http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalre...useum.html

Fortunately, costs are easier to estimate, and those for displaying a painting derive largely from its market value. Consider “The Wedding Dance,” a 16th-century work by the Flemish painter Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Detroit museum visitors have enjoyed this painting since 1930. How much would it cost to preserve that privilege for future generations?

A tidy sum, as it turns out. According to Christie’s, this canvas alone could fetch up to $200 million. Once interest rates return to normal levels — say, 6 percent — the forgone interest on that amount would be approximately $12 million a year.

If we assume that the museum would be open 2,000 hours a year, and ignore the cost of gallery space and other indirect expenses, the cost of keeping the painting on display would be more than $6,000 an hour. Assuming that an average of five people would view it per hour, all year long, it would still cost more than $1,200 an hour to provide the experience for each visitor.

The comments from both sides of the aisle are especially interesting.

This is the 200 million piece of Art.

http://www.dia.org/object-info/d33ac9fb-...f65e6.aspx

They have a couple of Picasso's too. I'm sure I speak for the majority on here but I don't see why these paintings are worth soooo much money. I wouldn't pay 100 bucks for a Picasso. Whatever eye there is for Art I don't have it. That 2oo million wedding dance too. Crazy.

Considering the financial shape Detroit is in, maybe they should bring in Christie's and sell all their art - to, you know, pay off some debt, maybe cover some pension obligations.

What does a normal household do if they get in dire straights? Sell off some assets. Makes too much sense.

From Google: "The original museum, called the Detroit Museum of Art, was founded in 1885, and was ... The building, property and collection are owned by the City of Detroit."

(03-31-2014 09:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  They have a couple of Picasso's too. I'm sure I speak for the majority on here but I don't see why these paintings are worth soooo much money. I wouldn't pay 100 bucks for a Picasso. Whatever eye there is for Art I don't have it. That 2oo million wedding dance too. Crazy.

I think a lot of the price is just due to rarity.

People will pay millions for baseball cards and memorabilia. Not because it is nice to look at, but because it is a rare and unique piece of history.

I don't like Picasso's art either, but it is hard to deny that he had a big influence on art style and and arguably the most famous artist in recent history. There are only so many "masterpiece" pieces out there by him. Scarcity drives their prices up.

The comments are thought provoking. On the flip side of selling them off. The ART has appreciated a heck of alot more than 6% a year. There is that angle too. It's like owning the Beatles collection ala Micheal Jackson. the best investment he ever made. You can't sell it because it will always be worth more than your annual average rate of return.

(03-31-2014 10:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The comments are thought provoking. On the flip side of selling them off. The ART has appreciated a heck of alot more than 6% a year. There is that angle too. It's like owning the Beatles collection ala Micheal Jackson. the best investment he ever made. You can't sell it because it will always be worth more than your annual average rate of return.

While that my be true, you can't pay off debts or make pension fund payments with only the appreciation of an asset. I mean, you don't really have anything tangible until it's sold - much the same way an appreciated stock doesn't really "buy" anything until it's sold.

I suppose Detroit might be able to borrow against it, but somehow I doubt many lenders would bite. Maybe the mafia might for 100% interest - nah.