The Independent runs some of its own angry commentary on the Giacometti sale:
Whoever bought the Giacometti won’t have come from a visual arts background. It will seen as the ultimate status symbol, something to give your palace the wow factor. Anyone who is willing to spend £65m on an object that’s not even unique doesn’t have the same moral values as you or I. That sum would feed the starving in a Third World country, provide clean drinking water for thousands of poverty-stricken farmers, immunise babies and stop unnecessary deaths. It is, quite simply, a repulsive statistic.
What’s so striking about the hostility is that it only emerges if one work is bid up to a record level. There are no outraged essays about the size or existence of an art market in general.
One assumes the attack comes from the idea that art is not necessary, therefore spending money on art is immoral instead of donating it to worthy causes. Still, none of the attacks on art have shown that has an opportunity cost, meaning that the buyer of art is choosing to spend money otherwise earmarked for immunization and farmer relief.
Who’s Cashing in On Fine Art? The Banks, Of Course. (The Independent)