Bush supporters' aftermath thread

OB, since you addressed it on another thread which is curious in itself, I'm in no way discounting your sentimental attachment with the copy of the Picasso. Equating a value to it with the tired old platitude, "I wouldn't sell it for $2,000" I do take issue with. Why not, "I wouldn't sell it for a million dollars" (the usual form of that ridiculous sentiment). I didn't realize you were such a sentimental guy but trying to prove that Kinkade's are worth what they are worth when they are produced so cheaply by making that comparison to some sentimental attachment to an artwork doesn't work.

I'm just happy Bush is president and not Kerry. Imagine if Kerry had been nominated? Well, I shouldn't even ask that question because Kerry knew from the beginning he was going to lose that's why he dropped.
I just hope Bush starts taking action with the other Terror Countries, especially in the Mid-East.

I thought, Kerry had been nominated

You are out of line, and apparently out of your depth of perception. I chose the figure $2,000 somewhat randomly at 10 times the $200 price. The statement is however, true. I have lots of paintings but none garner as much attention as that one from those who recognize it as well as those who don't. It has been prominently displayed in my Foyer for years and it is not for sale.

Because I prefer honest statements (nothing ridiculous about the one I made). A million dollars will buy you anything in my life that doesn't have a heartbeat. $2,000 won't.
Where did you get such a ridiculous idea? I tried to prove no such thing. Dys suggested I had more Kinkade's than he. After reading your explanation for what that meant, I concluded it didn't fit me and decided to share my favorite piece with my A2K friends. Many know exactly who I mean when I say "my favorite Russian". Your insulting tone from beginning to end here was as unnecessary as it was inexplicable. You are imagining reasons to snipe out at me. Why?

It should be obvious to everyone that a painting is worth exactly how much a willing buyer is willing to pay for it in an open market.

Is see, OB -- you weren't trying to demonstrate anything. I took it another way so let's mark it up to a misunderstanding.

No, an appraiser will not appraise a painting, and especially a commercial print, because it changed hands for any certain amount of money. Artworks are appraised at far less than the so-called market value more times than not because that cannot be trusted.

If one is foolish enough to buy a Kinkade, they had better like it. It's only worth a small percentage of what they are paying for it. In others words, contrary to popular belief, an artwork carried out of a gallery in general depreciates more than anything else one can buy. Only 1% of art appreciates -- why that handful of artist's work does appreciate is complicated and sometimes difficult to comprehend.

Bingo. The painting by the unknown artist I previously mentioned I am guessing would appraise for maybe $200 just based on the quality, frame, and a ballpark square inch assessment. Some (my husband) wouldn't have bought it at any price though he has warmed up to it now that he's used to it. I would have paid considerably more for it because I do like it.

Even if I had it, I wouldn't pay a million dollars for anything except maybe to ransom a loved one. There is no painting or object d'art anywhere or no inanimate object or no property that is worth that to me.

The 'bingo' was to Tico by the way. I disagree completely with LW who seems to place only a montetary value on art.

Monetary value is what the discussion had leaned toward with Kinkade -- he is placing a market price with a monetary value that is not just unrealistic, it's a scam (he owns the company who publishes the work, including the facility that cranks out all the paint dabbed copies). Which is why he is deluged in lawsuits and trying to go public (which the last time I heard was not working well for him because of the lawsuits). Where did you get the idea that I place only a monatary value on art? Untrue. Appraisers place a monetary value on art -- I am not an appraiser but I have had to discern a retail price for artwork in the several galleries I have owned and worked for.

Tico's statement could not be further from the truth -- an artwork is seldom worth what a buyer is willing to pay. People buy art knowing little about what they are buying and rely on what the salesperson is telling them (so much of it being BS). So called market value and intrinsic value rarely agree. That's why seriously collecting art is only for the professional and almost always someone with a great deal of money to speculate.

I find the notion that art must be appraised at far less than FMV to be silly. Equally silly is the statement that a Kinkade is worth only a small percentage of what a particular buyer paid for it. I can only laugh at someone who would believe there is no market to purchase that painting for as much as as it was purchased for, and that demonstrates a strange and narrow view of the free market. Perhaps LW meant to say that an "art snob" or "art professional" might not feel the Kinkade to be worth what its FMV is. While that may or may not be true, it would be incorrect to presume that as a result of that, the painting is not worth its FMV. A painting (or anything else for that matter) is worth exactly what a willing buyer is willing to pay for it ... the suggestion that the painting is worth only its "intrinsic value" notwithstanding.

The only thing sillier is that we are discussing the value of art on this thread.

The fact is, and Foxfyre demonstrated it with an example, is that a majority of art is appraised at far less than one paid for it. No "art snob" could be trusted to appraise a Kinkade because they wouldn't even address it. An art professional such as a credentialed appraiser would appraise it at only a small percentage of the retail price. By all means, if you like this art go out an buy it (I can get it for far less than wholesale). An artwork is not worth what one is willing to pay for it but for themselves only. If they get it appraised for an insurance loss it is nearly always a rude awakening.
I am not saying it's worth what you would pay for it -- that's up to you to rationalize. In my experience, unknowing buyers have suffered a bad case of buyer's remorse.

