Should Australia sell Jackson Pollock's "Blue poles"?

[Metaphor]

Blue poles is an abstract expressionist painting by American artist Jackson Pollock and its current home is the National Gallery of Australia (NGA).

The piece was bought under the Acting Director of the NGA James Mollison, in 1973 for $1.3m (about US$7.5m in 2020 terms). The purchase approval went all the way to the Prime Minister himself, as the director was not authorised to make purchases over a million dollars. When the purchase--and its price--were made public, there was an absolute sensation. The controversial purchase made front-page news across the country. At the time, no contemporary painting by an American had ever fetched such a price. Before the NGA bought it, MoMA called it (Blue poles) ‘the most important post-war American painting still in private hands’.

In 2016, Blue poles was estimated to be worth around US$350m while it was on loan to the Royal Academy of Arts in London. It may be valued at less now if the prestige art market has taken a hit. But, if treated as a financial investment, it was certainly a lucrative one--if it were actually to be sold.

What should governments do when they own great pieces of art like this? Does it say something negative about Australia that the most valuable single piece of art in the country (and surely in the world) is by an American artist?

The first time I saw Blue poles, I was an 11 year old schoolboy. Many years later, I returned to Canberra and saw it again, and I knew I was looking at an astonishing triumph of art. But I also think: if somebody else owned this painting, would I want the NGA to pay $US350m to buy it for Australia? My feeling is no: I don't think the NGA should pay US$350m for it. I know having it is different to buying it, and yet if someone were to press me on this, I'm not sure I could justify the difference. The NGA does not make any money from Blue poles--entrance to the NGA is free.

I don't know if this belongs in Political Discussions; I looked for a suitable place in philosophy yet it is also political. But it's also not just about Blue poles, of course, but I'm using it as a springboard.

 

[Bomb#20]

What should governments do when they own great pieces of art like this? Does it say something negative about Australia that the most valuable single piece of art in the country (and surely in the world) is by an American artist?

The most valuable single piece of art in the country is surely by a Danish artist.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What should governments do when they own great pieces of art like this?

Protect it as they would any work of art.

The NGA does not make any money from Blue poles--entrance to the NGA is free.

The NGA itself may not make direct money from displaying it, but I'm sure there are many indirect ways they make money from it (e.g., selling posters and other merch that features it; all of the food I assume they sell to museum goers; donations, either from attendance or from wealthy donors who feel that, because they are high-dollar donors they take greater pride, etc), plus the tourist dollars that are attracted to seeing it that also result in numerous and sundry service-oriented coffers being filled in the hotels and restaurants and local shops nearby the NGA, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, because of its value, there is no real need to sell it, just like any other long-term investment. If there ever comes a need, then they can sell it, but it would be phenomenally stupid to sell unless and until they had a need for at least $350M.

Is your question going as to whether or not a government has some sort of compelling requirement or implicit obligation to sell assets when they reach a particular value? If that were the case, then it would just be a simple matter of establishing that threshold in whatever charters are granted to government subsidized institutions like (I presume) the NGA to be, but generally speaking the assets of a government aren't typically required to be sold when certain market value thresholds are met. That would mean the government would have to sell, say, its Capitol building simply because the market value hit an arbitrarily established threshold.

 

[Axulus]

What should governments do when they own great pieces of art like this?

Protect it as they would any work of art.

The NGA does not make any money from Blue poles--entrance to the NGA is free.

The NGA itself may not make direct money from displaying it, but I'm sure there are many indirect ways they make money from it (e.g., selling posters and other merch that features it; all of the food I assume they sell to museum goers; donations, either from attendance or from wealthy donors who feel that, because they are high-dollar donors they take greater pride, etc), plus the tourist dollars that are attracted to seeing it that also result in numerous and sundry service-oriented coffers being filled in the hotels and restaurants and local shops nearby the NGA, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, because of its value, there is no real need to sell it, just like any other long-term investment. If there ever comes a need, then they can sell it, but it would be phenomenally stupid to sell unless and until they had a need for at least $350M.

