Comments on: Bumped off the Today programme for being too right wing

by: canvas

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:59:07 +0000

That was a good article in the Guardian. Liked it.. But can I be really anal - and point out that it’s DAMIEN Hirst and Amanda SHARPE? Sorry…

Also, Mark Wallinger made an interesting political point through his art…let’s not forget him.

http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/mark_wallinger/

by: Tizzy

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:22:43 +0000

PS That Bush collage by Yeo
[img]http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/08/29/bush460.jpg[/img]

by: Tizzy

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:14:53 +0000

I notice The Guardian has got Ed’s article -

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_vaizey/2007/11/modern_art_is_rightwing.html

Over 100 comments!

by: Tizzy

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:02:33 +0000

OK, just got the info from http://www.artcollecting.co.uk/ArtForInvestment.html

” If you sell an artwork for over £6,000 you will be liable for Capital Gains Tax at your rate of income tax, below the yearly £8,800 Capital Gains Tax exemption bracket. ”

But Hugh’s probably a non-dom/tax exile, so no fat cheque for Gordon, sorry, Alastair.

by: canvas

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:50:59 +0000

I think Hugh Grant has to buy a fabulous pad around 59th Street - Central Park.

by: Tizzy

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:39:44 +0000

So does Hugh Grant now have to pay CGT on this investment? Or is artwork exempt? Anyone know?

by: canvas

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:22:22 +0000

Hi Tizzy, when things are left to a matter of ‘taste’ - well - then you know you’re in for a very boring time! LoL

I don’t know about Warhol ‘fakes’ - but the Warhol factory produced SOOO much work - much of which the artist never even saw…if I was going to purchase an original Warhol then I would want to select a work that had ‘the artists touch’… Know what I mean?

I can’t believe Mugrabi paid £10m for ‘Liz’. And I can’t believe Jay Jopling would pay so much $$$ for that Richard Prince work! Silly buggers going on?

Good artists NEVER want to see their work end up at auction. It’s demoralising.

Oh well, big business is big business - it has nothing to do with art! haha. Sad but true.

by: Tizzy

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:51 +0000

I saw the cartoon - it WASN’T porn. It was funny, a bit tasteless, but NOT porn.
The site’s never been the same, enbarrassingly.

I don’t think I could run to a fake Warhol, let alone one with provenace. BTW, I hadn’t realised there was that many fakes around.

That’s the thing about art though - buy what you like rather than buy an investment.

by: canvas

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:08:20 +0000

Oh, VoteDave - what are we going to do with you?!

I recently published a slightly (!) pornographic cartoon of George Bush and Dick Cheney on Webcameron. Webcameron removed the image and I was reprimanded. hehehe.

Satire is important… But that doesn’t mean it’s good art.

by: Votedave

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:25:52 +0000

I once watched a French and Saunders scene set in Tate Modern, where the two ladies were slowly walking around the museum.
After about three rather dull, silent minutes - Dawn shouted excitedly: “There it is!” She was of course, referring to the museum café!
A classic.