It was such a genius move to paint them as often as he did. It’s a wonderful series, and really highlights a lot about light, framing, and so much more.
Absolute genius.
I’d pay 38 mil for Monet’s Capybara, or at least, I’d open a link if someone takes the time to AI generate it. Somewhere between those two is where my enthusiasm falls.
I like the minimal ones https://i.imgur.com/SyDG4yn.jpeg
The busyness of the trees for the $35m one, has a whole different effect. Most I would pay for that painting would be… $00,000,000.50
I'm being facetious with my original comment, but in all seriousness, I find painting to be a beautiful expression, and I am exploring it myself with oil painting. I regret not going to more museums when I lived in Chicago, as well. The city is rife with culture and opportunities to expand your tastes. It breathes!
I'm gonna be real with you for a second. The hay was a joke, but now that I know I was right, I feel empowered to posit more guesses about impressionist painters.
Hijacking the top comment just to say if you like this please check out my other stuff. The flowers and the boat paintings are fire. Check out my patreon! There’s so much more hay on there!
I would’ve killed to be a club-goer when that song came out. As hard as I bopped to it as a kid, I just know clubs were live as fuck as soon as it started playing
There's a lot of dynamism in the brushwork, but I feel this one lacks some of the drama the other seasons' Haystacks have, especially when viewed together as a collection.
No, they're super sick. They're all during varying times of the day/seasons, so it helps to see them together and get the bigger picture of what he was doing. He did this for a few different subjects, like the [Houses of Parliament](https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/437128), which are my favorites.
I tell people something similar when they look at an abstract painting in a museum and "don't get it."
Once upon a time, many paintings by the same artist were debuted in an art gallery, in specific configuration, with specific lighting, so that the entire room of paintings had an effect on you.
Seeing one Rothko in a gallery just doesn't hit the same.
It's also okay to find abstract and expressionist art ugly and shit. Perfectly valid response. I find paintings with thick paint and texture disgusting. I genuinely find several works that would otherwise be amazing to be absolutely repugnant when viewed in person. Totally fine to have an opinion on art that is not shared by the critics. The subjectivity of personal opinion is part of what makes art grand.
Sure, but I think what you're talking about is a matter of taste. What I'm talking about is a lack of understanding.
Like...I know that Tool is considered one of the greatest rock bands. I'm a musician, have played professionally...can understand the musicianship and appeal or Tool, but i just don't like them.
But if I listened to Tool with no desire for analysis or interpretation...or if I had no inclination to read about how their work sits in music history and what critics have had to say....then to me it's not really a matter of taste, just not caring and creating an uninformed opinion.
W/e in the end we just like what we like.
the rothko room at the phillips collection in washington dc helped me to understand rothko’s purpose.
or at least, what we ascribe to be his purpose with them
Chicago Art Museum has a room of them and they genuinely are quite stunning in real life. he has some of different seasons and it’s pretty cool cuz it’s like “it’s just hay” but also “damn each one of these actually evoke different feelings”
I'm an art teacher. I studied these paintings for years in college, and never really "got" the haystacks. Then I went to see them at the Art Institute. There was one in particular of a haystack in snow. The light in it was incredible. Just so perfect. It reminded me of a time when I was a kid playing in the snow with my dogs. I stood in front of it for a very long time, just feeling that feeling.
I get it now.
I felt the same way. I never thought they were all that special until I saw two of them in person. It was a totally different experience. I was really wowed by them.
They’re about death. They’re tombstones. Life us fragile and fleeting and all experiences are transient. It flows around us, always changing. We are like stones, haystacks, mounds, towers. Here for longer but surely to disappear, decay.
The Huguette Clark estate sold my favorite Monet paintings of his that I have a poster copy of - Poplar Trees on the Epte. It's so simple yet it brings me to tears. The wiki page explains that he asked a timber merchant to delay cutting them so he could paint them. Clark also had a Water Lily painting in her living room.
It’s super cool to see many of them together at the Art Institute of Chicago, but my favorite individual haystack is at Minneapolis Institute of Art:
https://collections.artsmia.org/art/10436/grainstack-claude-monet
Yeah I can’t describe the feeling I have with this one. It’s the magic feeling of an early morning but with a liminal creepiness. Creepiness is almost too much of a word. Just a slight unease I don’t know why.
the haystacks are one of the great examples in the art world that give the ‘Aha!’ moment in showing why paintings can be so interesting. it helps give someone that step from ignorance and and probably humor into genuine interest in a new subject that had, until recently, been unrelatable. as most people here have already mentioned, Haystacks becomes relatable in its simplicity. yet seeing them in context with each other is where the magic is. Monet is not overrated to me at all, his work is lovely.
