Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Longread #130 -- The Art of Divorce -- 8/7/12
The Seattle Times has provided a lot of coverage of the divorce of one of the area's richest people, former Microsoft executive Christopher Larson. Normally, these types of stories garner virtually no interest from me for the same reasons why I don't read People or US Weekly. However, I thought this article provided an interesting look into the world of assets. We don't always get a clear picture of how the super-rich spend their money, but that changes when there is a divorce that requires dividing everything up. In this article, writer Ken Armstrong focuses specifically on how the couple's art collection was divided. It offers a glimpse into how much money can be invested in things like art as well as how many different ways some of the most expensive art can be appreciated and valued.
"The Art of Divorce" by Ken Armstrong
Published in the Seattle Times, July 28, 2012
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018791206_larson29m.html
Eric
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Really interesting article!
ReplyDeleteIt seems like she mainly values the art for what memories it brings up of her childhood/a connection to her heritage. She also seems to value a painting based on the general 'arty-ness' such as colors.
I think there's an even deeper connection someone could have to a piece of art - enough to trade the entire 100 million collection for a painting that may be the least valuable in the collection.
There are paintings/sculptures that bring on a strong emotion in the viewer (and many times a very acute mix of emotions). By feeling this, the viewer is viscerally reminded of the scope and depth of the emotions they have gone through in their life while at the same time understanding that they are just one speck in how much emotion happens in humans throughout time. On one hand it is a way to experience your own life in a larger way and also a way to feel just a small part of it all.
One painting that comes to my mind is 'Nighthawks' by Hooper. It somehow captures a mix of mystery, melancholy, and a sweet loneliness that allows me to live a fuller life somehow. I would trade the whole collection for something like that. There are a handful of paintings I feel this way about, some probably worth only around $100.
It is clear that for him there is definitely more of a functional or instrumental value to the art (as collateral for a loan or as a way of keeping the home decorated). Then again, perhaps he just didn't think it would be relevant to the judge to explain his personal connection to the pieces.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that there can be tremendous value to a piece of art independent of its objective value or rarity or the expertise of the artist who produced it. The value of a painting to me isn't intrinsic to the painting itself but rather in how it is perceived, interpreted, and the feelings it evokes in the viewer. Basically a complex way of saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Eric