Money is never wasted.
While the long explanation is some what technical and boring, the short version is this;
"Money is neither created nor destroyed, it simply moves from one hand to another".
Put another way, the National Gallery had 20 mil to spend. So they spent it. That 20 mil us now in the economy, and will travel further. The family that sold the painting might need a new roof, or a tractor, or whatever. They in turn spend the money and it flows.
An economy is just the flow of money. An economy stalls when the money stops flowing and is hoarded.
Fundamentally you want rich people to spend their money. On "what" is mostly irrelevant.
Here's another simplistic example. The US produces a surplus of wheat. USAid buys a lot of that wheat (using tax money) which is thus a round-about subsidization of wheat farmers. This is prudent because local food security, ie having farmers at all, is a good thing.
Now USAid have a pile of wheat, so they donate it to countries that can't afford it. This buys US prestige, both with those countries and their neighbors.
Now USAid stops. The govt "saves money". Farmers loose their subsidy. Long-term US citizens lose their food security.
Money itself has no value. Spending that money has value. Because only by spending it can you realize that value.
Money is complicated - the only way in which I would see it get truly wasted is if you took it out as cash and burnt it. Even then you'll be (marginally) raising the value of all other money left in the system.
But if I understand correctly it's not taxpayer money
How does that work (I'm not in the the UK)? Donations perhaps?
In this case specifically it's unlikely the family sold an asset simply to buy another asset. They've had it a few hundred years, and the gallery has had their eye on it for decades. It's likely they sold it cause they needed the cash, for a new roof or whatever.
If they spend it, then those people providing the goods and services will prosper. If they invest it in a business, then that business has capital to grow, and all those employees will benefit.
[1] not sure how much you will be able to sell said sweet drawing for nor when, but by definition, it will be worth it.
So, sorry they're all gone already!
So from my perspective, I can getter better value moving my cash to dome other suppliers.
But even if I did buy your sweet drawing, the money itself us not wasted (I personally just control less of it.) The same money would now be controlled by you, and I'm sure you'll spend it, thus benefiting others.
The money itself cannot be wasted, it merely moves from one set of hands to another.
My personal control of money can indeed be wasted, since I can transfer it to another for insignificant value. But that's simply my control, not the money itself.
With regards to how money is created, you may want to read on credit and how banks create money virtually out of nothing, or how the state has a monopoly on printing money (turning "not money" -- paper and ink -- into "money").
The destroying part is much simpler: you can perform an experiment of burning a banknote yourself.
When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can't eat money. -- Alanis Obomsawin
I had a laugh at that comment. I visited London six months ago and spent an evening at the National Gallery, including the self-guided audio tour. As I wrote in an email at the time,
"I'd guess at least a third of the paintings I saw, often from Italian artists, were about Jesus being born, being circumcised, or being crucified and resurrected, along with lots of stuff about Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist (Jesus' cousin, I guess), etc"
Sounds like they have only dated the wood in the frame to 1500. Hopefully they will do some more research and get more proof.
For reference, Han van Meegeren used old frames and old canvases to forge his works. The article on his career is fascinating.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melun_Diptych#/media/File:Fouq...
Thought that one was the ugliest, until now.
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/about-us/partnering-with-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...
jfengel•1d ago
The artist is literally unknown, not just "not yet famous", which is how I first read the HN headline. It's centuries old.
giuliomagnifico•1d ago
riffraff•21h ago
I think a common way to describe such authors is "anonymous" although that has its own shade of confusion (did they intend to be unnamed?)
giuliomagnifico•16h ago
Anyway, mods can edit the title if this causes misunderstandings!
mellosouls•19h ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
kybernetyk•21h ago
freddealmeida•21h ago
ginko•19h ago
For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Golden_Altar
Wikipedia even has a list listing many 'Master of X' artists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anonymous_artists