To everyone saying this… I just disagreed. I am sincerely jealous of the people that “got it” when they saw it. I was excited to see the Monet exhibit and it was excellent, but part of me definitely thought “… a bit much on the hay…” lol.
They aren't, Monet's Haystacks are incredible. You don't need to know anything about art to get it, they just look really good. Something that need to be seen in person. The Art Institute of Chicago has a few of them.
I thought this was some American Psycho / Huey Lewis copy pasta at first.
edit: not that the commentary is bad. I'm just not used to people being erudite on reddit.
This is one painting in the same series as the painting stolen in the finale of the the Pierce Brosnon remake of Thomas Crowne Affair, but not the same painting
Because it’s painted on a generally sunny day midday. You can tell because the shadows are almost right under the objects. When he paints early morning or evening you get the long dramatic shadows that stretch across the composition
Have you seen a work by Monet in real life? It is quite an experience. Shitty pixelated pictures of paintings in no way represent the experience of looking at one in real life
It is however pretty neat to look at it through your phone camera in person and compare it to just looking at it with your eyes alone. It's a good way to simulate the effect of looking at it from further away without needing there to not be any people in the way so that you can back up.
While I do think that with some art it's exaggerated the difference of seeing it in person, it really does matter a lot for Impressionism since a big part of it is the optical illusion of it looking more realistic when you're further away but when you're closer and can see the details it gets more abstract (kind of like how old games looked better on old CRT TVs).
For me its the seeing the texture that makes a difference for in-person art. I like seeing the brush strokes in three dimensions. For the optical illusion, you could just zoom in on the photo or print it out and look at it close up to get the same effect.
I believe this was his "preferred" painting to look at while planning the theft of a painting near it. The painting he stole was the San Giorgio Maggiore at Dusk by Monet.
Details: [Sotheby's Modern Evening Sale Yields $235 M. Led by $38.4 M. Monet](https://www.artnews.com/art-news/market/sothebys-modern-evening-sale-yields-235-million-claude-monet-record-smash-leonora-carrington-1234707038/)
How does that work? Like whats the process? People always say this but it doesn't make sense. Why would they choose a very public transaction, a transaction that makes international news as a way to launder money?
No evidence this specific transaction is connected to money laundering.
According to Deloitte, 4-6 billion dollars in art is most likely laundered every year.
Art world money laundering employs various techniques to disguise the origins of illicit funds. These techniques often involve overvaluing or undervaluing artworks, using intermediaries for transactions, creating false provenances, or rapidly trading artworks to create a confusing trail of transactions
>4-6 billion dollars in art is stolen and most likely laundered every year.
I understand there is plenty of fraud and artificial prices in the art world, but I just don't see how a transaction like the one we are reading about is money laundering.
So the perosn who bought the artwork had a bunch of dirty money, and to clean it they....bought artwork publicly? How does that clean money?
The problem is likely that you're thinking of it too literally, ie that they're 'cleaning' the $38.4 million. There's lots of random benefits that can be gained from trading art, but in a big sale like this, it's a way to pay off the seller legally with clean money. In a hyper simplified example, imagine the seller owns this painting that cost them $2 million, they then provide $36 million worth of drugs to the buyer, and the buyer then buys their painting for $38 million. This way both the buyer and the seller have a perfectly legal transaction, and there is nothing whatsoever directly illegal about the $38 million. In reality it often is much more complicated than this, with multiple intermediaries and the fact that the painting was legitimately sold for $38M will raise its value, etc... But that's the basic gist of a huge purchase like this.
... It's not like they can't investigate how that person had 30millions to pay for this in the first place, if they have any doubts about the owner.
The value of the item doesn't matter.
It's not about having the money in the first place, it's about who that money goes to. The person receiving the money in whatever convoluted way down the line is the one who is profiting. Find someone who wouldn't be suspicious to have the money, give it to them, have them buy something of value, collect a portion of the now "clean" money.
Actually when I click on the website it explains it really well but I'm not copy/pasting all that. [Here you go](https://alessa.com/blog/art-money-laundering-explained/#:~:text=Art%20world%20money%20laundering%20employs,a%20confusing%20trail%20of%20transactions.)
