This was sold in 2015 for $300 million dollars

it's pretty good, not even ironically.

It sounds more like a mantra than argument

modern art is money laundering but upper middle class trash worship modern art that's why it's valuable to the eyes of outsiders

>I advocate for capitalism but
Fuck off commie

If anything this just shows that the income inequality has really gotten out of hand. There are billionaires in the world who literally dont know what to do with all the money they have, so they spend it on their stupid little hobbies (collecting art).

However, a very big income inequality does not speak of a decadent society necessarily. During what most people consider europe's golden age (1500-1900) the income inequality was way bigger than anything you have today. 99% of the population literally fought starvation every day while the royal 1% lived in Chateaus in mad luxury.

>stupid little hobbies (collecting art)
Sounds more like you're an uncultured swine

Please explain how this painting being sold for $300 million has anything to do with Western society having died 100 years ago, if it ever did.

How is modern art more vulnerable to money laundering than other eras? With reference to real examples and not what-if scenarios please.

Some small scale art purchase might be, because maybe the seller just really wants to sell it to that high price so he agrees into some kind of "intransparent" paying methods, but this big scale, literally most expensive art piece ever, that is being reported on on every news media there is, has definetely nothing to do with money laundering.

I get the feeling that you're just some communist faggot.

No matter how communist they are, if they make more money than you, you have to stand aside for them.

thats a good piece though. Compared to how much art cost to make relative to the economy in the past its quite cheap.

Anyone else think this is not actually worth the 450 million that was paid for it?

Modern Society is Arrested Development Season 4.

It looks the same, has the same people with similar ideas but it’s all hollow and fake.

Specialists.

>Let's face it, western society died more than 100 years ago. What we have today is nothing but a rotten corpse

It died when you put professional iconoclasts in charge.

youtube.com/watch?v=HAhbt4CUNZU

If someone were to paint that today, it might fetch $100. Not even enough to cover expenses.
De Kooning was an innovator. That's why his paintings are valuable.

Bourgeois decadence like this wouldn't happen under communism

That sounds like you're some kind of a commie scumbag.

If it isn't hurting others, then there's nothing wrong with it. What they spend their millions on is none of your fucking business.

Fuck off commie

If it is the innovation that is valuable and not the picture, why is the picture for sale ?

It is hurting others in a few ways.
Mostly by defining what kind of art is valuable and discouraging the creation and communication of aesthetics-based art.
Museums spend a lot of public money on things most of the public don't appreciate.

Also, millionaires and billionaires get undeserved tax cuts for buying these, and that's bad for most of us.

>who cares if these fucking Dutch want to spend millions of dollars on Tulips, it's not hurting any one!

Not sure if advancing a nonsensical question because wanting to rush out a response, or very very stupid.
The painting is the very essence of his innovation, and it is a good that was originally for sale and continues to be for sale, like any painting since about 1600.

The essence ? That's stupid. The painting was the support of the innovation. Now that the novelty has gone, it doesn't support anything but paint and a memory.

It's a piece of art history, user. Are you deliberately being retarded?

>This is the original copy of the Declaration of Independence-
>Pfft, like that's worth anything, I'll give you tree fiddy for it since I'm feeling generous.