Is your question going as to whether or not a government has some sort of compelling requirement or implicit obligation to sell assets when they reach a particular value? If that were the case, then it would just be a simple matter of establishing that threshold in whatever charters are granted to government subsidized institutions like (I presume) the NGA to be, but generally speaking the assets of a government aren't typically required to be sold when certain market value thresholds are met. That would mean the government would have to sell, say, its Capitol building simply because the market value hit an arbitrarily established threshold.

He was saying that if no government in the world purchases single pieces of art costing in the neighborhood of $350 million, then what is the rationale to hold on to such a piece already owned? Your same explanation about making indirect money holds for buying any extremely expensive piece of art, so shouldn't governments be purchasing more such expensive pieces? Is that the best use of taxpayer money, or can citizens welfare be increased by not buying or selling such expensive pieces and using the money elsewhere?

 

[Politesse]

Safer in a museum than in private hands. I don't think significant pieces of art should be tradable commodities in the first place, but capitalism conquered this planet long ago.

 

[Toni]

What should governments do when they own great pieces of art like this?

Protect it as they would any work of art.

The NGA does not make any money from Blue poles--entrance to the NGA is free.

The NGA itself may not make direct money from displaying it, but I'm sure there are many indirect ways they make money from it (e.g., selling posters and other merch that features it; all of the food I assume they sell to museum goers; donations, either from attendance or from wealthy donors who feel that, because they are high-dollar donors they take greater pride, etc), plus the tourist dollars that are attracted to seeing it that also result in numerous and sundry service-oriented coffers being filled in the hotels and restaurants and local shops nearby the NGA, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, because of its value, there is no real need to sell it, just like any other long-term investment. If there ever comes a need, then they can sell it, but it would be phenomenally stupid to sell unless and until they had a need for at least $350M.

Is your question going as to whether or not a government has some sort of compelling requirement or implicit obligation to sell assets when they reach a particular value? If that were the case, then it would just be a simple matter of establishing that threshold in whatever charters are granted to government subsidized institutions like (I presume) the NGA to be, but generally speaking the assets of a government aren't typically required to be sold when certain market value thresholds are met. That would mean the government would have to sell, say, its Capitol building simply because the market value hit an arbitrarily established threshold.

The value of this piece of art and any other piece of art contributes to the financial assets of the museum, against which they may borrow, should the need arise or can possibly leverage to gain other assets. Part of any museum's ability to attract more visitors, more experts, more publicity, more renown, more respect, more assets lays with the assets it already owns and how well they are managed.

I agree with Politesse that great works of art should be held publicly rather than in private hands.

 

[Metaphor]

What should governments do when they own great pieces of art like this?

Protect it as they would any work of art.

The NGA does not make any money from Blue poles--entrance to the NGA is free.

The NGA itself may not make direct money from displaying it, but I'm sure there are many indirect ways they make money from it (e.g., selling posters and other merch that features it; all of the food I assume they sell to museum goers; donations, either from attendance or from wealthy donors who feel that, because they are high-dollar donors they take greater pride, etc), plus the tourist dollars that are attracted to seeing it that also result in numerous and sundry service-oriented coffers being filled in the hotels and restaurants and local shops nearby the NGA, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, because of its value, there is no real need to sell it, just like any other long-term investment. If there ever comes a need, then they can sell it, but it would be phenomenally stupid to sell unless and until they had a need for at least $350M.

Is your question going as to whether or not a government has some sort of compelling requirement or implicit obligation to sell assets when they reach a particular value? If that were the case, then it would just be a simple matter of establishing that threshold in whatever charters are granted to government subsidized institutions like (I presume) the NGA to be, but generally speaking the assets of a government aren't typically required to be sold when certain market value thresholds are met. That would mean the government would have to sell, say, its Capitol building simply because the market value hit an arbitrarily established threshold.

The question isn't about a requirement to sell, as I don't think there should be a rule about holding on to versus disposing assets based on a particular price.