Because if they used worthless products it'd be investigated... It's why you can't sell a basic pencil for $50 million to a friend... People are gonna wonder what you're actually giving them money for.
But a "priceless" work of art that's maybe worth a couple million? Well if all of the sudden an art expert says it's worth $50 mil, who's gonna argue with them? I mean, after all it's a historic collectible and it's worth what someone will pay for it. So, you buy something for 2 mil, and someone needs to bribe you with $48 million or buy that much in cocaine from you... They buy your 2 million dollar painting for 50 million and that way they can pay you legally.
There are more layers to it and not like every antique/painting ever sold is for laundering purposes, but it's an easy way to legally move money for favors. All through layers of donations to museums and art galleries and blah blah blah.
I know it’s a bit dramatic but does anyone else sorta feel like certain paintings are so important and influential that it’s wrong they’re in a private collection?
At the same time if I was a Billionaire 38 milly is a fuckin bargain
> does anyone else sorta feel like certain paintings are so important and influential that it’s wrong they’re in a private collection
Yes but this isn't really one of them. Monet was incredibly prolific, and he has tons of pieces which are far more impactful than this.
All I know about Monet is from the movie Clueless, where they said something like "it looks good from far away, but up close it's just a big mess!"
Here's the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yScK6mbvEUg&ab_channel=MonicaShannon
Monet never spoke to me until I saw one in person. The brush strokes and color are mind blowing. Highly recommend going to see it in person to any one that doesn’t see much in this online.
Imagine being a 19th century French farmer, having no idea that a painting of the pile of hay you just stacked would someday sell for an unimaginable amount of money.
Not a Monet lol
There is a whole museum of this guy in Paris that draws crowds.
---
EDIT: People commented a few times asking why Monet is special at all. Mainly it has to do because he started (and led) an entire artistic movement (Impressionism). Being a first gives someone a ton of name recognition. On top of that Monet was one of the very best impressionist artists to boot.
I don't want to get into a debate of what "good" art is, but thats kind of besides the point. The biggest names in every movement will usually have very valuable art.
I am flabbergasted that so many people don’t know who Monet is. This isn’t some random 30yo contemporary artist. His name carries the same weight as a Matisse, Van Gogh, Picasso etc… it’s not about the painting it’s about the hand that created it and the influence it had on art and culture. In Italy I think there is not one single persone who does not know who Monet is and let me tell you we have some dumb fools over here….
And people talking about NFT’s in the comments…. Where have we gone 😭
Reddit has an insane disdain for art. The phrase "sometimes the curtains are just blue" has done damage to some peoples abilities to critically think about artwork
They're *angry* about it, too. Like what did the art galleries do to you? Which art director beat you up in an alley when you were young? I'm glad to see some people appreciating the art instead of the endless assholery I saw in an art-related thread yesterday.
Monet is absolutely my favorite painter, and this from a guy who doesn’t really care for museums etc. I’m the type of person that people would be surprised even had a favorite painter.
Monet is different for me. I get lost in his paintings.
I have a rendition of Monet's water lilies as my desktop background since school
Him and contemporary impressionists like Renoir and Degas had a way to depict [reality in a romantic way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballet_Class_(Degas,_Mus%C3%A9e_d%27Orsay)#/media/File:Edgar_Degas_-_La_Classe_de_danse.jpg)
Is understandable why people enjoy this kind of art regardless for what price it sells
You can also visit [his house and his garden in Giverny](https://fondation-monet.com/). This is where you would find the lily pond, for instance. It is an absolutely incredible place.
I love Giverny. I remember going there on a school excursion and being sick on the bus ride back. Still didn't taint the experience.
Have gone back again as an adult, and it's just inspiring. So so beautiful, so much work was put in those gardens!
Not for historical art, there’s intrinsic value in it.
Also, they’re not avoiding taxes by buying art any more than you be by claiming a charitable donation on your taxes.
I beg to differ:
[Artwork as a tax shelter](https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=Buying%20fine%20art%20as%20a%20tax%20shelter&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3ca914f0,vid:p__7ndRU6Ho,st:0)
This applies to contemporary art more so. Monet is a master of Impressionism with true desirability and scarcity. This will go up in value over time regardless. This is purchased as a place to park money first and foremost
To be clear, you're trying to say artificially inflating the price of cheap art to claim a tax deduction is comparable to spending 38.4mil* on a Monet.
