What is Digg?179 Comments
- johnny222, on 10/29/2007, -1/+103That was a man. Funny story: My dad found out about this while he was on the phone with my cousin in Nashville. He asked my cousin if he'd heard about it, but he hadn't. My dad told my cousin the story and the name of the guy (Michael Sparks). My cousin, surprised, said, "Wait, Michael Sparks?" then, away from the phone, "Hey, Mike, is this you?!"
Turns out the guy was AT HIS HOUSE when my dad called him.
http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/official-declar ... - aknowles5139, on 10/24/2007, -3/+82Off topic... Did anyone know that if you double-click any word on the NYT artical, it will open a dictionary? Maybe i'm the only one :P
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -31/+85I don't get art, some talentless artist can paint a bunch of squiggles and lines and sell the ***** painting for 10 million dollars. Makes no logical sense.
- Gillagad, on 10/25/2007, -4/+56As an ex-art major the one thing I learned about modern art is its not about how good you are artistically (to a point) but more about how insane you are.
- pwallroth, on 10/25/2007, -0/+48Too bad she only gets the $15,000 dollar finders fee... Kind of backwards because had she done nothing the painting would have been destroyed and nobody would have gotten anything. She deserves at least half of whatever it sells for at Sotheby's.
- navitatl, on 10/29/2007, -8/+53Well, to be fair, our currency is nothing more than a bunch of painted squiggles and lines. It's worth about as much as the painting, which is jack squat.
- ophello, on 10/25/2007, -8/+43id guess you have no real credentials involved in design or art. but, digg is a place for people to share their opinions, however uninformed or uninspired they may be.
the artist who painted this one is hardly talentless, and id say this painting is worthy of much more respect than you'd care to give it.
luckily, artists dont have people like you calling the shots. here's to hoping you never sit as judge at an art show, or try to paint anything. just stick to video games and you'll be fine. - xJudahx, on 10/25/2007, -0/+31What logic are you using? Something is worth what people will pay for it, seems pretty logical.
- V3n0M, on 10/29/2007, -5/+36Imagine how much it would be worth if it were actually IN the dumpster!
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -2/+28Art doesn't have to be logical
- sassafras1232, on 10/25/2007, -0/+25So how much should she get?
In 1977 the painting was worth $55,000. In 2007 it is worth $1,000,000. Assuming exponential growth that is approximately a 10.3% annual increase (1.103^30 * 55,000 = 1,000,000). That means that when the painting was lost in 1987 ("10 years later") it was worth approximately $147,000 (1.103^10 * 55,000). At that point they offered a $15,000 reward. So the price to reward ratio in 1987 was 9.8:1. This means that for the current $1,000,000 value she should get $102,000.
Not quite a cool million, but still a good bit more than the couple actually gave her. - AlanCayce, on 10/31/2007, -1/+21I would have never known.... Thats actually pretty cool.
- sockpuppets, on 10/29/2007, -1/+20I wouldn't want it rubbing up against Britney like that.
- DvidY, on 10/25/2007, -1/+20nothing wrong with being a dumpster diver!
- Grrreen, on 10/25/2007, -5/+23It's kind of like how paying millions of dollars to athletes makes no sense...
- euroh, on 10/25/2007, -0/+16"LOL thx for the $1,000,000 heres your $15,000 as promised."
- stutimandal, on 10/25/2007, -5/+18I don't understand the price of artwork. A really talented artist from Russia sells t-shirts worth $12 here, while people drawing single straight line through a canvas put it in modern art museum of San Francisco for the worth of millions.
- joshjx, on 10/31/2007, -2/+14wow nice find!
- ophello, on 10/24/2007, -1/+13prooobably not what happened. but hey, youre the super-sleuth! go get her, gumshoe!
- Synthesize, on 10/25/2007, -3/+14WTF, that's my ***** painting I left at the dumpster!
- MaTT2011, on 10/24/2007, -6/+17Please stop painting forever, you suck.
- demiurgency, on 10/24/2007, -1/+10savage burn... but so true and well written. dugg.
