"You stashed the paintings in the fireproof safe behind the wine cellar. You've been building that cellar for 18 months. That's pretty long for such a modest improvement. Your neighbors sure know it's been that long. They've been complaining about the noise every two weeks like clockwork. But the contractor reports you stopped work on it in the middle for no reason for four months. Yet your neighbors didn't stop filing their noise complaints. They didn't miss even one. That's also why the shelves are metal on one side. You told the contractor it was to save money, but really you did it to minimize fire damage to that wall. Now all we have to do is break through this cinder block."
Wonder about the cause of fire. Seems like more care would have been taken to suppress fire (proactive system) with all that money. Hopefully it’s not some insurance scam.
Someone had very expensive cigars and had it insured. Then he burned it while smoking them and tried to file claim they were destroyed in fire.
He was charged with fraud.
If someone's going to have very expensive collection and intended to pull some form of insurance fraud, they won't do much in the way of protection like fire suppression. Remove paintings and sell it in the black market, then "accidentally" start a fire with a lit candle left unattended in a room with lots of paper.
Oof. I thought for a moment, "maybe the house didn't really burn down and it's all a ploy" but yeah.. she gone:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/6635+Ridge+Rd,+Pentwater,+MI+49449/@43.768798,-86.4486489,186a,35y,113.85h,56.75t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x881c085b91724ae3:0xcd0fc859a3f3268e!8m2!3d43.76762!4d-86.444877!16s%2Fg%2F11dfh4pgnt?entry=ttu
Interesting. This is the same guy who made a boatload when Elon Musk bought Twitter. He also lost TWO houses last year, the one that burned down and another in Hurricane Ian in Florida.
[Ny Post](https://nypost.com/2022/10/05/investor-matt-halbower-set-to-bag-windfall-from-elon-musks-twitter-deal/)
It's far more safe in a museum than in a private home. Art museums especially go to great lengths to make sure the art they hold is protected. Any object is not going to be invincible to all dangers (fire, theft, earthquakes, floods, etc.) but at museums there are at least failsafes and redundancies in place.
I don't really see how. My house is full of art, including many that I have commissioned.
When does the art transform? When do I go from a patron of the arts to a hoarder of things that should be in a museum?
Open to interpretation and I am absolutely NOT an expert or even a Novice in the category. But if I'm being put to the trial because of my comments I would say...if the art you have is from a pivotal time of teachable history like the turning of a century, during a major event like the Renassiance, or uses cultural resources (like paints from Africa or Paris in the early 18th century) or is from a very famous painter that isn't widely available anymore....those kind of things, I would say it should be in a museum for all to enjoy.
And keep in mind, that someone can still own art and still keep it in a museum for safekeeping (to prevent what happened for these Monets), SO many art exhibits are on loan from private owners.
These are great philosophical questions and all, but why do you think one person should have the right to deny all of the rest of us the enjoyment of great art? Dudes like you would sell the Statue of Liberty to the highest bidder.
Your comment is reminding me of the story of Maria Altman and The Woman in Gold. Jewish family from Austria lost everything during WW2, after the war she lived in America. A museum in Vienna had possession of the painting of her aunt, painted by Klimpt, and claimed it was part of the national identity. It sounds like you'd side with the museum.
There's a point where pieces of art become historical.
No one's really making impressionist paintings anymore. Fewer are some of the best examples of the school.
Sounds like we shouldn't be allowing the rich to hold onto humanity's common cultural heritage if they can't be responsible enough to take care of it properly.
Take back all privately-held historical art. It belongs to us all.
Who deems what art is historical? Who’s going to house it all and who decides how much to charge to view it?
There are hundreds of original Picasso works available to buy on eBay, mind you.
Our family is in this area, it's WIDELY suspected to be insurance fraud. They built that house up for 5 years and then never were there. The house stayed empty even on the big summer holidays where you'd think they'd want to utilize their giant private beach on Lake Michigan. Then one day it randomly burns to the ground, I think within the first year it was finished, i'd have to check.
Small Michigan towns have a long history of people with lots of money building giant mansions and trying to pull one over on the local government by doing things like suing for lower property taxes. It is on everyone's mind here that we could be looking at an insurance fraud case.
It’s funny how it’s only a tragedy because it was unintentionally destroyed. Throw motor oil on it and glue yourself to the floor and people will call you a hero.
Babe idk if u know this but throwing soup (what they were actually throwing) and gluing your hands to the floor doesn't damage the painting.
There are literally people whose jobs is to clean the art pieces in museums
You never wondered how they managed to look so clean despite being painted centuries ago??
That’s not true - the activists are usually prepared by researching that the paintings are protected by glass. If they were uncovered, they would be damaged.
