[HN Gopher] Masterpiece was hanging above an elderly French woma...
___________________________________________________________________
Masterpiece was hanging above an elderly French woman's hot plate
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 78 points
Date : 2023-11-18 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| gniv wrote:
| The article doesn't say how much the Louvre paid for it. Did they
| really pay the EUR24.2 million auction price?
|
| Edit: The official PR from Louvre has a bit more info: "For this
| exceptional purchase, the Louvre is using part of the revenue
| generated by the Louvre Abu Dhabi brand license - the Societe des
| Amis du Louvre contributing the final million euros that made the
| acquisition possible."
| orwin wrote:
| If the buyers were art investors (and didn't plan to expose
| it), an art piece that cannot leave a country and enter a free
| zone (were it will stay in storage until it is sold again) will
| loose a lot of its speculative value, all future transactions
| will be taxed.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| It sounds like the painting was only prevented from leaving
| France for a limited time.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| They matched the price.
|
| The French antiques law doesn't allow expropriation of French
| art owners, only temporary export bans and right of first
| refusal for any purchase. So the only way it got sold for less
| than the auction price is if the owner separately negotiated a
| lower price for the Louvre, but that would be against their own
| interests, since they'd either get the 24M from the art dealers
| or from Louvre.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| > They matched the price. > > The French antiques law doesn't
| allow expropriation of French art owners, only temporary
| export bans and right of first refusal for any purchase. So
| the only way it got sold for less than the auction price is
| if the owner separately negotiated a lower price for the
| Louvre, but that would be against their own interests, since
| they'd either get the 24M from the art dealers or from
| Louvre.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| > They matched the price. > > The French antiques law doesn't
| allow expropriation of French art owners, only temporary
| export bans and right of first refusal for any purchase. So
| the only way it got sold for less than the auction price is
| if the owner separately negotiated a lower price for the
| Louvre, but that would be against their own interests, since
| they'd either get the 24M from the art dealers or from
| Louvre.
|
| Do they pay the price including the substantial auction house
| fees?
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| Seems like a fair policy for all sides though I wonder how
| does that work in practice? This painting made waves of
| course but are they constantly monitoring auctions to see if
| anything of national interest turns up?
| snapplebobapple wrote:
| Its not really fair because the french government doesnt
| have to participate in the auction, increasing the price to
| keep it. They wait for private market to set price and then
| take it at that price. This deprives the private auction
| winner of price expression, as they may have been willing
| to pay more and it deprives the owner of price discovery.
| Its not really a good thing for anyone except the French
| government, who is abusing market power here to get a
| better price, which guarantees dead weight loss to society
| as a whole.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| But it also increases the chances that significant art
| pieces are purchased by museums and that the public is
| given access to them, which is a net good that I consider
| far more valuable than auction fairness.
| Loic wrote:
| I am very happy to support this incredible burden to our
| society to get these arts in a museum instead of stored
| in a freeport[0].
|
| [0]: https://curiousaboutart.com/business-of-art/list-of-
| freeport...
| cipheredStones wrote:
| It's quite a rhetorical move to look at two people
| involved in a transaction and say "it's not a good thing
| for anyone", by implicitly excluding the entire public.
| kergonath wrote:
| > Its not really a good thing for anyone except the
| French government
|
| It's a good thing for the people who will be able to see
| it, either now or in the future, and for the people who
| will be able to study it. It's not great when works of
| art end up buried in archives, but it's a disgrace when
| they end up in private collections, never to be seen
| again.
|
| The buyer don't lose anything. They can throw a tantrum
| because they don't get their nice picture and it's really
| too sad. It's a bad thing for the people who built a
| business exfiltrating artistic pieces out of their
| country, but fuck them. It's difficult to feel bad for
| the guy who got only EUR24M instead of EUR26M, honestly.
| bigdict wrote:
| > The woman who originally owned the painting passed away just
| two days after the sale, leaving her three heirs to inherit her
| estate.
|
| Thanks grandma!
| dmix wrote:
| > Four years ago, when she began clearing out her home ahead of
| a move, she intended to throw out the painting, unaware of its
| true value, per the Guardian's Kim Willsher. Luckily, her
| family called in an expert to appraise items on the property.
| The unusual depiction of Christ caught the eye of the expert,
| who assumed it could be worth hundreds of thousands.
