Posted on 10/31/2007 5:27:21 PM PDT by SJackson
I have not viewed all of Van Gogh’s works for certain. The more famous ones I have.
I appreciate Sargent’s portraits because they are so incredibly lifelike.
I always initially like Monet’s works, but ultimately I think it often appears haunted. I tend to stare at them. Heck I even stare at Picasso’s and enjoy some of those.
I have been to the Louvre, and Versailles, and I have appreciated a few works. Boston MFA has some great stuff, and the Gardner Museum next door HAD some awesome stuff as well.
I like Rembrandt and a number of others but Van Gogh has simply never done it for me.
Ultimately, I do not know much about Art, I just know what I like. Sorry about the cliche’.
Yes, those darn catholics are almost as bad as those evil jooooooooooooossss.
Radix,no need for any apology, I apppreciate your reply and respect your appreciation for art and travel.
I bid you and yours, peace and prosperity.
Hilltop.
That's a crappy law if it applies to sales to non-coercers. It would have the effect of discouraging folks in a position to help future persecutees if they could be forced to refund compensation for efforts made and risks taken.
In any case, the court's decision states that, facts aside, they don't believe the 1998 law creates a private cause of action.
lol. That was such a funny post. I am giving you the honors of my 9,000th post! Congratulations! Have a great weekend!!!! Thanks for being a FRiend!!!!!!
Very intelligent post.Let me guess, IQ in lower 90’s?
Whatever someone was willing to give for it. The point is that it was freely sold, and Taylor was in no way responsible for the loss by the other party.
----
If morals and ethics were involved, her heirs should receive at least a very substantial portion of today's going rate for that painting.
Anyone in a position of wealth such as Taylor could well afford to make a large donation to a museum of the family's choice in order to satisfy the contention.
If they're interested in the arts, they would accept the offer: if they were interested in simply the money, they would refuse it.
IMHO, it would be a classy solution.
The determination of coersion is based on the statue of the seller A Jew in post 1933 denied citizenship, denied employment in many venues, some property already formally confiscated, other like artwork, jewelry and financial assets not able to be transfered to heirs, rather reverthing to the state, limited freedom of movement. Under these circumstances, transfers have been deemed by several dozen countries to have been coerced.
Let me guess, you are an anti catholic bigot.
No.Only talking about Vatican and people in power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.