“While their actions may be disruptive, in Rogge’s view, they are still relatively harmless. “Thus far, it seems that most of these individuals have been respectful in their approaches to this,” she said. “
Just Stop Oil and other groups take care not to damage the paintings - https://news.artnet.com/art-world/here-is-every-artwork-attacked-by-climate-activists-this-year-from-the-mona-lisa-to-girl-with-a-pearl-earring-2200804
“You could argue that they’ve violated museums’ trust in visitors in doing this, but the gluing of one’s hand to the frame will impact the frame—it’s not going to impact the painting. Conservators are incredibly highly trained, and will be able to respond appropriately, and treat the work ethically with the care and respect that it deserves.”
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/museum-climate-protesters-glue-risk-2165891/amp-page
Thanks - I don’t condone that behavior and I find the connection to gain visibility isn’t worth the risk - but they do seem to be conscientious about it.
The owner will be reimbursed but history is lost
The insurance company is fighting it
Well, of course they are. No insurance company wants to pay out. All insurance companies just want your money no matter what.
One of the few times I side with the insurance company. Art like this should be uninsurable.
But if we as customers are willing to give insurance companies our money at their terms, they should be obligated to give it back.
It is uninsurable in California, as I'm told.
Nah, it's going in the black market.
This seems like a case for Banacek.
"You stashed the paintings in the fireproof safe behind the wine cellar. You've been building that cellar for 18 months. That's pretty long for such a modest improvement. Your neighbors sure know it's been that long. They've been complaining about the noise every two weeks like clockwork. But the contractor reports you stopped work on it in the middle for no reason for four months. Yet your neighbors didn't stop filing their noise complaints. They didn't miss even one. That's also why the shelves are metal on one side. You told the contractor it was to save money, but really you did it to minimize fire damage to that wall. Now all we have to do is break through this cinder block."
Wonder about the cause of fire. Seems like more care would have been taken to suppress fire (proactive system) with all that money. Hopefully it’s not some insurance scam.
Someone had very expensive cigars and had it insured. Then he burned it while smoking them and tried to file claim they were destroyed in fire. He was charged with fraud. If someone's going to have very expensive collection and intended to pull some form of insurance fraud, they won't do much in the way of protection like fire suppression. Remove paintings and sell it in the black market, then "accidentally" start a fire with a lit candle left unattended in a room with lots of paper.
Hubris makes people do weird shit.
Well we all know the .1%...
Oof. I thought for a moment, "maybe the house didn't really burn down and it's all a ploy" but yeah.. she gone: https://www.google.com/maps/place/6635+Ridge+Rd,+Pentwater,+MI+49449/@43.768798,-86.4486489,186a,35y,113.85h,56.75t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x881c085b91724ae3:0xcd0fc859a3f3268e!8m2!3d43.76762!4d-86.444877!16s%2Fg%2F11dfh4pgnt?entry=ttu
They could've theoretically taken the paintings out before torching the place.
Yep, burned indeed. It’s a black mark.
Pain…
Interesting. This is the same guy who made a boatload when Elon Musk bought Twitter. He also lost TWO houses last year, the one that burned down and another in Hurricane Ian in Florida. [Ny Post](https://nypost.com/2022/10/05/investor-matt-halbower-set-to-bag-windfall-from-elon-musks-twitter-deal/)
Which is why they should be in a museum not in some asshole's house.
It's not like putting it in a museum guarantees it will be safe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_Brazil_fire
It's far more safe in a museum than in a private home. Art museums especially go to great lengths to make sure the art they hold is protected. Any object is not going to be invincible to all dangers (fire, theft, earthquakes, floods, etc.) but at museums there are at least failsafes and redundancies in place.
So people shouldn’t be allowed to buy art? How are artists supposed to make money?
Cute assuming those long dead artists made money.
I think Claude Monet of all people is a poor example of the starving artist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fondation_Monet_in_Giverny
BIG difference between existing artists making money and people hoarding priceless works of historical art.
I don't really see how. My house is full of art, including many that I have commissioned. When does the art transform? When do I go from a patron of the arts to a hoarder of things that should be in a museum?
Open to interpretation and I am absolutely NOT an expert or even a Novice in the category. But if I'm being put to the trial because of my comments I would say...if the art you have is from a pivotal time of teachable history like the turning of a century, during a major event like the Renassiance, or uses cultural resources (like paints from Africa or Paris in the early 18th century) or is from a very famous painter that isn't widely available anymore....those kind of things, I would say it should be in a museum for all to enjoy. And keep in mind, that someone can still own art and still keep it in a museum for safekeeping (to prevent what happened for these Monets), SO many art exhibits are on loan from private owners.
Art of great cultural significance should be in museums.
What determines cultural significance and why do you have the right to say a private person can't own it?
These are great philosophical questions and all, but why do you think one person should have the right to deny all of the rest of us the enjoyment of great art? Dudes like you would sell the Statue of Liberty to the highest bidder.
