A noted art collector and philanthropist has sold a major painting for an eye-popping $165 million to raise money for criminal justice reform.
Agnes Gund sold Roy Lichtenstein's 1962 work Masterpiece, reportedly to billionaire hedge fund manager and art collector Steve Cohen. The sale apparently took place months ago; an art industry newsletter reported on the transaction in January, but Gund would not confirm it.
On Monday, The New York Times confirmed that the sale was real, noting that the painting becomes one of the 15 most expensive pieces of art known to have been sold. And the newspaper revealed that Gund sold the piece "for a specific purpose: to create a fund that supports criminal justice reform and seeks to reduce mass incarceration in the United States."
Source: NPR
Related Stories
'Leonardo da Vinci artwork' sells for record $450m
A 500-year-old painting of Christ believed to have been painted by Leonardo da Vinci has been sold in New York for a record $450m (£341m). The painting is known as Salvator Mundi (Saviour of the World).
It is the highest auction price for any work of art and brought cheers and applause at the packed Christie's auction room.
Leonardo da Vinci died in 1519 and there are fewer than 20 of his paintings in existence. Salvator Mundi, believed to have been painted sometime after 1505, is the only work thought to be in private hands.
Bidding began at $100m and the final bid for the work was $400m, with fees bringing the full price up to $450.3m. The unidentified buyer was involved in a bidding contest, via telephone, that lasted nearly 20 minutes.
Related: The Picture Under the "Mona Lisa"
"Masterpiece" Painting Sold for $165 Million to Help Fund Criminal Justice Reform
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @03:00AM
Basically, that money will be wasted, because the prison system is governmental and will therefore just swallow up private resources without being transformed appreciably (NO. There is is NO SUCH THING as a "private" prison; they all suck dependently at government's tax-dollar teat!).
Why is art so expensive you ask? Well, because it's just a way that very wealthy people can transfer resources around in a way that keeps the government from leeching too much of it away—it's a tax dodge, based on the various loopholes placed in western taxation schemes exactly for this purpose, and such shenanigans means there's overhead to pay. Nevertheless, the government will still get some of the action, and that truly makes it a waste.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @03:04AM
I'll take that $165 million and you can't jail me because it would be incarceration.
Hey listen up! Free tunes on me! I put $1000 in the jukebox for everybody except since I'm paying I get to choose the first ten songs.
What do you mean you don't like my choice of music and I'm banned for life? Where are you throwing me?!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @03:17AM (1 child)
It seems like Agnes Gund is a heavy hitter in the NY City art scene. Here is the original version of her Wiki page, from 22 January 2011 -- and as expected for a new page, it was tagged by Wiki editors as needing work,
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agnes_Gund&oldid=409425333 [wikipedia.org]
Intro paragraph:
Seems like there is a good chance that she has the connections and skill to get some traction for her reform project.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @03:28AM
The reform project would put angry young black men back on the streets, so no, it will not be allowed to happen.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @04:08AM (9 children)
This looks like a money laundering operation.
Improper influence with donations/bribery is a crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @05:17AM (6 children)
Which philanthropist should be thrown in jail? Both the seller and buyer are well documented philanthropists. Cohen (the buyer) is listed in Wiki at having already given away a significant part of $1Billion for various causes.
And how can this art sale be money laundering when it's totally public?
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday June 13 2017, @05:22AM
Both possibly. That way they get the chance to reform things from the inside!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @06:20AM (4 children)
In this case, both. The buyer for funding the conspiracy, the seller for facilitating the money laundering.
Why is the "Art" worth millions? Great way to move money isn't it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @06:40AM (3 children)
Supply of "1", demand all over the place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @07:30AM (2 children)
How can it be "1" if you can find and make pieces of "Art" anywhere?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @07:32AM
That's what the scare quotes are for.
Money laundering achieved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @02:34PM
Because each instantiation of art is unique, blockhead.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 13 2017, @09:59AM
Why bother with the "six lines" of Cardinal Richelieu when you can just make shit up? Just execute them as an example to all the other thoughtcrimers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 13 2017, @05:57PM
The philanthropist should be thrown in jail
So a corporation spending money is constitutionally protected free speech but an actual human doing the same isn't?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @12:11PM (1 child)
Basically, that money will be wasted, because the prison system is governmental and will therefore just swallow up private resources without being transformed appreciably (NO. There is is NO SUCH THING as a "private" prison; they all suck dependently at government's tax-dollar teat!).
Why is art so expensive you ask? Well, because it's just a way that very wealthy people can transfer resources around in a way that keeps the government from leeching too much of it away—it's a tax dodge, based on the various loopholes placed in western taxation schemes exactly for this purpose, and such shenanigans means there's overhead to pay. Nevertheless, the government will still get some of the action, and that truly makes it a waste.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 13 2017, @12:30PM
$165M in targeted lobbying, voter education, and policy development _can_ change things. Not as far as they need to be changed, but it can move the needle in the right direction. Eventually, public opinion alone is the arbiter of policy, but that moves much more slowly without focus like this type of activity.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @01:47PM
Soylent gold
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday June 13 2017, @04:46PM (1 child)
So, I'm curious about this $165M wonder.
Type the name in the nearest search engine box, get a bunch of thumbnails of a run-of-the-mill comic book, single box.
Odd, the first results for something that expensive should be the image of the art piece.
Ask Google to show me the images...
I guess I still don't get modern art.
Sure you can get a kick out of a self-referential piece which talks about a masterpiece.
But a friggin' $165M for something Stan Lee & Friends would hammer out in three minutes tops, to fill a gap and get to the next page? That's some expensive irony, people!
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday June 13 2017, @06:47PM
Some people can sell anything.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @04:55PM (1 child)
Obama's 2008 campaign was pure genius. We all want change... just be careful to not specify the change, because most of us want a different change!
Criminal justice reform is like that. To some, it means short sentences in lavish conditions. To some, it means having 3-strikes laws with heavy labor. To some, it means cutting hands off for theft and cutting heads off for blasphemy!
Yes, we all want reform, but our desires for reform are incompatible. My reform is not your reform.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday June 13 2017, @11:18PM
Nice try. Criminal justice reform [wikipedia.org] is understood to mean ending mass incarceration through lighter sentencing, less mandatory sentencing, decriminalization of drugs, etc. The opposite would be a "tough-on-crime" approach.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Mykl on Wednesday June 14 2017, @12:19AM
After reading the first half-dozen comments, I had to check whether I'd accidentally stumbled over to the comments section on Breitbart.
It should surprise nobody that a very rich liberal person might want to spend some of their money on social justice issues. Agnes Gund isn't the only one. For all of his many, many flaws, Bill Gates needs to be recognized for the amount of money he's pouring into international health issues. There are many other examples across the world.
Any way you cut it, Agnes had the option of keeping the $165m (minus tax), but decided to 'give it away' instead (yes, I know, she'll still control it - but she won't be buying condos in Aspen with it).
How sad that the first reaction from many of our comments is that there must be some sort of shady deal going on. Why can't people just be good sometimes?