Topic: 80% off is awesome!

[initial_D]

Even if this was bought @ 80% off, still a waste of money ...

I have been looking for info on this painting forever!  I could not remember the name of it -- thanks!

Is there an intersting story related to why u is looking for this painting?

[rrocket]

You need to see the documentary called "My Kid Could Paint That"   Interesting.

[Triple Bob]

Quiz time!

http://www.monpa.com/wcp/fakes.html

 

[dorin]

Even if this was bought @ 80% off, still a waste of money ...

Bob, I can paint it for $300 + material, much less than the $1.76M purchase price in 1989. A lot negative publicity at the time about the acquisition of it with tax payer's money. Think it is called Voice of Fire, kinda look like a giant flag, IMO.

   Given that the Voice of Fire is now worth something like $11M, the National Gallery did a great job acquiring it.  It was also done for Expo '67 so it actually has historical significance and relevance to Canada.  It's awesome how people who don't understand the context of art are always so quick to condemn it.  

[quadzilla]

Given that the Voice of Fire is now worth something like $11M, the National Gallery did a great job acquiring it.

Unless they just sold it for $11M the value is only estimated. Until it has been sold (if they ever would) the true value for this will always be unknown.

[dorin]

Given that the Voice of Fire is now worth something like $11M, the National Gallery did a great job acquiring it.

Unless they just sold it for $11M the value is only estimated. Until it has been sold (if they ever would) the true value for this will always be unknown.

Agreed, it's no different than stocks.  Still, appraised value is an indicator of value and in this case the indication is that it was a good buy in addition to being a representative work with special meaning to Canada.

[initial_D]

Even if this was bought @ 80% off, still a waste of money ...

Bob, I can paint it for $300 + material, much less than the $1.76M purchase price in 1989. A lot negative publicity at the time about the acquisition of it with tax payer's money. Think it is called Voice of Fire, kinda look like a giant flag, IMO.

   Given that the Voice of Fire is now worth something like $11M, the National Gallery did a great job acquiring it.  It was also done for Expo '67 so it actually has historical significance and relevance to Canada.  It's awesome how people who don't understand the context of art are always so quick to condemn it.  

So? As a tax payer, I can express my opinion, espiecially it was bought with tax dollar. Regardless how much it it is worth today, still no like it.

[Triple Bob]

As a tax payer you get the right to pay your tax dollars, and vote. That's it. Just remember to do both.

[ovr50]

In the world of art, you can like something that is not expensive, and vice-versa.

Price has little to nothing to do with what you like or dislike.

Of course, black velvet paintings are not included in this discussion....

[safristi]

..Jesus ! Elvis.........WHY NOT........................they give me as much pleasure as the Ottawa thingie I'd never seen OR heard about before..............last time i was there the central Pic was of some guy onna chaise longue with his schlong hanging out......Now that is ART or was it FRED....

[barrie1]

I think the buying price was ridiculous for the Voice of Fire altho its named correctly. As a Taxpayer i think we were burnt quite badly by the cost and quality of this painting no-matter how much anyone thinks its worth. The money could have beter spent for so many other things that the public needs 1st.

[safristi]

GOOD ARTISTS being #1........................