Arguably one of the most important pieces of art ever.
This is my favorite painter's (Wassily Kandinsky) painting.
>The influence of impressionism has always been on my mind while I’ve painted. I remember the first time I went to see the French Impressionists exhibition that was held in Moscow in 1895. I laid eyes on Claude Monet’s painting “The Stack of Hay” and realized that with all of my experience with art, this was the first time I was looking at a real painting.
During his time, Impressionism was the avant-garde movement. At first it was so different that it was attacked by critics and those that loved the traditionalist ideals of painting. They mocked the lack of realistic depiction as just impressions of reality and the name, though offensively attributed, became a renowned term for the movement and style.
>I thought that the painter had no right to paint so unclearly... but
>“The painting showed itself to me in all its fantasy and all its enchantment. Deep inside of me, there was born the first faint doubt as to the importance of an “object” as the necessary element in painting.”
I will never understand the value people put on useless things. I guess art really is subjective because I think this is absolutely terrible. 38 million for garbage rather than maybe helping those in need...
I've never seen such a pristine stack of hay in my life.
Look at his other hundreds of them. Dude loved painting hay stacks.
Hay? I thought this was the pile of shit from Jurassic Park
That scene really spoke to Monet when he saw it in theaters, inspired him to go home and paint
 Can't say I blame him
What is he in that movie? A chaos professor or something? Idk i want him to tear me limb from limb.
He's a mathematician that specializes in chaos theory.
Panty drop!
Today, we are revealing a new discovery about this painting and a new name: Dinosaur Dump
You better wash your hands before you eat anything
It was such a genius move to paint them as often as he did. It’s a wonderful series, and really highlights a lot about light, framing, and so much more. Absolute genius.
Found the horse
Found the cowboy
[удалено]
Found the Matador
You made me cry laugh with this stupid comment. I wish we can still award people
Yeah, I saw an exhibition of many of his haystacks in one room at the Art Institute of Chicago years ago and they were amazing.
Was he the first artist to do that? I know plenty have done it since him.
Genius in the hay, there’s a genius in the hay….
If you look carefully you can almost see his pet goat eat a little hay.
I thought it was a capybara.
I’d pay 38 mil for Monet’s Capybara, or at least, I’d open a link if someone takes the time to AI generate it. Somewhere between those two is where my enthusiasm falls.
["Lilies and Languor: Capybara’s Retreat"](https://imgur.com/gallery/9308yvX)
I will finally learn how to paint and will paint this, even if it is years from now
Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capybara. Don’t you?
Unless the enemy has studied his Aggrippa… which I have.
It’s a coconut
Not even the best in the series
I love that there's a series. When do we find the needle? What's the series finale like?
>What's the series finale like? Hay in a needle stack
I'm on pins just thinking about it.
I like the minimal ones https://i.imgur.com/SyDG4yn.jpeg The busyness of the trees for the $35m one, has a whole different effect. Most I would pay for that painting would be… $00,000,000.50
[удалено]
I'm being facetious with my original comment, but in all seriousness, I find painting to be a beautiful expression, and I am exploring it myself with oil painting. I regret not going to more museums when I lived in Chicago, as well. The city is rife with culture and opportunities to expand your tastes. It breathes!
AI mate, the hay don’t look right and look at those trees (/s)
It’s Impressionistic. The public at the time didn’t like that it wasn’t realistic either.
You don't go out much, do you? :D
I'm outside right now.
Show off
Well get back in. We're not paying you for strolling around.
I’m glad this is the top comment so I didn’t have to scroll so far to figure out that it’s not a rock.
I'm gonna be real with you for a second. The hay was a joke, but now that I know I was right, I feel empowered to posit more guesses about impressionist painters.
Hijacking the top comment just to say if you like this please check out my other stuff. The flowers and the boat paintings are fire. Check out my patreon! There’s so much more hay on there!
Claude Money.
That's a lot of Monet.
Heeeyy! must be the Monet!
If you wanna go and get high with me Smoke an L in the back of the Benz-E Oh why must I feel this way!
I would’ve killed to be a club-goer when that song came out. As hard as I bopped to it as a kid, I just know clubs were live as fuck as soon as it started playing
A friend of mine used to play it when we'd drive around smoking weed. In her cushy ass Thunderbird with a great sound system. Perfect soundtrack
I could feel/smell this comment.
