Talk about tiny details ...

[Gern]

Unreal!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-58802201

[boatman]

YEA Dave some people have too much money lol
chris

[Jim R]

Hi Dave
Amazing. I've come across this before. I find it is impossible to even imagine how he achieves what he does.
Jim

[adt70hk]

I saw this earlier... All credit to him.... Completely amazing!

[Tim Marlow]

Superb….the link is pretty good as well……

[scottie3158]

Incredible. I also like the sculptures made from pencil lead.

[Peter Gillson]

amazing for - I can see why a microscope is an absolute necessity. I missed my chance to have a go - just took my son's 2 microscopes to him when we moved him into a flat.

Peter

[AlanG]

Whilst it is really good. I still cannot understand the 90 grand bit. Some people have more money than sense.

[Tim Marlow]

Cheaper than a shark in formaldehyde Alan. To be honest, that’s the collectible aspect. It is pretty much unique and easy to display in a really small flat….good luck to him I say…..

[AlanG]

I just don't get it though Tim. Imho it's just wasting money that could be put to better use. I know people that collect (stupidly expensive) things is their bag/hobby/interest etc etc. But i just balk at the price of some things these days. Long dead painters works for starters. Paying millions for something like that is just a kick in the teeth for people on the breadline imho.

[Tim Marlow]

I understand where you are coming from Alan, but don’t necessarily agree with the breadline point. Someone that can afford that much for a collectible item probably contributes far more to their government coffers in the realms of purchase tax than I ever will, so redistribution of wealth occurs as a result of the purchase. As to long dead painters work, well they are the pinnacle of human achievement in that field, so in some cases are beyond price.

[AlanG]

As to long dead painters work, well they are the pinnacle of human achievement in that field, so in some cases are beyond price.

I have to disagree with that. Some of the 'works of art' i've seen are utter tripe. Not worth 5 quid in a cold open windswept market. I know art is a subjective thing. so one thing to one person is great, and yet to another it's rubbish.

As for the tax thing. Most of these people paying those millions are in fact offshore accounts. Therefore not contributing anything to the 'common folk'.

[Gern]

Cheaper than a shark in formaldehyde Alan. To be honest, that’s the collectible aspect. It is pretty much unique and easy to display in a really small flat….good luck to him I say…..

That's a good point Tim. You wouldn't need a lot of shelf space for a collection of those would you.

[Guest]

Imho it's just wasting money that could be put to better use.

Almost by definition, actual art (as opposed to cheap prints etc. of it) is something only people with enough wealth can afford — it is now and it has always been. It serves no purpose that you can’t do without, so anyone who has to scrape to get by will not be buying art. Rather, it’s something for people who have enough money to spare, who can use it to show off that they have more money than they actually need. So in a sense, all art represents money that could be put to a different use that would benefit more people.

However, that completely ignores the fact that things can have value beyond a monetary one. For example, people derive pleasure from looking at art, which is a value quite distinct from how much it costs (or doesn’t). The vast majority of people, though, seem to think of “value” only in terms of money — good example: someone who’s bought a book that, as they’re reading it, they don’t enjoy. Chances are very good that they’ll read it until the end anyway “because I paid good money for this.” They could be doing something they actually like in the time it takes them to read the book they don’t enjoy, but no, they consider the book’s monetary value to be far more important than the value of that time, let alone the value of the enjoyment.

Anyway, the real problem with art is that it has gotten to be an investment for people with more wealth than they know what to do with. That leads to an industry developing for finding the best art to sell to such people, eventually regardless of whether it’s actually currently acclaimed or not — because “this will be the next great thing, excellent investment!” Couple that with one-upmanship and you get ridiculous prices that don’t reflect anything except, as the saying in the Netherlands goes, “what a fool will give for it.”

[Tim Marlow]

Art isn’t limited to pictures, but they are probably the easiest to monetise. As you say Jakko, there is an art industry designed to provide consumables for the mega rich. It’s an oft forgotten aspect of art. It is produced for a market, like any other construct. It is not created for the simple joy of creation, no matter how much we like to think it is.
However, sometimes a work of art can produce an emotional response that is not generated by any other means. For me, the recording of Elgar’s Cello concerto by Jacqueline Dupre makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck when I hear it Every. Single. Time. The first time I heard the piece I was moved so much that I literally thought ”how have I lived so long without hearing this before”.
If someone buys an overpriced piece of “utter tripe” and so preserves it for future generations then the first time it generates that response in an individual it will be worth the money paid.