Anyone who has 60 million dollars to spend on any painting, is going to have a lot more besides. They may buy it as an investment or perhaps because they have more money than sense. Either way, I believe when a great piece of art is bought by private owners, it's a cultural theft for the world.
Masterpieces should only be owned by museums and available for all to view, not stuck in someone's palatial mansion for their sole gratification and/or used as a symbol of their immense fortune in order to impress their similars.
I love art, but I could never be that selfish. 60 million dollars could be better used to help others less fortunate...maybe that's why I'm no millionaire!
2007-03-03 07:45:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Kikkaz 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You should be watching CNBC's High Net Worth. The show is designed to cater to those with lots of money. Art is and has been a way to invest one's fortune. Think of it this way, $1,000,000 was 62,500 times the minimum wage in 1940. Today's minimum wage multiplied 62,500 is 15,625,000. So, it would not be uncommon or unfeasible for a person to be able to afford 60mil for a Picasso.
2007-03-03 03:56:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by sansjazz 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If I had sixty million dollars to drop, sure, why not? It's an investment. Personally, though, I'd stock up on Monet and Cassatt.
2007-03-03 23:05:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Depends on which piccaso and if my last name was Gates.
2007-03-03 18:19:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by american horse 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, I would spend six dollars and paint one myself.
2007-03-03 03:47:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You bet your sweet *** I would.
However, I'd buy a Van Gogh over a Picasso. Van Gogh is my favorite painter, Picasso is second. :)
2007-03-03 03:53:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
NEVER!
2007-03-03 04:02:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Katyusha 1
·
0⤊
0⤋