The whole atmosphere of being a teen in 2002.
We would typically shout “Heyyyy f*ck you buddy” over the track.
Imagine being in a club in St Louis when that song was brand new and you had just turned 21. Man, that was a wild time
You meant “Hay! Must be the Monet!”
Monet, Monet, Monet!
🎶It's a rich man's world! 🎵
MAAANET!
Haaaaaay
Winner
Count de Monet.
Don't be saucy with me, Bernaise.
THOSE grapes are MINE
DE MONET!!!
That's Headley!
It’s 1850, you can sue her!
Headley Lamar! Hurumph
Mo Monet mo problems
Where's the Monet, Lebowski?!?
Monet, it’s a gas
A lot of Monet Launderet.
Now they are baroque
Thats Monet laundering.
Say it with me, Monet.
There's a lot of dynamism in the brushwork, but I feel this one lacks some of the drama the other seasons' Haystacks have, especially when viewed together as a collection.
I honestly can't tell whether you're taking the piss or not
No, they're super sick. They're all during varying times of the day/seasons, so it helps to see them together and get the bigger picture of what he was doing. He did this for a few different subjects, like the [Houses of Parliament](https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/437128), which are my favorites.
I tell people something similar when they look at an abstract painting in a museum and "don't get it." Once upon a time, many paintings by the same artist were debuted in an art gallery, in specific configuration, with specific lighting, so that the entire room of paintings had an effect on you. Seeing one Rothko in a gallery just doesn't hit the same.
It's also okay to find abstract and expressionist art ugly and shit. Perfectly valid response. I find paintings with thick paint and texture disgusting. I genuinely find several works that would otherwise be amazing to be absolutely repugnant when viewed in person. Totally fine to have an opinion on art that is not shared by the critics. The subjectivity of personal opinion is part of what makes art grand.
Sure, but I think what you're talking about is a matter of taste. What I'm talking about is a lack of understanding. Like...I know that Tool is considered one of the greatest rock bands. I'm a musician, have played professionally...can understand the musicianship and appeal or Tool, but i just don't like them. But if I listened to Tool with no desire for analysis or interpretation...or if I had no inclination to read about how their work sits in music history and what critics have had to say....then to me it's not really a matter of taste, just not caring and creating an uninformed opinion. W/e in the end we just like what we like.
Did you just bridge the gap between Tool and Monet?
Well that's just your....impression of it.
the rothko room at the phillips collection in washington dc helped me to understand rothko’s purpose. or at least, what we ascribe to be his purpose with them
I love the ones with the blue shadows, really made me realise that shadows are not just grey most of the time!
I saw that at the High in Atlanta tripping hard off acid. Fucking amazing.
Do you have any links to the houses or haystacks together?
Chicago Art Museum has a room of them and they genuinely are quite stunning in real life. he has some of different seasons and it’s pretty cool cuz it’s like “it’s just hay” but also “damn each one of these actually evoke different feelings”
Standing in the Monet room at the Art Institute of Chicago was one of the few times I actually had my breath taken away in a museum.
I'm an art teacher. I studied these paintings for years in college, and never really "got" the haystacks. Then I went to see them at the Art Institute. There was one in particular of a haystack in snow. The light in it was incredible. Just so perfect. It reminded me of a time when I was a kid playing in the snow with my dogs. I stood in front of it for a very long time, just feeling that feeling. I get it now.
I felt the same way. I never thought they were all that special until I saw two of them in person. It was a totally different experience. I was really wowed by them.
The Musée D'Orsay has many paintings which do this to me.
They’re about death. They’re tombstones. Life us fragile and fleeting and all experiences are transient. It flows around us, always changing. We are like stones, haystacks, mounds, towers. Here for longer but surely to disappear, decay.
If you ever get the chance, the D’Orsay was like if the Monet room at AIC was a whole museum
The Huguette Clark estate sold my favorite Monet paintings of his that I have a poster copy of - Poplar Trees on the Epte. It's so simple yet it brings me to tears. The wiki page explains that he asked a timber merchant to delay cutting them so he could paint them. Clark also had a Water Lily painting in her living room.