Your comment is reminding me of the story of Maria Altman and The Woman in Gold. Jewish family from Austria lost everything during WW2, after the war she lived in America. A museum in Vienna had possession of the painting of her aunt, painted by Klimpt, and claimed it was part of the national identity. It sounds like you'd side with the museum.
Tl;dr, Everyone you disagree with is a Nazi If only I could downvote twice.
If that's what you took from it, that's ok. Wasn't what I said or meant, though.
Thank you for the opportunity to downvote you a second time.
Do you understand how much art in museums is there on loan or because it was donated?
There's a point where pieces of art become historical. No one's really making impressionist paintings anymore. Fewer are some of the best examples of the school.
Who decides that and gets to say "sorry, we've decided that painting is too old and we are repossessing it"?
Just wait until these kids find out many pieces of art in museums are loaned to the museum from private collections.
Is this like when guns go missing during a ‘boating accident’
This seems a case for Columbo
Sounds like we shouldn't be allowing the rich to hold onto humanity's common cultural heritage if they can't be responsible enough to take care of it properly. Take back all privately-held historical art. It belongs to us all.
Do you know just *how much* art there is?
A whole fucking lot, so we should get started.
Where are you going to put it all?
Who deems what art is historical? Who’s going to house it all and who decides how much to charge to view it? There are hundreds of original Picasso works available to buy on eBay, mind you.
Dali used to doodle on his checks so that people wouldn't cash them.
> Take back all privately-held historical art. It belongs to us all. And who decided that? What if those works were commissioned work?
All that money and artwork and yet no fire suppression system in the house.
Let them eat cake.
Why are they just in a rando's mansion?
It is a rich rando
Rich person loses some shit
Can’t imagine some rich hedge fund (probably billionaire) would be dishonest. I’m sure it’s all on the level.
I’d be curious to see the remains. Surely some still exist.
Insurance scam incoming.
Insurance shouldn’t pay and they should be prosecuted. I know it’s not illegal. It should be.
Prosecute for what?
Nothins’ forever.
Too bad it wasn't in a museum or gallery. Now it was just another part of insurance fraud.
On what basis are you alleging fraud?
Our family is in this area, it's WIDELY suspected to be insurance fraud. They built that house up for 5 years and then never were there. The house stayed empty even on the big summer holidays where you'd think they'd want to utilize their giant private beach on Lake Michigan. Then one day it randomly burns to the ground, I think within the first year it was finished, i'd have to check. Small Michigan towns have a long history of people with lots of money building giant mansions and trying to pull one over on the local government by doing things like suing for lower property taxes. It is on everyone's mind here that we could be looking at an insurance fraud case.
"Rich people bad and everything they do is bad".
It’s funny how it’s only a tragedy because it was unintentionally destroyed. Throw motor oil on it and glue yourself to the floor and people will call you a hero.
[удалено]
Funny thing is few even know their name or what they want. It's almost like the stunt didn't work and was just an excuse to be vandals.
[удалено]
Yeah, they are well known and you are right.
>just an excuse to be vandals. what a neanderthal lol
Tried that, got called an “Hey asshole, get the fuck off the road”….we live in different worlds apparently
Babe idk if u know this but throwing soup (what they were actually throwing) and gluing your hands to the floor doesn't damage the painting. There are literally people whose jobs is to clean the art pieces in museums You never wondered how they managed to look so clean despite being painted centuries ago??
That’s not true - the activists are usually prepared by researching that the paintings are protected by glass. If they were uncovered, they would be damaged.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
“While their actions may be disruptive, in Rogge’s view, they are still relatively harmless. “Thus far, it seems that most of these individuals have been respectful in their approaches to this,” she said. “ Just Stop Oil and other groups take care not to damage the paintings - https://news.artnet.com/art-world/here-is-every-artwork-attacked-by-climate-activists-this-year-from-the-mona-lisa-to-girl-with-a-pearl-earring-2200804 “You could argue that they’ve violated museums’ trust in visitors in doing this, but the gluing of one’s hand to the frame will impact the frame—it’s not going to impact the painting. Conservators are incredibly highly trained, and will be able to respond appropriately, and treat the work ethically with the care and respect that it deserves.” https://news.artnet.com/art-world/museum-climate-protesters-glue-risk-2165891/amp-page
Imma be honest I misread your comment that I replied to. I thought you was saying summat different lol
Thanks - I don’t condone that behavior and I find the connection to gain visibility isn’t worth the risk - but they do seem to be conscientious about it.
Privately held paintings that no one but their wealthy friends would ever see. Nothing of value lost. 🤷
“Is it Monet or monet” Danny ocean
That's how the cookie crumbles. At least we can still make prints.
Paint some new ones. Wtf.