer research.The vast majority of its funds come from private and corporate donations. Yes 213 million per year- charity is alive and well!
2006-11-03 23:15:16 · answer #3 · answered by toietmoi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand why one painting should be worth £73 million and another only £10,000. However, spending the money doesn't make any difference to cancer research or feeding the starving.
The £73 million hasn't gone away. The person selling the painting can now spend it. He probably won't spend it on good causes, but he could.
2006-11-03 23:03:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. It is totally obscene to spend that sort of money on what, after all, is only some colour doubed onto a canvass.
It is a bit like footballers being paid thousands a week for kicking a ball, which is after all only a school playground game.
2006-11-04 06:27:29 · answer #5 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not only is it obscene, it is also preposterous!!!!!
Whoever bought it for such an extravagant amount definitely has to get a life. This person should also get out more so that he might realize that certain parts of the world need that amount of money just to be able to make it to another day.
2006-11-04 00:03:58 · answer #6 · answered by Nelson M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To me it is obscene that any one person should have £73m, even if they are "self made", the only way they can spend that amount of money is on an (argue ably) good painting.
2006-11-03 23:35:33 · answer #7 · answered by Social Science Lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
CORRECT! Maybe there sould be a tax of 99% on purchases like this then £72 million would have gone somewhere useful.
2006-11-04 23:51:21 · answer #8 · answered by costa 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree with u hunny. i told my partner i could whip up a couple like that one of pollocks - would cost me about £5 to do and i could sell them at £50 each - profit and obviously value for money !!
2006-11-03 22:57:39 · answer #9 · answered by mousie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
seems like a load of pollocks to me. could have used the money for somthing worth while but if they waste it on **** then why stop the daftys. they got more money than sense.
2006-11-03 23:06:41 · answer #10 · answered by Dee 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