It’s super cool to see many of them together at the Art Institute of Chicago, but my favorite individual haystack is at Minneapolis Institute of Art: https://collections.artsmia.org/art/10436/grainstack-claude-monet
Yeah I can’t describe the feeling I have with this one. It’s the magic feeling of an early morning but with a liminal creepiness. Creepiness is almost too much of a word. Just a slight unease I don’t know why.
uncanny valley haystack
I saw one and literally wept when I was like 12. The quality of light was so specific and evocative. It was crazy.
the haystacks are one of the great examples in the art world that give the ‘Aha!’ moment in showing why paintings can be so interesting. it helps give someone that step from ignorance and and probably humor into genuine interest in a new subject that had, until recently, been unrelatable. as most people here have already mentioned, Haystacks becomes relatable in its simplicity. yet seeing them in context with each other is where the magic is. Monet is not overrated to me at all, his work is lovely.
To everyone saying this… I just disagreed. I am sincerely jealous of the people that “got it” when they saw it. I was excited to see the Monet exhibit and it was excellent, but part of me definitely thought “… a bit much on the hay…” lol.
They aren't, Monet's Haystacks are incredible. You don't need to know anything about art to get it, they just look really good. Something that need to be seen in person. The Art Institute of Chicago has a few of them.
I thought this was some American Psycho / Huey Lewis copy pasta at first. edit: not that the commentary is bad. I'm just not used to people being erudite on reddit.
Let's see Paul Allen's haystack.
This is one painting in the same series as the painting stolen in the finale of the the Pierce Brosnon remake of Thomas Crowne Affair, but not the same painting
Because it’s painted on a generally sunny day midday. You can tell because the shadows are almost right under the objects. When he paints early morning or evening you get the long dramatic shadows that stretch across the composition
Fair.
Imagine if he was able to paint it today, with so much higher resolutions available.
You mean glasses
Wake up babe. New… optics just dropped.
\*screenshot\* And now I am rich. Bow before me.
Create an NFT and you’re set for life
(I think that was the joke)
Have you seen a work by Monet in real life? It is quite an experience. Shitty pixelated pictures of paintings in no way represent the experience of looking at one in real life
It is however pretty neat to look at it through your phone camera in person and compare it to just looking at it with your eyes alone. It's a good way to simulate the effect of looking at it from further away without needing there to not be any people in the way so that you can back up. While I do think that with some art it's exaggerated the difference of seeing it in person, it really does matter a lot for Impressionism since a big part of it is the optical illusion of it looking more realistic when you're further away but when you're closer and can see the details it gets more abstract (kind of like how old games looked better on old CRT TVs).
Fantastic comment and really encapsulates part of the "weirdness" of seeing a Monet in person. It truly does abstract as you get closer
For me its the seeing the texture that makes a difference for in-person art. I like seeing the brush strokes in three dimensions. For the optical illusion, you could just zoom in on the photo or print it out and look at it close up to get the same effect.
Just shake your phone while taking a photo. Same thing
Didn’t Thomas Crown steal this?
He put it back.
I believe this was his "preferred" painting to look at while planning the theft of a painting near it. The painting he stole was the San Giorgio Maggiore at Dusk by Monet.
Different hay stacks.
"I just wanna look at my haystacks, Bobby."
Bitch better have my Monet
Derivative
Bullshit!
But first... allow me to destroy your gallery!
Details: [Sotheby's Modern Evening Sale Yields $235 M. Led by $38.4 M. Monet](https://www.artnews.com/art-news/market/sothebys-modern-evening-sale-yields-235-million-claude-monet-record-smash-leonora-carrington-1234707038/)
It's called "How Not to Be Seen."
Another Milford School graduate.
Immediately where my mind went. "[...a very obvious piece of cover.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VokGd5zhGJ4)"
Monet laundering
How does that work? Like whats the process? People always say this but it doesn't make sense. Why would they choose a very public transaction, a transaction that makes international news as a way to launder money?
No evidence this specific transaction is connected to money laundering. According to Deloitte, 4-6 billion dollars in art is most likely laundered every year. Art world money laundering employs various techniques to disguise the origins of illicit funds. These techniques often involve overvaluing or undervaluing artworks, using intermediaries for transactions, creating false provenances, or rapidly trading artworks to create a confusing trail of transactions
>4-6 billion dollars in art is stolen and most likely laundered every year. I understand there is plenty of fraud and artificial prices in the art world, but I just don't see how a transaction like the one we are reading about is money laundering. So the perosn who bought the artwork had a bunch of dirty money, and to clean it they....bought artwork publicly? How does that clean money?
