MovieChat Forums > Woman in Gold (2015) Discussion > People crying about the painting being A...

People crying about the painting being Austrian History


are really missing the point. This painting would not exist if Altman's uncle had not paid for its creation. There would not be a f*ing painting if Altman's Uncle had not PAID Klimt to create it! They were patrons and friends of Klimt. They paid money for him to take the time and paid for the material to make the painting. If you pay for something then it is yours. They did not pay Klimt to create some public piece of art. It hung in their apartment until it was stolen. We are not talking about art created by some sort of slave labor like perhaps the pyramids. Or some art work commissioned by force from a King or Tzar. This was a simple business transaction.

So if you really desire some great piece of art for the public either create one yourself or PAY somebody to make it for you. Otherwise, F* Off.

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

reply

Well said. The people complaining about Maria taking a piece of Austrian history away conveniently ignore the fact that it never would have become a part of the public culture if it hadn't first been stolen right off the wall of a private home.

And even if they believe that Adele wanted it to end up in a museum, had it not been stolen when it was, that would not have happened for many years. And who knows if it would have captured the world's attention in the same way? Or if her husband would have granted her wish and given it to a museum at all.

In the end, none of that speculation matters. The painting belonged to Maria's family before it ever belonged to any museum and they should have had the choice about what to do with it. Period.

reply

Say "Amen" somebody!

reply

The painting is not a piece of history, it is a painting of her aunt that was paid for by her family as a family memento. It would be like claiming you had no right to a photo you had taken on your own phone and then printed out on paper you had owned.

Just because the artist is important is completely irrelevant. In the UK this is why family portraits regardless of value are not taxed as part of inheritance tax, because they are fundamentally not artworks, but mementos of family members

reply

To the point and succinct. Thank you.

reply