|
| Thanks to the family wise choice to call an appraiser and the
| appraiser's good eye for art.
|
| btw is it normal for families to call appraisers? Or was it
| likely grandma had lots of nice antique things. Or maybe was
| wealthy (mentioning a "hot plate" indicates probably not).
| orwin wrote:
| btw is it normal for families to call appraisers?
|
| In France, yes. They aren't art specialists, but it helps
| with dividing the estate.
| dmix wrote:
| Well then give this appraiser some recognition, hopefully
| inspiring others in her industry.
| mguijarr wrote:
| > btw is it normal for families to call appraisers?
|
| Well, sorry to say but no, it is not "normal" in the sense
| every family does this - something only seen for rich people
| or those who have problems dividing wealth
| 5555624 wrote:
| > btw is it normal for families to call appraisers?
|
| When my mother passed away, my sister contacted a firm to
| handle the estate sale. They had several people who appraised
| things. How qualified were they? It varied. The guys who
| appraised the jewelry and antique furniture were spot on;
| but, the one who looked at all the Asian stuff seemed
| clueless. (Since they were getting a percentage, you'd think
| they'd try to be accurate.)
| OJFord wrote:
| > btw is it normal for families to call appraisers? Or was it
| likely grandma had lots of nice antique things.
|
| It read to me like they were (rightly!) concerned she was
| disposing of things she didn't want any more inappropriately,
| without recognising what she had - she couldn't remember
| where it came from. If they didn't know either, then fair
| enough and good call I think. Local auctioneer would be a
| pretty reasonable/cheap starting point (but decent chance of
| recognising when to consult a specialist) if there's no
| particular reason to think there's anything _very_ valuable I
| would think.
| amelius wrote:
| And thanks guy from 1280 who made it possible in the first
| place.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > Thanks grandma!
|
| Because it's grandma who found the art piece and not her
| grandkids and because grandma live in France [1], grandkids
| shall see approximately six millions EUR (divided by the number
| of grandkids) of the 20 millions EUR this would sell for.
|
| Inheritance taxes above 1.8m in France are 45%. Grandma to
| kids: 55%. Kids to grandkids: another 55%.
|
| I mean, three kids getting 2m each is nice but let's not kid
| ourselves here: it's the state that can thank grandma as over
| two generations they'll be taking 14 millions EUR out of 20
| millions EUR.
|
| And grandma is not free to do what she wants with the money:
| should she decide to give the money, the donation would be
| taxed at inheritance rate (45%: which I'm sure komrades find
| totally cromulent and probably even not enough).
|
| (which shall greatly help a state-owned entity like the Louvre
| museum to acquire the masterpiece btw)
|
| Uncle Sam (well, it's french cousin): _" Thanks grandma!"_
| indeed.
|
| [1] I live in a country which has zero inheritance taxes and
| zero taxes when donating money and zero taxes on capital gains
| (if you held things like stocks/art pieces/collectible cars or
| whatever really besides real estate for more than six months).
| Income tax goes as high as 42% though but after you've paid
| your income tax, your money is yours and you basically do what
| the fuck you want with it.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Maybe she used a trust and circumvented all of this, who
| knows?
| dfc wrote:
| What country are you from?
| otteromkram wrote:
| Estonia.
| kergonath wrote:
| Honest question: how is lower inheritance tax and higher
| income tax a better situation?
|
| It's much more fair to tax inheritance, which is
| something you get just by chance, compared to income,
| which is something you have to work for. Low inheritance
| tax also leads to wealth concentration over generations,
| and worse inequality. This is compounded because rich
| people get a lot of their wealth from capital gains,
| which usually are not taxed as income, so income tax is
| in effect a tax on the middle class.
|
| I don't know enough about Estonia to comment on how well
| it works, but without more detail it sounds really bad.
| ftrobro wrote:
| Sweden also has zero tax for inheritance and gifts.
|
| What is "fair" is subjective. Inheritance is only by
| chance if you consider family ties to have zero value.
| Building something over generations, for example a
| company or a farm, becomes difficult with high
| inheritance tax.
| randunel wrote:
| Probably from Romania, but there's some notary tax on the %
| of the inheritance, which isn't an inheritance tax per se,
| but works as if it were. And you're supposed to pay health
| insurance and pensions on your capital gains, which kind of
| work like taxes would, too.