I am the most curious, I think, about the difference between having a painting worth $350m and buying a painting worth $350m, and why, if you would not do the latter (buy it at that price today), shouldn't that imply you don't value it at $350m, and therefore you should sell it? You have something worth $350m but you'd never spend that amount to buy it today if you didn't already have it.

 

[Metaphor]

Safer in a museum than in private hands. I don't think significant pieces of art should be tradable commodities in the first place, but capitalism conquered this planet long ago.

It wouldn't necessarily be in private hands, though I hadn't considered that another national museum might be hard-pressed to come up with that amount of cash out of its acquisition budget.

 

[laughing dog]

Protect it as they would any work of art.



The NGA itself may not make direct money from displaying it, but I'm sure there are many indirect ways they make money from it (e.g., selling posters and other merch that features it; all of the food I assume they sell to museum goers; donations, either from attendance or from wealthy donors who feel that, because they are high-dollar donors they take greater pride, etc), plus the tourist dollars that are attracted to seeing it that also result in numerous and sundry service-oriented coffers being filled in the hotels and restaurants and local shops nearby the NGA, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, because of its value, there is no real need to sell it, just like any other long-term investment. If there ever comes a need, then they can sell it, but it would be phenomenally stupid to sell unless and until they had a need for at least $350M.

Is your question going as to whether or not a government has some sort of compelling requirement or implicit obligation to sell assets when they reach a particular value? If that were the case, then it would just be a simple matter of establishing that threshold in whatever charters are granted to government subsidized institutions like (I presume) the NGA to be, but generally speaking the assets of a government aren't typically required to be sold when certain market value thresholds are met. That would mean the government would have to sell, say, its Capitol building simply because the market value hit an arbitrarily established threshold.

The question isn't about a requirement to sell, as I don't think there should be a rule about holding on to versus disposing assets based on a particular price.

I am the most curious, I think, about the difference between having a painting worth $350m and buying a painting worth $350m, and why, if you would not do the latter (buy it at that price today), shouldn't that imply you don't value it at $350m, and therefore you should sell it? You have something worth $350m but you'd never spend that amount to buy it today if you didn't already have it.

One might value something at a much higher number than they are willing to pay for it due to cash constraints.

 

[Tigers!]

Speaking just for myself I am still angry that Gough wasted our money on that painting.

 

[bilby]

Protect it as they would any work of art.



The NGA itself may not make direct money from displaying it, but I'm sure there are many indirect ways they make money from it (e.g., selling posters and other merch that features it; all of the food I assume they sell to museum goers; donations, either from attendance or from wealthy donors who feel that, because they are high-dollar donors they take greater pride, etc), plus the tourist dollars that are attracted to seeing it that also result in numerous and sundry service-oriented coffers being filled in the hotels and restaurants and local shops nearby the NGA, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, because of its value, there is no real need to sell it, just like any other long-term investment. If there ever comes a need, then they can sell it, but it would be phenomenally stupid to sell unless and until they had a need for at least $350M.

Is your question going as to whether or not a government has some sort of compelling requirement or implicit obligation to sell assets when they reach a particular value? If that were the case, then it would just be a simple matter of establishing that threshold in whatever charters are granted to government subsidized institutions like (I presume) the NGA to be, but generally speaking the assets of a government aren't typically required to be sold when certain market value thresholds are met. That would mean the government would have to sell, say, its Capitol building simply because the market value hit an arbitrarily established threshold.

The question isn't about a requirement to sell, as I don't think there should be a rule about holding on to versus disposing assets based on a particular price.

I am the most curious, I think, about the difference between having a painting worth $350m and buying a painting worth $350m, and why, if you would not do the latter (buy it at that price today), shouldn't that imply you don't value it at $350m, and therefore you should sell it? You have something worth $350m but you'd never spend that amount to buy it today if you didn't already have it.

As I have said elsewhere, this is why economics will never be a science.