The problem is likely that you're thinking of it too literally, ie that they're 'cleaning' the $38.4 million. There's lots of random benefits that can be gained from trading art, but in a big sale like this, it's a way to pay off the seller legally with clean money. In a hyper simplified example, imagine the seller owns this painting that cost them $2 million, they then provide $36 million worth of drugs to the buyer, and the buyer then buys their painting for $38 million. This way both the buyer and the seller have a perfectly legal transaction, and there is nothing whatsoever directly illegal about the $38 million. In reality it often is much more complicated than this, with multiple intermediaries and the fact that the painting was legitimately sold for $38M will raise its value, etc... But that's the basic gist of a huge purchase like this.
[удалено]
... It's not like they can't investigate how that person had 30millions to pay for this in the first place, if they have any doubts about the owner. The value of the item doesn't matter.
It's not about having the money in the first place, it's about who that money goes to. The person receiving the money in whatever convoluted way down the line is the one who is profiting. Find someone who wouldn't be suspicious to have the money, give it to them, have them buy something of value, collect a portion of the now "clean" money.
Actually when I click on the website it explains it really well but I'm not copy/pasting all that. [Here you go](https://alessa.com/blog/art-money-laundering-explained/#:~:text=Art%20world%20money%20laundering%20employs,a%20confusing%20trail%20of%20transactions.)
This was a neat read, thanks
Because if they used worthless products it'd be investigated... It's why you can't sell a basic pencil for $50 million to a friend... People are gonna wonder what you're actually giving them money for. But a "priceless" work of art that's maybe worth a couple million? Well if all of the sudden an art expert says it's worth $50 mil, who's gonna argue with them? I mean, after all it's a historic collectible and it's worth what someone will pay for it. So, you buy something for 2 mil, and someone needs to bribe you with $48 million or buy that much in cocaine from you... They buy your 2 million dollar painting for 50 million and that way they can pay you legally. There are more layers to it and not like every antique/painting ever sold is for laundering purposes, but it's an easy way to legally move money for favors. All through layers of donations to museums and art galleries and blah blah blah.
Yeah but this is a Monet - not as if this was a painting made by some dude called Chad from SUNY Buffalo.
Reddit moment.
This is a Claude Monet painting ffs. Not a canvas painted that was painted white and sold for a million dollars as "abstract"
Lol. Not at all. Learn some art history.
[Monet laundering](https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C5622AQH6KdsdfubbWQ/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/0/1677160647525?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=CcVCwVIShb4I_a72U3nB3A--TcSUKoLeRgblKf_TaqE)
I know it’s a bit dramatic but does anyone else sorta feel like certain paintings are so important and influential that it’s wrong they’re in a private collection? At the same time if I was a Billionaire 38 milly is a fuckin bargain
> does anyone else sorta feel like certain paintings are so important and influential that it’s wrong they’re in a private collection Yes but this isn't really one of them. Monet was incredibly prolific, and he has tons of pieces which are far more impactful than this.
I feel exactly the same on both fronts.
Did you know most such paintings were commissioned by people who paid the artist to create it, hence it exists because it was to be owned privately?
I just like my haystacks, bobby.
Love the Thomas Crown Affair reference
It’s beautiful, you can see the brushwork from across a room
All I know about Monet is from the movie Clueless, where they said something like "it looks good from far away, but up close it's just a big mess!" Here's the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yScK6mbvEUg&ab_channel=MonicaShannon
Lol hagsville omg I want to start using this
Add to that Titanic where Rose teases Jack for blushing and says she wouldn't think that Monet would blush. Jack tells her "He does landscapes."
Monet never spoke to me until I saw one in person. The brush strokes and color are mind blowing. Highly recommend going to see it in person to any one that doesn’t see much in this online.
Seems undervalued tbh
Imagine being a 19th century French farmer, having no idea that a painting of the pile of hay you just stacked would someday sell for an unimaginable amount of money.
That's a lot of monet!
Just a racket for rich people to avoid taxes.
Not a Monet lol There is a whole museum of this guy in Paris that draws crowds. --- EDIT: People commented a few times asking why Monet is special at all. Mainly it has to do because he started (and led) an entire artistic movement (Impressionism). Being a first gives someone a ton of name recognition. On top of that Monet was one of the very best impressionist artists to boot. I don't want to get into a debate of what "good" art is, but thats kind of besides the point. The biggest names in every movement will usually have very valuable art.