| Loughla wrote:
| Super high income tax and extremely low wealth tax seems like
| a great recipe for some revolution.
| ftrobro wrote:
| An income tax marginal rate of 42 % doesn't seem super high
| in international comparison:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rate
| s
|
| Belgium tops that list at 79.5 % but even in the USA it can
| reach 51.6 %.
|
| In 1975 the author Astrid Lindgren famously had a marginal
| rate of 102 % on her income tax in Sweden, so the more
| money she earned the less she had left after taxes...
|
| http://ianangell.com/blog-entries/the-pomperipossa-
| effect/pa...
| anovikov wrote:
| I also live in a country like this and it manages to have a
| budget surplus, incredible public safety and social peace in
| spite of all that :) Which makes me feel most European
| taxation systems are just an engine of depriving middle class
| from ever being able to compete with the rich, not at all
| socially oriented.
| kergonath wrote:
| I agree that income tax _is_ a tax on the middle class.
| Poor people don't have enough income to be taxed
| significantly, and rich people get most of their wealth
| from capital and have things like trusts and companies to
| shield themselves. OTOH, income distribution is insanely
| sharp on the high end, it's actually ridiculous. The top
| 10% in France have twice the income of the 80-90%. It
| flattens somewhat below that, but the gap is nowhere near
| what people pay in income tax. The middle class is a
| squishy and juicy target and it supports most of the budget
| of the state, but income tax does not really work as a tool
| to keep them down compared to wealthier classes. And it's
| not really needed anyway.
|
| It is socially oriented in the way that the middle class
| pay for the poor (which is great, I pay my share and am not
| complaining about that), but apparently national solidarity
| stops being a factor once you're rich enough.
| hilux wrote:
| And is your low-tax country doing better or worse (for
| society as a whole, not just for you) than France?
| jjgreen wrote:
| Wherever it is, I'll wager that the apple tart is not as
| good ...
| atmosx wrote:
| What happens in your country when you go the hospital and
| they figure out you have cancer. Does the state pay for the
| treatment or you go from millionaire to dead family weight
| overnight? :-)
|
| Money is nice but passed a certain point, the real problems
| are rarely solved with more money.
| genman wrote:
| European countries differentiate between income tax and
| social tax.
|
| Health insurance is a social tax. There are other social
| taxes: pension tax, unemployment tax etc. Mostly these are
| fixed rate taxes (i.e. the tax rate is not income
| dependent). In some countries there is an upper bound on
| income that is taxed by social tax.
| addcommitpush wrote:
| In France, the tax is not on the amount of restate but on the
| inherited income, ie each kid gets taxed on his share. So if
| there are n kids, the amount of tax paid is n _T(K /n), not
| T(K). Since T is progressive (convex), n_T(K/n) < T(K).
|
| Given that the first 100k are not taxed and that there are
| three kids, only about 14 millions will be taxed at the 45%
| rate, not 20.
|
| Note that we are talking about each kid making 6,67MEUR (four
| centuries of minimum wage, three centuries of median wage).
|
| If they earned their money through their labour instead of
| through their birth, they would actually be taxed more (IR +
| CSG + CRDS).
|
| As for the grandkids, there are a bazillion ways to reduce
| the tax bill: life insurance is not inheritance-taxed, you
| can donate money to your kids before your death (about
| 300kEUR per kid every 15 years before it's taxed - if there
| are three kids, three grandkids per kid and everyone does a
| little tax planning you can give 9 grands kids * 300kEUR *
| say give them money at 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 yo that's
| 13,5MEUR originally from the grandma that won't even count as
| inheritance, etc.).
| gedy wrote:
| It's fascinating what older people have in their home sometimes.
| When we bought our home, the elderly lady we bought it from left
| a carved wooden panel on the wall. It was pretty, but we didn't
| give it much notice. When I looked more closely at it a few years
| later, I saw it had a really old Wells Fargo shipping label on
| it, and after doing more digging, found that this had been
| displayed at the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago. The
| shipping label was to that event.
| vasco wrote:
| Does someone know how a painting made by an italian artist in
| Italy can be declared a French national treasure and blocked from
| export? I'm not knowledgeable in this area.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| The will of state power
| Glant wrote:
| The law of finders keepers
| lelandfe wrote:
| "'Finders keepers, shut up' has worked very well for us so
| far" https://youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY
| kergonath wrote:
| It's Europe. Borders and people moved around constantly, and
| nationalism was not a thing for most of the continent's
| History. Italy as a country would not exist for ~600 years
| when it was painted.