The assumption that people are even slightly rational in their economic decisions is utterly and mind bogglingly stupid. It's also the entire basis of economics.

 

[Derec]

I am the most curious, I think, about the difference between having a painting worth $350m and buying a painting worth $350m, and why, if you would not do the latter (buy it at that price today), shouldn't that imply you don't value it at $350m, and therefore you should sell it? You have something worth $350m but you'd never spend that amount to buy it today if you didn't already have it.

That's a well established concept in economics. It's called  endowment effect.

 

[Derec]

As I have said elsewhere, this is why economics will never be a science.

Well, it is a dismal science. Speaking of which, whatever happened to dismal?

The assumption that people are even slightly rational in their economic decisions is utterly and mind bogglingly stupid. It's also the entire basis of economics.

Not true. Plenty of work in economics is specifically about irrational behavior of individual actors.

 

[bilby]

As I have said elsewhere, this is why economics will never be a science.

Well, it is a dismal science. Speaking of which, whatever happened to dismal?

The assumption that people are even slightly rational in their economic decisions is utterly and mind bogglingly stupid. It's also the entire basis of economics.

Not true. Plenty of work in economics is specifically about irrational behavior of individual actors.

Oh, joy! Our science is a real science because we recognise that the basic data is insane!

Look! We even demonstrated how batshit crazy it all is! Now we're real scientists!!

 

[Toni]

Protect it as they would any work of art.



The NGA itself may not make direct money from displaying it, but I'm sure there are many indirect ways they make money from it (e.g., selling posters and other merch that features it; all of the food I assume they sell to museum goers; donations, either from attendance or from wealthy donors who feel that, because they are high-dollar donors they take greater pride, etc), plus the tourist dollars that are attracted to seeing it that also result in numerous and sundry service-oriented coffers being filled in the hotels and restaurants and local shops nearby the NGA, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, because of its value, there is no real need to sell it, just like any other long-term investment. If there ever comes a need, then they can sell it, but it would be phenomenally stupid to sell unless and until they had a need for at least $350M.

Is your question going as to whether or not a government has some sort of compelling requirement or implicit obligation to sell assets when they reach a particular value? If that were the case, then it would just be a simple matter of establishing that threshold in whatever charters are granted to government subsidized institutions like (I presume) the NGA to be, but generally speaking the assets of a government aren't typically required to be sold when certain market value thresholds are met. That would mean the government would have to sell, say, its Capitol building simply because the market value hit an arbitrarily established threshold.

The question isn't about a requirement to sell, as I don't think there should be a rule about holding on to versus disposing assets based on a particular price.

I am the most curious, I think, about the difference between having a painting worth $350m and buying a painting worth $350m, and why, if you would not do the latter (buy it at that price today), shouldn't that imply you don't value it at $350m, and therefore you should sell it? You have something worth $350m but you'd never spend that amount to buy it today if you didn't already have it.

As I have said elsewhere, this is why economics will never be a science.

The assumption that people are even slightly rational in their economic decisions is utterly and mind bogglingly stupid. It's also the entire basis of economics.

Say whut?

Just because YOU don't know much about or understand economics as a field (or rather, a collection of fields) doesn't mean that other people don't. It's really very much akin to saying that nothing is a science if it doesn't involve a lab coat and microscope.

 

[laughing dog]

As I have said elsewhere, this is why economics will never be a science.

Never is a long time. I am a professional economist, and I do not think that economics is a science.

The assumption that people are even slightly rational in their economic decisions is utterly and mind bogglingly stupid. It's also the entire basis of economics.

It was and still is the basis for theoretical neoclassical microeconomics. But it is not true for the entire field.

The term "rationality" in economic theory is unfortunate, because its technical meaning does not jibe with the common notion of rationality.

Some people are not slightly rational in their economic decision making. Some people are rational in the economic decision making. If one defines economic rationality as making decisions that maximize one's welfare, then it is pretty much a tautology, since it is not possible to know what an individual considers to be in their best interests.