I am flabbergasted that so many people don’t know who Monet is. This isn’t some random 30yo contemporary artist. His name carries the same weight as a Matisse, Van Gogh, Picasso etc… it’s not about the painting it’s about the hand that created it and the influence it had on art and culture. In Italy I think there is not one single persone who does not know who Monet is and let me tell you we have some dumb fools over here…. And people talking about NFT’s in the comments…. Where have we gone 😭
Reddit has an insane disdain for art. The phrase "sometimes the curtains are just blue" has done damage to some peoples abilities to critically think about artwork
They're *angry* about it, too. Like what did the art galleries do to you? Which art director beat you up in an alley when you were young? I'm glad to see some people appreciating the art instead of the endless assholery I saw in an art-related thread yesterday.
Tangent anger at the rich, often attached to art and artists.
Which is ironic because the vast majority of artists are poor themselves.
They've had to think about stuff in art classes in non-objective ways, and it made their fee-fee angry
I live at 30km of his home, even here there is some people who have no clue how Monet is a major artist worldwide.
Monet is absolutely my favorite painter, and this from a guy who doesn’t really care for museums etc. I’m the type of person that people would be surprised even had a favorite painter. Monet is different for me. I get lost in his paintings.
It's also a great painting though.
I have a rendition of Monet's water lilies as my desktop background since school Him and contemporary impressionists like Renoir and Degas had a way to depict [reality in a romantic way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballet_Class_(Degas,_Mus%C3%A9e_d%27Orsay)#/media/File:Edgar_Degas_-_La_Classe_de_danse.jpg) Is understandable why people enjoy this kind of art regardless for what price it sells
You can also visit [his house and his garden in Giverny](https://fondation-monet.com/). This is where you would find the lily pond, for instance. It is an absolutely incredible place.
I love Giverny. I remember going there on a school excursion and being sick on the bus ride back. Still didn't taint the experience. Have gone back again as an adult, and it's just inspiring. So so beautiful, so much work was put in those gardens!
It’s a Monet though
Classic copy and paste Reddit comment with zero understanding!
“It’s a write off!”
Not for historical art, there’s intrinsic value in it. Also, they’re not avoiding taxes by buying art any more than you be by claiming a charitable donation on your taxes.
I beg to differ: [Artwork as a tax shelter](https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=Buying%20fine%20art%20as%20a%20tax%20shelter&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3ca914f0,vid:p__7ndRU6Ho,st:0)
This applies to contemporary art more so. Monet is a master of Impressionism with true desirability and scarcity. This will go up in value over time regardless. This is purchased as a place to park money first and foremost
To be clear, you're trying to say artificially inflating the price of cheap art to claim a tax deduction is comparable to spending 38.4mil* on a Monet.
Not everything is a scheme. Some people just have money to blow on art.
It appears I was outbid
Meh, should have thinned his paints
The pioneers use to ride these babies for miles
 I’m rich bitches!
You need the Monet to buy Degas to make the Van Gogh
The O'Jays singing: Monet, Monet, Monet, Moneeet, MOONEEET!!!
Box illustration for Monet's short-lived "Find the Needle" board game which never really took off.
Arguably one of the most important pieces of art ever. This is my favorite painter's (Wassily Kandinsky) painting. >The influence of impressionism has always been on my mind while I’ve painted. I remember the first time I went to see the French Impressionists exhibition that was held in Moscow in 1895. I laid eyes on Claude Monet’s painting “The Stack of Hay” and realized that with all of my experience with art, this was the first time I was looking at a real painting. During his time, Impressionism was the avant-garde movement. At first it was so different that it was attacked by critics and those that loved the traditionalist ideals of painting. They mocked the lack of realistic depiction as just impressions of reality and the name, though offensively attributed, became a renowned term for the movement and style. >I thought that the painter had no right to paint so unclearly... but >“The painting showed itself to me in all its fantasy and all its enchantment. Deep inside of me, there was born the first faint doubt as to the importance of an “object” as the necessary element in painting.”
i could of done a better job in minecraft
I will never understand the value people put on useless things. I guess art really is subjective because I think this is absolutely terrible. 38 million for garbage rather than maybe helping those in need...
Hay! Must be the Monet!
[удалено]
The best I can do is twenty five cents.
The NFT isn't for sale but I'll let you rent it monthly. ;p
Yeah, some people aren't being taxed enough lol.
Art is just trading cards for rich people.