Controversial "Piss Christ" art back in New York

[marions ghost]

95. Rich people don't decide what is art--

and you don't have to like it. All I'm saying is...understand it.

Like I said, if there were more public funding for art it would be a better situation for the real deciders, the academics, curators, artists. But art is expensive to produce, maintain, and exhibit. If there's no money for it, art dies.

It's better that the rich spend their money on art (which ultimately ends up in museums if it's good enough & has cultural value) than on other expensive junk, right? Or is it better for them to buy diamonds and furs?

As far as money laundering, I think they have a LOT better ways to do that. OK there are some blue chip artists stuff that it's high status to own, but in general, they just collect art for fun and status.

A lot of rich people have terrible ideas about art and don't even end up buying good stuff, (like stocks a lot is overrated...)

The rich are NOT the deciders of what is art. Academics, critics, curators decide & they are usually far from rich.

-------------------

Not all art collectors are rich. Have you ever heard of Herb and Dorothy:

Check this out: