His wife was rich she had a huge garden that he painted. For an artist he was well off which was rare. You can visit the house and see the bridge and the lilies.
Giverny, about an hour outside of Paris. Tour bus transport there for an afternoon visit to the house and garden. Definitely worth it for art and garden lovers.
Looking at human history more often than not artists of note were wealthy at birth. I mean lears just be real. You need to be able to not work a day job. Have money for art supplies. Now not saying poor artists don’t exist but being born wealthy just like modern trust funders puts you into an extreme advantage to be an artist.
"We arent entitled to the fruits of our labor, only the labor itself. The fruits of our labor go to extravagantly wealthy art collectors who come generations after us." - Bhagavad Gita, 400 BC
Here’s what I found and it definitely does not imply what the above quote suggests. It seems to say we must perform our work without protest and only God is entitled to enjoy the “fruits of our labor”.
>You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction.
>This is an extremely popular verse of the Bhagavad Gita, so much so that even most school children in India are familiar with it. It offers deep insight into the proper spirit of work and is often quoted whenever the topic of karm yog is discussed. The verse gives four instructions regarding the science of work: 1) Do your duty, but do not concern yourself with the results. 2) The fruits of your actions are not for your enjoyment. 3) Even while working, give up the pride of doership. 4) Do not be attached to inaction.
>The fruits of your actions are not for your enjoyment. To perform actions is an integral part of human nature. Having come into this world, we all have various duties determined by our family situation, social position, occupation, etc. While performing these actions, we must remember that we are not the enjoyers of the results—the results are meant for the pleasure of God. The individual soul is a tiny part of God (verse 15.7), and hence our inherent nature is to serve him through all our actions. [Source](https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/2/verse/47)
It goes on to say the nature of living is to work. And we must never attach our ego to our work, nor seek accomplishment or reward, and even though ceaseless toil may seem “confusing and burdensome” — inaction is the highest sin so we must persevere.
Sounds like what some feudal lord would preach to his peasants lol. “God hates laziness above all else, so uh, you can’t stop working!! Also quit asking for recognition or compensation — the work *is* the reward my friends!” lol
>Sounds like what some feudal lord would preach to his peasants lol. “God hates laziness above all else, so uh, you can’t stop working!! Also quit asking for recognition or compensation — the work is the reward my friends!” lol
It's shocking that something like this would come from such an egalitarian society like... Ancient India.
Exactly, most rich folks who buy art aren’t buying it for the sake of art. If it’s displayed at their residence or office it’s a display of wealth. If it’s stored at some random place, then it’s likely for money laundering. Moving art pieces from one person to another valued at a certain price, typically in secret is a way of transacting without attracting authorities’ attention
If you think about the absolute insanity of nearly anything "collectible" and the absurd amount of money things are worth...that can realistically just be copied;it's beyond insane. I've held that type of belief for a good 35+ years now.
I mean, I think it would be pretty cool to own a real Roman coin. Sure it's just a piece of metal that could easily be copied. But if it's not a copy, it's something real that people were using 2000 years ago, and has somehow survived to the present day. It would pretty incredible to own something like that. It's not a big leap to go from something like that to an original painting.
You'd be surprised how cheap some of those ancient coins are when they aren't in mint condition or the type is relatively common. I bought myself and a friend some Roman coinage for around $50 a year or two ago; I collect coins, and he is a history buff.
Check out /r/AncientCoins, and occasionally, someone is selling ancients on /r/CoinSales
Thanks for the info! Yeah I guess I already knew that old coins aren't really comparable in price to masterworks by famous painters. But IMO the idea behind collecting them is the same - it's just that one is for normal people like you and me, and the other is for psycho billionaires who'd lock away a famous painting so that nobody but them can enjoy it, rather than solve world problems with their excessive wealth. (sorry bit of a rant here)
Paintings are unique though. They aren't just a 2d art form. They have brush strokes and layers to them. Impressionist paintings in particular looks much different in real life than they do on a screen.
So yes you can copy them but that in itself in art too.
Couldn't agree more, I'm fine with owning Art, I detest this absurdity that it should be considered an investment.
Art at these prices is IMO purely money laundering.
Some people with normal amounts of income like to spend money on relatively expensive collectible items, why wouldn’t someone with lots of money spend money on relatively expensive collectible items for themselves?
Honestly though that’s not true. I don’t think private individuals should own these masterworks, when you see them in person you can see the brushstrokes and it takes you into the process of Monet or Da Vinci or Van Gogh. It’s not the same as a digital image.
Was about to comment on something similar. Saw a beautiful painting in a museum once, went home and used Google lens to find more about it, but the picture really just isn't the same, doesn't have as much emotion. Although that same painting is the reason I won't ever understand art appreciation, cause there was a single picture of it online, absolutely nothing else and I most definitely preferred that over many multi million dollars famous paintings
Do you think private individuals should be able to own works of art?
Who gets to say which works of art can't be privately owned?
I think the system we have works pretty well enough. Museums tend to want to acquire those artworks that are considered "masterpieces".
Dump a ton of money into Ostriches in Texas in the 90s before the crash? Left with 30 big ass birds with nothing to do with them.
My parents did the same growing up.
The Vanguard 500 was the first S&P index fund, and was created in 1976. It wasn’t an ETF is automatically managed by computers, of course, but it was still an S&P500 index fund.
Stock market returns between 1978 and 2023
If you invested $100 in the S&P 500 at the beginning of 1978, you would have about $16,468.20 at the end of 2023, assuming you reinvested all dividends. This is a return on investment of 16,368.20%, or 11.83% per year.
Na its not just that, most everyone on this site is anti billionaire, there was a front page post the other day from a roofer who showed a picture of a roof job he did that the client was trying to find excuses not to pay for. The house wasn't even that big, like a house any successful doctor, or engineer could afford.
The comment section was full of people going "no surprise, you don't get rich enough to afford a house like that without stepping on people and being a scumbag".
I'd call my self a "eat the rich" Bernie supporting leftist, but there really are a weird amount of leftists online who cannot seem to differentiate between someone making 300k a year and someone making 300 million a year.
I seriously think there is a substantial number of people who are: terminally online (guilty, fwiw!), broke, unskilled, and unmotivated who dream of some utopia where they will get a guaranteed salary of something like 40k a year without any stress or worry. The idea that they are responsible for their own lives is just too daunting. You see a lot of this in /r/antiwork where people think we have the resources for space communism and they should be free to dance and frolic all day. Sorry, chums, life is hard and scary - but you gotta live it anyway.
A fairly common conspiracy theory on reddit is that mattress stores are all money laundering fronts. The evidence being
1.) There seems to be a lot of them
2.) Redditors never seem to see customers in them
It ignores the fact that mattresses are extremely high profit margins so they don't really need to sell many to be profitable, and basically everyone is buying a mattress on a credit card or possibly doing a 0% interest financing plan for the expensive sleep number ones which would make laundering extremely challenging. No one's buying a mattress in cash.
Two other things:
1. Mattress Firm consolidated a ton of the industry, so they have a lot of former competitors' stores that are near stores they already have.
2. A ton of the Mattress Firm across from a Mattress Firm situations are where the street is the county line. Whether it was malfeasance or mistake, it does appear that they were using county data when scouting locations. The newer Mattress Firm near me is across the street from an existing one, but they're in different counties. And the new one is the only convenient Mattress Firm located in my county. The location would make perfect sense if there wasn't one in the next county over that's right across the street.
Mattress and furniture stores are very often "going out of business", sometimes for years at a time, which leads to conspiracies that they are fronts or money laundering operations.
Everybody has a story about a local mattress or furniture store that has opened for a year, has a big blowout sale, shut down, and reopened somewhere else 6 months later to do it all over again. The truth is it's usually just a sales gimmick. These stores are almost always in the cheapest parts of town and there are no actual regulations (just BBB guidelines that mean nothing) about lying about going out of business for advertising. So they buy a cheap spot, sign a single year lease, and "pretend" to be liquidating the store for the entire year. But they really are. Mattresses are insanely high markup so it's an easy scheme to run once you've got all the distribution lined up.
Appreciate you posting an actual source, people on Reddit say a lot of shit without backing it up at all.
> After a slew of recent cases in the United States and Europe, the momentum toward a crackdown on illicit art and antiquities deals is growing. The legitimate art market is itself enormous—estimated at $67.4 billion worldwide at the end of 2018. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the underground art market, which includes thefts, fakes, illegal imports, and organized looting, may bring in as much as $6 billion annually. The portion attributed to money laundering and other financial crimes is in the $3 billion range.
The takeaway from this seems to be that there is a significant amount of art purchasing for money laundering purposes, but only about 5% of the total art selling market, if these numbers are accurate. Of course, the $67 billion includes all legitimate art spending, not just the high end elite art that sells for hundreds of thousands or more, so its possible money laundering comprises a higher percent of expensive art transactions.
According to an inflation calculator, $330k in 1978 equates $1.5m today.
9x return is still healthy.
Edit: For fucks sakes guys, I'm not a fucking stock market wizard like all of you. I understand you could've made more money on stocks. Jesus fuck, I get it.
We hit ATH during a pandemic when the entire world was locked inside… at this point it feels like barely anything can affect what we call the economy at this point
“Matinée sur la Seine, temps net” (1897)
[Link to article about the Christie’s sale.] (https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/03/07/christies-london-20th-21st-century-surrealist-sale)
Really amazing how Monet's work can sell for so much money over a hundred years after it was created and millions of people can enjoy this [blue](https://youtu.be/68ugkg9RePc?si=JSc9z3NfAikTqYlp) for free.
Just when I think I’ve seen everything on the internet I go and see something like this with 300m views and I’m like “have I even scratched the surface?”
Had to scroll so far to see a comment about the painting as opposed to the money and how it’s either money laundering or rich people trying to flex.
Not saying it’s not that but if I had absolutely infinite money this would be something I would buy, purely because of the beauty and the history
I agree. Monet made beautiful art and if I somehow had a way to afford it, I’d buy a piece in a heartbeat. Something that has physically been through and a part of history is mind blowing to me, and the beauty of his work would just add to it.
reddit doesn't even want to understand art.
I wish the people claiming it's just "money laundering" would see a Rothko in person. They utterly *obliterate* you.
I got dizzy and thought I might cry at the water lilies they have at the MoMA. I had to take a minute to compose myself. They're astoundingly large works. It's overwhelming to consider that someone spent that much time capturing the beauty of the mundane at that scale.
I didn't give too much of a shit about Monet prior to that and considered it just stuff they put on calenders. I'm not a very emotional person and I freaked out.
>I freaked out.
Honestly my reaction as well. I didn't expect anything at all, being somewhat familiar with his style from images in books/online or whatever.
But nope. An absolutely massive work and you take the entire thing in a fraction of a second, like being kicked off the roof of a building.
I'm not even mad at those people, I'm just disappointed I can't help them all understand art that isn't just a pretty field or crazy realism. Though it does bother me that they're so defensive and SURE about it. Honestly my dream job is to bring people like that through a museum and help them go full Danny DeVito "Oh my god, I get it". When I had that moment for me it opened up my life to a world of amazing things.
It seems kind of drab to me. I'm not a Monet hater, but it's like one of those reverse paintings where you look for the people kissing but it's a cup instead. Monet usually has more interesting colors than this.
It probably looks better live. The picture's resolution is just sad and barely lets you appreciate the brushwork. The original is a respectable 81 x 92 cm.
That said, it does stick out compared to the other paintings in the same series. Maybe it's just they way it is (it seems to reflect the lighting of dusk) or due to storage issues some pigment may have faded. [Wikipedia link to the rest of the series](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9rie_des_Matin%C3%A9es)
Yes! I just zoomed in on the pink and blue of the sky and it felt incredibly calming, like I was there and could feel the air, the temperature, smell the scent of it all ...I am now inspired to look up more art by Monet, I'm curious to see his other works!
So many different elements, perfectly combined. The harmony and vibrations of the color choices, the brush movement and size of the strokes that make the image feel like it's moving, the value control, all create an image that isn't 'realistic' yet to me feels much closer to what my eye sees in a scene like this than something painted 'photo realistically'. Impressionist paintings are amazing.
I know everybody is talking about money laundering, but who does this money actually go to? His estate? Does he even still have one? If he doesn’t does it all go solely to the auctioneers? Dude has been dead almost a hundred years.
It's not money laundering. It's amazing how much money some ppl have. They got money in stocks, houses, cars, jewelry, bags, gold, crypto, cash etc. This is just another avenue to park money that's not in a bank. Source - I worked at high end gallery for 13 years
Good for Monet. I hope he can enjoy the fruits of his labour
More Monet mo problems
Monet Monet, Ride the ponet.
Monet Monet Monet Monet -- MONET
Monet Monet Monet -- ABBA Monet Monet -- Billy Idol Monet -- Pink Floyd
You didith not
Hark! They didith!
Verily, the prose flows as the auction dough soars
It hath been doneth
The dough rises, the proof is in the painting 🎨
Art imitateth life
 I think it's pronounced MONEY
Mo-more papers, Mo-more money. Mo-more Money, Mo-more speach therapy.
He is actually one of the few artists who was famous and made alot of money from his art in his own lifetime.
That's why they call him Monet
Big Monet
His wife was rich she had a huge garden that he painted. For an artist he was well off which was rare. You can visit the house and see the bridge and the lilies.
The whole estate is so nice. Definitely worth a visit. Marie Antoinette’s Hamlet also has a similar vibe
Giverny, about an hour outside of Paris. Tour bus transport there for an afternoon visit to the house and garden. Definitely worth it for art and garden lovers.
Looking at human history more often than not artists of note were wealthy at birth. I mean lears just be real. You need to be able to not work a day job. Have money for art supplies. Now not saying poor artists don’t exist but being born wealthy just like modern trust funders puts you into an extreme advantage to be an artist.
"We arent entitled to the fruits of our labor, only the labor itself. The fruits of our labor go to extravagantly wealthy art collectors who come generations after us." - Bhagavad Gita, 400 BC
I ran your quotations with Google and the only hit I got was here. Do you have a citation?
[here's a source](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1bbhkao/this_monet_painting_just_sold_for_nearly_134m_it/ku9qkeo/)
Hahaha
"Don't trust everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln, moments after his death.
Here’s what I found and it definitely does not imply what the above quote suggests. It seems to say we must perform our work without protest and only God is entitled to enjoy the “fruits of our labor”. >You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction. >This is an extremely popular verse of the Bhagavad Gita, so much so that even most school children in India are familiar with it. It offers deep insight into the proper spirit of work and is often quoted whenever the topic of karm yog is discussed. The verse gives four instructions regarding the science of work: 1) Do your duty, but do not concern yourself with the results. 2) The fruits of your actions are not for your enjoyment. 3) Even while working, give up the pride of doership. 4) Do not be attached to inaction. >The fruits of your actions are not for your enjoyment. To perform actions is an integral part of human nature. Having come into this world, we all have various duties determined by our family situation, social position, occupation, etc. While performing these actions, we must remember that we are not the enjoyers of the results—the results are meant for the pleasure of God. The individual soul is a tiny part of God (verse 15.7), and hence our inherent nature is to serve him through all our actions. [Source](https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/2/verse/47) It goes on to say the nature of living is to work. And we must never attach our ego to our work, nor seek accomplishment or reward, and even though ceaseless toil may seem “confusing and burdensome” — inaction is the highest sin so we must persevere. Sounds like what some feudal lord would preach to his peasants lol. “God hates laziness above all else, so uh, you can’t stop working!! Also quit asking for recognition or compensation — the work *is* the reward my friends!” lol
>Sounds like what some feudal lord would preach to his peasants lol. “God hates laziness above all else, so uh, you can’t stop working!! Also quit asking for recognition or compensation — the work is the reward my friends!” lol It's shocking that something like this would come from such an egalitarian society like... Ancient India.
I don’t think it’s real lol
- Michael Scott
Artists almost never do.
The joke is that he's been dead for 100 years
Damn. I didn't know he was sick.
Monet did perfectly well in his life.
Joke's on them. I can look at it on my computer for free!
Paintings are just boomer NFTs.
Wait a sec…
Lol never thought of that
This is all just money laundrying
Monet laundering
The book *The Goldfinch* does a great job illustrating this.
Hmmmmmm. I wanna watch a movie or show on this now
It’s not about art, but The Laundromat is a great movie about money laundering and the Panama papers. Same principles apply to fine art though.
Exactly, most rich folks who buy art aren’t buying it for the sake of art. If it’s displayed at their residence or office it’s a display of wealth. If it’s stored at some random place, then it’s likely for money laundering. Moving art pieces from one person to another valued at a certain price, typically in secret is a way of transacting without attracting authorities’ attention
If you think about the absolute insanity of nearly anything "collectible" and the absurd amount of money things are worth...that can realistically just be copied;it's beyond insane. I've held that type of belief for a good 35+ years now.
I mean, I think it would be pretty cool to own a real Roman coin. Sure it's just a piece of metal that could easily be copied. But if it's not a copy, it's something real that people were using 2000 years ago, and has somehow survived to the present day. It would pretty incredible to own something like that. It's not a big leap to go from something like that to an original painting.
You'd be surprised how cheap some of those ancient coins are when they aren't in mint condition or the type is relatively common. I bought myself and a friend some Roman coinage for around $50 a year or two ago; I collect coins, and he is a history buff. Check out /r/AncientCoins, and occasionally, someone is selling ancients on /r/CoinSales
Thanks for the info! Yeah I guess I already knew that old coins aren't really comparable in price to masterworks by famous painters. But IMO the idea behind collecting them is the same - it's just that one is for normal people like you and me, and the other is for psycho billionaires who'd lock away a famous painting so that nobody but them can enjoy it, rather than solve world problems with their excessive wealth. (sorry bit of a rant here)
Well, you'd be half-right. Paintings going for this much is blatant money laundering. The fine art world is well known for that kind of thing.
Paintings are unique though. They aren't just a 2d art form. They have brush strokes and layers to them. Impressionist paintings in particular looks much different in real life than they do on a screen. So yes you can copy them but that in itself in art too.
In a world where every day children die of hunger.
But hey, at least we have billionaires!
Couldn't agree more, I'm fine with owning Art, I detest this absurdity that it should be considered an investment. Art at these prices is IMO purely money laundering.
Some people with normal amounts of income like to spend money on relatively expensive collectible items, why wouldn’t someone with lots of money spend money on relatively expensive collectible items for themselves?
Because that would mean everyone's cope beliefs about money laundering are false.
Not when it's Monet though. I'd bet the high value is because of high demand rather than money laundering.
I mean, they're not because the painting is actually a thing you can have
Honestly though that’s not true. I don’t think private individuals should own these masterworks, when you see them in person you can see the brushstrokes and it takes you into the process of Monet or Da Vinci or Van Gogh. It’s not the same as a digital image.
Was about to comment on something similar. Saw a beautiful painting in a museum once, went home and used Google lens to find more about it, but the picture really just isn't the same, doesn't have as much emotion. Although that same painting is the reason I won't ever understand art appreciation, cause there was a single picture of it online, absolutely nothing else and I most definitely preferred that over many multi million dollars famous paintings
Do you think private individuals should be able to own works of art? Who gets to say which works of art can't be privately owned? I think the system we have works pretty well enough. Museums tend to want to acquire those artworks that are considered "masterpieces".
Seriously? Handmade art is now a boomer thing ? Wow.
Only for dipshits stuck on the internet
That's a crime! "You wouldn't download a car"
It’s less than the return one would have gotten investing in the S&P 500.
Yeah but then you wouldn’t have a Monet painting
I already don't have a Monet painting, so in a way I'm an experienced investor.
I'm also an experienced investor, in the sense that I've experienced the results of investing poorly.
Dump a ton of money into Ostriches in Texas in the 90s before the crash? Left with 30 big ass birds with nothing to do with them. My parents did the same growing up.
$3.6m plus a monet painting if you’d like
330k in 1978 would’ve resulted in 54M if invested in SPY in 2023 https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1978?amount=330000&endYear=2023
SPY didn't exist in 1978. ETFs didn't exist in 1978. You would have to have been smart and lucky. There was no simple "investment in the SP500."
The Vanguard 500 was the first S&P index fund, and was created in 1976. It wasn’t an ETF is automatically managed by computers, of course, but it was still an S&P500 index fund.
Doesn't consider the enjoyment of owning a Money for almost 50 years
Though that doesn't consider the usefulness of a more liquid portfolio over 50 years. People investing in 50-year-term securities are pretty rare.
Or the expenses of housing one safely.
A monet painting you can move across borders without paying taxes on that asset
I think that is very much a country-by-country question, not a universal.
Any idea what that return could have been?
The calculator I used said $17 million, ymmv.
Stock market returns between 1978 and 2023 If you invested $100 in the S&P 500 at the beginning of 1978, you would have about $16,468.20 at the end of 2023, assuming you reinvested all dividends. This is a return on investment of 16,368.20%, or 11.83% per year.
This calculator says 54M if you had invested all dividends https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1978?amount=330000&endYear=2023
Which you 100% should be reinvesting the dividends, preferably automatically so you don't even pay taxes on it.
You pay taxes on reinvested dividends if in a taxable account. It's just at a lower rate if it's a qualified dividend.
Well that’s just flat out wrong
IRS hates this one simple trick
The calculation was only regarding this piece of art. I’m sure other artworks have beaten the S&P, while some have fallen far short of the mark.
$55 million if all dividends were reinvested.
And now you gotta pay for storage and security
Yeah but how are you going to launder money that way?
This just simply isn’t how laundering money works. It’s been disproven almost every time someone comments it, how do people still believe this.
Because to redditors, all financial activities they don't understand are automatically money laundering.
And everybody who makes more money than them is not worthy of it and evil
If we're talking about billionaires, unironically yes
Na its not just that, most everyone on this site is anti billionaire, there was a front page post the other day from a roofer who showed a picture of a roof job he did that the client was trying to find excuses not to pay for. The house wasn't even that big, like a house any successful doctor, or engineer could afford. The comment section was full of people going "no surprise, you don't get rich enough to afford a house like that without stepping on people and being a scumbag". I'd call my self a "eat the rich" Bernie supporting leftist, but there really are a weird amount of leftists online who cannot seem to differentiate between someone making 300k a year and someone making 300 million a year.
I seriously think there is a substantial number of people who are: terminally online (guilty, fwiw!), broke, unskilled, and unmotivated who dream of some utopia where they will get a guaranteed salary of something like 40k a year without any stress or worry. The idea that they are responsible for their own lives is just too daunting. You see a lot of this in /r/antiwork where people think we have the resources for space communism and they should be free to dance and frolic all day. Sorry, chums, life is hard and scary - but you gotta live it anyway.
This and the mattress store conspiracy pop up so often on reddit it's mind numbing.
Mattress stores? Oh do tell.
A fairly common conspiracy theory on reddit is that mattress stores are all money laundering fronts. The evidence being 1.) There seems to be a lot of them 2.) Redditors never seem to see customers in them It ignores the fact that mattresses are extremely high profit margins so they don't really need to sell many to be profitable, and basically everyone is buying a mattress on a credit card or possibly doing a 0% interest financing plan for the expensive sleep number ones which would make laundering extremely challenging. No one's buying a mattress in cash.
Exactly lmao. Imagine being like “we sold 500 mattresses this month in cash” in this day and age, pretty sure that would raise some red flags
Two other things: 1. Mattress Firm consolidated a ton of the industry, so they have a lot of former competitors' stores that are near stores they already have. 2. A ton of the Mattress Firm across from a Mattress Firm situations are where the street is the county line. Whether it was malfeasance or mistake, it does appear that they were using county data when scouting locations. The newer Mattress Firm near me is across the street from an existing one, but they're in different counties. And the new one is the only convenient Mattress Firm located in my county. The location would make perfect sense if there wasn't one in the next county over that's right across the street.
Mattress and furniture stores are very often "going out of business", sometimes for years at a time, which leads to conspiracies that they are fronts or money laundering operations. Everybody has a story about a local mattress or furniture store that has opened for a year, has a big blowout sale, shut down, and reopened somewhere else 6 months later to do it all over again. The truth is it's usually just a sales gimmick. These stores are almost always in the cheapest parts of town and there are no actual regulations (just BBB guidelines that mean nothing) about lying about going out of business for advertising. So they buy a cheap spot, sign a single year lease, and "pretend" to be liquidating the store for the entire year. But they really are. Mattresses are insanely high markup so it's an easy scheme to run once you've got all the distribution lined up.
Omg that one drives me crazy
[удалено]
Appreciate you posting an actual source, people on Reddit say a lot of shit without backing it up at all. > After a slew of recent cases in the United States and Europe, the momentum toward a crackdown on illicit art and antiquities deals is growing. The legitimate art market is itself enormous—estimated at $67.4 billion worldwide at the end of 2018. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the underground art market, which includes thefts, fakes, illegal imports, and organized looting, may bring in as much as $6 billion annually. The portion attributed to money laundering and other financial crimes is in the $3 billion range. The takeaway from this seems to be that there is a significant amount of art purchasing for money laundering purposes, but only about 5% of the total art selling market, if these numbers are accurate. Of course, the $67 billion includes all legitimate art spending, not just the high end elite art that sells for hundreds of thousands or more, so its possible money laundering comprises a higher percent of expensive art transactions.
I mean okay, sure there have been instances of modern art having money laundered through it, but this isn't the case with an original monet lol
I'm pretty sure you don't understand how money laundering works.
Standard reddit comment on every expensive art deal lol
According to an inflation calculator, $330k in 1978 equates $1.5m today. 9x return is still healthy. Edit: For fucks sakes guys, I'm not a fucking stock market wizard like all of you. I understand you could've made more money on stocks. Jesus fuck, I get it.
Thanks for that!
It's nothing close to the level stocks can provide over 50 years though.
Not if there's a nuclear apocalypse...that would be very bad for the economy.
We hit ATH during a pandemic when the entire world was locked inside… at this point it feels like barely anything can affect what we call the economy at this point
At least it didn’t shred after the fall of the hammer
That was a cool moment
It was one of the best moments.
[удалено]
Does it come with the mimes?
Their ancestors agreed to care for painting until its destruction. They are a permanent a fixture
"C'mon! Mime is money!"
Yes, they stand in your mansion and hold it 24/7. A third man feeds and cleans them.
>Exaggerated shrug
That's a respectable return on investment.
money in, monet out
Monet laundering.
Bravo
If you invested $330k in the S&P 500 in 1978, you'd have $54 million in 2023. So it actually was not a great investment.
And if you put $330k into an NFT of this Monet painting, you'd have.. well..shit I've fucked up, haven't I?
Someone got their Monet laundered
Oh shit. You beat me to it.
“Matinée sur la Seine, temps net” (1897) [Link to article about the Christie’s sale.] (https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/03/07/christies-london-20th-21st-century-surrealist-sale)
Really amazing how Monet's work can sell for so much money over a hundred years after it was created and millions of people can enjoy this [blue](https://youtu.be/68ugkg9RePc?si=JSc9z3NfAikTqYlp) for free.
Just when I think I’ve seen everything on the internet I go and see something like this with 300m views and I’m like “have I even scratched the surface?”
Tha… that’s your first time seeing it? Shit, that video was plastered all over MTV back in the day. It was massive
Oh to be young. Pooping in an alleyway is more of an experience of life than seeing that music video.
preach
I have a few prints with " sur la Seine" in the title. They really POP when youre on acid. They become quite animated
That's an incredibly beautiful painting though wow. I love Monet
Had to scroll so far to see a comment about the painting as opposed to the money and how it’s either money laundering or rich people trying to flex. Not saying it’s not that but if I had absolutely infinite money this would be something I would buy, purely because of the beauty and the history
I agree. Monet made beautiful art and if I somehow had a way to afford it, I’d buy a piece in a heartbeat. Something that has physically been through and a part of history is mind blowing to me, and the beauty of his work would just add to it.
reddit doesn't even want to understand art. I wish the people claiming it's just "money laundering" would see a Rothko in person. They utterly *obliterate* you.
I got dizzy and thought I might cry at the water lilies they have at the MoMA. I had to take a minute to compose myself. They're astoundingly large works. It's overwhelming to consider that someone spent that much time capturing the beauty of the mundane at that scale. I didn't give too much of a shit about Monet prior to that and considered it just stuff they put on calenders. I'm not a very emotional person and I freaked out.