 

[J842P]

Protect it as they would any work of art.



The NGA itself may not make direct money from displaying it, but I'm sure there are many indirect ways they make money from it (e.g., selling posters and other merch that features it; all of the food I assume they sell to museum goers; donations, either from attendance or from wealthy donors who feel that, because they are high-dollar donors they take greater pride, etc), plus the tourist dollars that are attracted to seeing it that also result in numerous and sundry service-oriented coffers being filled in the hotels and restaurants and local shops nearby the NGA, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, because of its value, there is no real need to sell it, just like any other long-term investment. If there ever comes a need, then they can sell it, but it would be phenomenally stupid to sell unless and until they had a need for at least $350M.

Is your question going as to whether or not a government has some sort of compelling requirement or implicit obligation to sell assets when they reach a particular value? If that were the case, then it would just be a simple matter of establishing that threshold in whatever charters are granted to government subsidized institutions like (I presume) the NGA to be, but generally speaking the assets of a government aren't typically required to be sold when certain market value thresholds are met. That would mean the government would have to sell, say, its Capitol building simply because the market value hit an arbitrarily established threshold.

The question isn't about a requirement to sell, as I don't think there should be a rule about holding on to versus disposing assets based on a particular price.

I am the most curious, I think, about the difference between having a painting worth $350m and buying a painting worth $350m, and why, if you would not do the latter (buy it at that price today), shouldn't that imply you don't value it at $350m, and therefore you should sell it? You have something worth $350m but you'd never spend that amount to buy it today if you didn't already have it.

As I have said elsewhere, this is why economics will never be a science.

The assumption that people are even slightly rational in their economic decisions is utterly and mind bogglingly stupid. It's also the entire basis of economics.

That's not quite fair. You are describing a dogma that is endemic to the Anglo-American sphere, which currently holds too much clout. And even then, it isn't universal.

It's not so much that economics is a dismal science, rather, too many economists are dismal scientists.

 

[J842P]

As I have said elsewhere, this is why economics will never be a science.

The assumption that people are even slightly rational in their economic decisions is utterly and mind bogglingly stupid. It's also the entire basis of economics.

Say whut?

Just because YOU don't know much about or understand economics as a field (or rather, a collection of fields) doesn't mean that other people don't. It's really very much akin to saying that nothing is a science if it doesn't involve a lab coat and microscope.

No, not really. It's the recognition that most of what passes as economics is simply untenable as a science. You have entire influential schools (e.g. the Austrians) that reject empirical methods altogether.

 

[Toni]

As I have said elsewhere, this is why economics will never be a science.

The assumption that people are even slightly rational in their economic decisions is utterly and mind bogglingly stupid. It's also the entire basis of economics.

That's not quite fair. You are describing a dogma that is endemic to the Anglo-American sphere, which currently holds too much clout. And even then, it isn't universal.

It's not so much that economics is a dismal science, rather, too many economists are dismal scientists.

I think it’s very easy to beat up on economists, largely because so many people think they understand that terms which are narrowly defined by the discipline are equivalent to the broader, less specific meaning in common parlance. Because economics seeks to describe complex systems of interactions which are predicated on human behavior which is not entirely predictable or always rational and is never controlled by a single purpose or motive—much less a perfect understanding of their own motivations or the consequences of their actions.

 

[J842P]

As I have said elsewhere, this is why economics will never be a science.

The assumption that people are even slightly rational in their economic decisions is utterly and mind bogglingly stupid. It's also the entire basis of economics.

That's not quite fair. You are describing a dogma that is endemic to the Anglo-American sphere, which currently holds too much clout. And even then, it isn't universal.

It's not so much that economics is a dismal science, rather, too many economists are dismal scientists.

I think it’s very easy to beat up on economists, largely because so many people think they understand that terms which are narrowly defined by the discipline are equivalent to the broader, less specific meaning in common parlance. Because economics seeks to describe

Maybe. But it's also easy to beat up on economics understanding all of that. Particularly in America.