This actually does have something to do with this thread as politicians are marketed in the same way -- all show with little substance.

Well it will strain logic a bit to make the leap, but let's try to use a discussion on the value of art as a metaphor for political values that resulted in George W. Bush winning the last two elections. Except for the art snobs (okay I'll relent and call them dealers) who trade in art for profit only, what art is worth is an intangible based on individual tastes, preferences, and sometimes emotional needs. There can also be a practical element or two. (The previously mentioned abstract painting by an unknown artist happened to have the exact shades of mauve and turquoise that ccordinated perfectly with my bedroom decor.)

George Bush and the GOP are much maligned by the opposition and are accused of everything in the book from being Imperialistic pigs, Nazi-ism, greedy grubby oil barons, in bed with the rich fat cats, etc. etc. etc Now all those are tangibles and can be proved or disproved on the merits of the facts however differently each side views those facts.

I don't think any of this was what got George Bush elected or re-elected, however. I think a deeper analysis would show that GWB and the GOP were perceived to be the party that make people feel safer and more secure in their person and in their property, more confident that their basic traditions and values would not be further eroded or obliterated from the public consciousness, and more assured that campaign promises were not just empty rhetoric to fool more fools into voting for them.

All these things are intangible, much in what makes us be drawn to a particular work of art. The elitist snobs hold us in scorn for our artistic tastes. So its not surprising that the same hold us in contempt for our political views.

World peace doesn't hinge on any of this of course, but it's interesting, at least for me, to think about.

When I speak of "worth", I'm referring to Fair Market Value (FMV). Your statement ...



... is not a correct representation of FMV, if the buyer is the only one willing to pay that sum. But whatever price a buyer - any buyer - is able to sell goods for is defined as the FMV of the goods, absent fraud.

Using wine as another example, let's suppose there is a bottle of wine that an wine snob appraises as worth $3 a bottle. The wine snob would say the wine is only worth $3, yet if a merchant on the corner is able to sell the wine for $7 a bottle, that is its FMV by definition. Are you denying that the FMV - the "worth" - of that bottle of wine, is $7?

You've gotten the "picture" somewhat, Foxfyre. A President is elected not by substance but by who wins with their marketing scheme. Again, caveat emptor.

As to art snobs looking down on your art taste which I have no idea what that is, I don't expect you to be bothered by that. "They" would likely criticize me for picking out some decorative art pieces which I feel are well executed and just happen to enhance a decor. I love a lot of serious art but wouldn't consider living with it. I'd rather have a reproduction of an Ingres painting than anything Kinkade and his elves have painted.

LW writes


I disagree profoundly just as I disagree that an art appraiser can guage the value of art for anyone other than those who deal in art for profit only. Who are you, or who is anybody, to say what a Kincaid painting is worth? If it pleases the eye, if it looks good hanging over the mantle or wherever, if it makes the beholder happy to look at it, it is worth what somebody is willing to pay to get that. You could say the same of an Elvis or a bullfighter on velvet (and no, I don't own any velvet paintings either.) If you like that kind of thing, the $ amount doesn't matter if it is an amount you don't mind paying. The vast majority of people who buy art could care less what it is worth. They buy it because the like it and want to have it or they think somebody else will like it. And however much it is worth to them is the FMV.

And we usually vote for the person we like the most for president, and the reason we like one person more than another is for those intangible components that you can't put a $ amount on, but are no less real or important to those who want them.

Why don't we sum up this digression thusly: LW doesn't like Kinkade.

Any more to add to that?

Well only if you add LW thinks we're blooming idiots if we do.

would you like to "sofa-size" that Kinkade?

I will agree on one thing LW said; however. If you pay $1000 for a painting and it appraises for $2000, and it is stolen or destroyed, you are not penalized for a good buy--you get $2000 from the insurance company. Conversely if you pay $1000 dollars for a painting and it appraises for $100, you get a $100 from the insurance company.

Now if there was just some way to insure those politicians, we might be a lot more careful about who we elected.

What you get from an insurance company is the FMV of the insured property. Appraisals are a good way of determining what the value of artwork is, but appraisals alone are not solely determinative of FMV in all cases. There is less of a market for "fine art" than automobiles, and when you are talking "unique" property it is particularly difficult to determine FMV ... thus an appraisal is more helpful. But where there is a ready market for goods, such as with automobiles, an appraisal has less of a bearing on the ultimate determination of FMV. The appraisal might be $100, but if you can show a buyer (perhaps other than yourself) has indicated a desire to purchase the property for a higher amount ($1,000 for instance), that is good evidence of the FMV of property.