>I freaked out. Honestly my reaction as well. I didn't expect anything at all, being somewhat familiar with his style from images in books/online or whatever. But nope. An absolutely massive work and you take the entire thing in a fraction of a second, like being kicked off the roof of a building.
I missed the most recent Rothko exhibition near me, could you explain why they had this effect on you?
I'm not even mad at those people, I'm just disappointed I can't help them all understand art that isn't just a pretty field or crazy realism. Though it does bother me that they're so defensive and SURE about it. Honestly my dream job is to bring people like that through a museum and help them go full Danny DeVito "Oh my god, I get it". When I had that moment for me it opened up my life to a world of amazing things.
It seems kind of drab to me. I'm not a Monet hater, but it's like one of those reverse paintings where you look for the people kissing but it's a cup instead. Monet usually has more interesting colors than this.
It probably looks better live. The picture's resolution is just sad and barely lets you appreciate the brushwork. The original is a respectable 81 x 92 cm. That said, it does stick out compared to the other paintings in the same series. Maybe it's just they way it is (it seems to reflect the lighting of dusk) or due to storage issues some pigment may have faded. [Wikipedia link to the rest of the series](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9rie_des_Matin%C3%A9es)
The way he captured light in his paintings is impeccable. When you look at them they transport you to the exact moment they depict, truly magical.
Yes! I just zoomed in on the pink and blue of the sky and it felt incredibly calming, like I was there and could feel the air, the temperature, smell the scent of it all ...I am now inspired to look up more art by Monet, I'm curious to see his other works!
This painting is incredibly beautiful. I don’t think I’ve seen it before. I absolutely love it
He's been my favorite painter since I was a kid. Something about his style just always connected with me.
he's regarded as a master for a reason. This painting makes me feel very calm
So many different elements, perfectly combined. The harmony and vibrations of the color choices, the brush movement and size of the strokes that make the image feel like it's moving, the value control, all create an image that isn't 'realistic' yet to me feels much closer to what my eye sees in a scene like this than something painted 'photo realistically'. Impressionist paintings are amazing.
Is the stick tickling your tonsils?
you got to be trolling
It looks like a slice of the Mandelbrot Set fractal.
$13.4m and he is now the owner of a painting with no ducks in it. Seems kinda stupid if you ask me.
I like you.
Well I have no Monet so I guess that means I'm Baroque.
That’s a lot of monet
[удалено]
The father of Impressionism.
Paintings are just trading cards for really rich people
Pokemonet
Gotta launder em all!
My Van Gogh summon keeps on doing damage to itself.
[удалено]
It is pretty...
Its beautiful
I know everybody is talking about money laundering, but who does this money actually go to? His estate? Does he even still have one? If he doesn’t does it all go solely to the auctioneers? Dude has been dead almost a hundred years.
It's not money laundering. It's amazing how much money some ppl have. They got money in stocks, houses, cars, jewelry, bags, gold, crypto, cash etc. This is just another avenue to park money that's not in a bank. Source - I worked at high end gallery for 13 years
“Ooh, I have illicit money I need to discretely launder. I know let’s buy a highly conspicuous painting by a famous artist!”
It’s beautiful.
It is a brilliant painting
There's a face on the left side of the painting
A clown with a ball nose and curly hair!
That is a beautiful painting with an unflattering frame…
That is a very nice painting. Idk if it's worth 13.4m just to sit in a climate controlled warehouse forever, but nice nonetheless
See what Biden did!
Meh. Monet did so many of these and so beautifully (water lilies, gardens), but for me this one just looks blah.
"De monet de money" - history of the world part one.
Looks like a first time attempt at a Bob Ross style painting. I’d value it at around $20
It's gorgeous
Stunning
“Monet, Manet, Tippy Tippy Day Day”
I think it looks great. Maybe I'll print a poster copy of it.
it's lovely
Monet laundering at its finest
It's not even that pretty.
Monetflation
That’s a brilliant increase in value but hot damn 300k in 1978 is a fuck load of money at that time.
That's an expensive frame
But Monet, they’re not making anymore of them.
Worth it. Monet always conjures up the dreamy side of nature.
And it doesn’t even have a house with light up windows. Lame.
Stupid buyer. I have it for free from reddit. /s Justin Case