|
| I haven't seen a complete study of where and how that
| painting moved since it was done, but there are plenty of
| possibilities that don't involve anything dodgy.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| Well, it's in France. Possession is 9 tenths of the law.
| Ichthypresbyter wrote:
| When this story first appeared, it was noted that the woman who
| owned the painting had lived in Compiegne. Compiegne was the
| site of a royal residence from 1374 until the Revolution, and
| the site of a Carmelite convent (which received significant
| royal support) from 1641 until 1792. The painting could well
| have belonged to the convent, been sold off locally when it was
| closed, and either stayed in the family of the original
| purchaser or made its way through various local antique shops.
| So there's a decent chance that much of the painting's history,
| including its last religious use, took place in France.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I know nothing about this specific painting but the fact that
| it was painted by an Italian artist in Italy is a red herring.
|
| As far as I understand the law allows any significant art piece
| in France to be deemed a National Treasure. Think of it more as
| an important asset for the country rather than something that
| was made in France or by a French person.
|
| In French the definition is that it is important to the
| national " _patrimoine_ ", which is the same word used to refer
| to someone's assets/estate.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| Because it was in France at the hands of a french national
| atmosx wrote:
| Seriously? The Louvre is literally made of Greek (two of the 3
| most visited art pieces are Greek), Italian and Egyptian art.
|
| That's it. There is very little French artistry. The French
| masters came a bit later and have their own museum which I wish
| to visit one day.
|
| Doesn't matter _how_ it only matters that the French pay
| attention. Italy doesn't need one painting, the entire country
| is stunning and financially speaking "suffering" from tourism.
| I mean it is a huge source of income, but they lost the "locals
| quality of life" balance with tourism long time ago.
| kergonath wrote:
| The criterion are where the work is and how significant it is.
| It is about culture, not nationalism.
| jameshart wrote:
| > The 10- by 8-inch painting, now deemed a French "national
| treasure," hung unnoticed for years above a hot plate in a
| 90-year-old French woman's kitchen
|
| How many years did this woman remain 90 years old? That's the
| real mystery in all this.
| subpixel wrote:
| Reminds me of the Sopranos actor who was an Art History major and
| found a $10M old master that was mislabeled in a German auction
| house.
| trbleclef wrote:
| Federico Castelluccio https://www.cbsnews.com/video/sopranos-
| star-uncovers-paintin...
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Never would have taken Furio to be an art history major in
| real life :)
| otteromkram wrote:
| What were you expecting? Chemistry? Astrophysics?
| Kinesiology?
| rr808 wrote:
| What does the Louvre do with it? I actually like the fact that
| someone had it in their house. Now it'll likely be in a
| warehouse.
| seanthemon wrote:
| Display it.. you know.. like museums do?
| rr808 wrote:
| The biggest Museums only show a single digit percentage of
| their art.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20150123-7-masterpieces-.
| ..
| poulpy123 wrote:
| Do do the same for painting acquired for 24 millions
| arp242 wrote:
| Yes, but in this case they will display it, as mentioned in
| the article:
|
| _" The Louvre will display the newly acquired artwork
| along with Cimabue's Maesta at an exhibition opening next
| spring."_
| armadsen wrote:
| They've announced that it will be on display along with others
| of the artist's works starting in 2025.
| rex_lupi wrote:
| So they've finally found the "Fallen Madonna with the big
| boobies" by van Klomp?
| DylanSp wrote:
| My favorite example of this is the Third Imperial Faberge egg. It
| was made in 1887, seized by the Soviets during the Russian
| Revolution, and apparently sold abroad. It ended up in a flea
| market in the US in 2004, when a scrap dealer bought it without
| knowing what it was. He wasn't able to sell it for the price he
| wanted, so he kept it in his kitchen as decoration for several
| years. In 2012, he googled around and found an article about the
| missing egg, realized he probably had it, contacted a jeweler and
| Faberge expert, who flew out and found the egg sitting next to
| some cupcakes on the guy's kitchen counter:
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02855/egg_285....
|
| This Telegraph article has more details:
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/10706025/Th...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-18 23:01 UTC)