- tsaylor, on 10/31/2007, -4/+13When I discovered that, I was double clicking the word to select it and google for the definition, so I was pleasantly surprised that NYTimes took care of it for me. Then I realized that by doing that, they're demonstrating that they think they're so intellectual and more intelligent than their readers that _of course_ there'd be some words the reader wouldn't understand in every article, so they'll need the dictionary. It's a nifty, but condescending feature.
- Chaos12, on 10/29/2007, -1/+9Hahaha, that's ***** funny.
- MewtwoReturns, on 10/25/2007, -0/+8LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
- clickwir, on 10/24/2007, -0/+8Yet your comment gives nothing more than an insult. If they are so ignorant about it, why not help explain it? What is so meaningful about it to you? How is it special and worth something to you? Cause I see it and think it's ugly.
- castingshade, on 10/24/2007, -0/+8Pretty smug smile she's got
- inactive, on 10/24/2007, -1/+8You must be an art major or something.
- Randinn, on 10/24/2007, -6/+13Give a monkey a paintbrush and paint and look what you get....
- computergod, on 10/25/2007, -1/+8It's really the fault of the buyers, whne they make art a status symbol.
There is some damn good art out there for cheep, you can find great, original stuff for very little. I can't really call a house without art on the walls a home, it just feels barren, and impersonal. - Archon810, on 10/29/2007, -0/+7maybe you should double click on the word "article".
- Archon810, on 10/24/2007, -1/+8Exactly. If there's demand and supply meet at a price. One million dollars+ is ridiculous but if someone wants to pay it, let them. It just means they're crazier than you (and have more money).
- Nougat, on 10/24/2007, -0/+7Condescending because ... you already know every word in the English language?
- Shirleycakes, on 10/24/2007, -4/+11Hear hear. You'll be buried within five minutes but I figured you should know at least one person agrees with you.
- sockpuppets, on 10/29/2007, -1/+8Pictures of bananas painted all over?
- Nougat, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6And it has to do with this story why?
- DeFex, on 10/24/2007, -3/+9some people spend $100000 on a bottle of scotch.
some people think the universe is ruled by invisible beings who will help their favourite sports team win, if asked.
some people think apple/sony/nintendo etc can do no wrong. - pixelsoup, on 10/24/2007, -2/+8She's an idiot.
Why did she wait so long to Google the artist's name? - Nougat, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7He knows that; that's why he threw it away.
- cptn_cardboard, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6"Some people say that these people are necessary for the world to function, which is true, but just about anyone could do it."
You're right, and thank god we have professional athletes so our society to function. - computergod, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5Yeah, then gave it back to the original owner for a pittance. RTFA
- ophello, on 10/24/2007, -5/+10you dont just wake up one day and decide to make art. those kind of minimalist paintings are the result of hard work. yup. believe it.
dont believe it? then its your delusion to live with. - ophello, on 10/24/2007, -3/+8the finger youre pointing is pointing back at you. artists dont paint for arrogant teenagers. they paint for their own expression.
- darkyplasma, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4finders keepers, but this time its not true.thats f**ked up.
- koko775, on 10/28/2007, -1/+5Yes. I installed NoScript specifically to keep it from doing that, since I double-click to select lines when I'm reading so I can come back to it later and resume reading from the same place. :(
- ashrafneo, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5thats awesome we need a digg article about this.
P.S. the digg spellcheck doesn't recognize digg. - dragon76, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4Mainly because the average newspaper is written at a 3rd grade reading level and the NYT is not. I like anyone that gives me tools to educate myself and never find education a condescending experience.
- YouLoveFuture, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4I completely agree, but thats no different than money itself? You have a slip of paper with some pictures of dead people and a number on it. Yet go to any store and you can trade it for real, tangible objects like food and clothing! Sounds crazy doesn't it! Value itself is an abstract concept, why should art be any different?
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4You try painting it, and see how easy you think it is then.
- MaTT2011, on 10/24/2007, -2/+5Please put your cliche sayings back in your stupid box and take a hike pal.
Artists, what a joke. Artists are supposed to be individuals of immense skill, intellect and understanding of the world around them on all levels. THey are to reflect that world with talent and hard work such that the average viewer can discern the meaning and symbolism of the painting. It requires study, understanding and general knowledge of the subjects the artist wishes to address and you are supposed to be able to SEE all that, not read about it in a synopsis that the artist/art dealer has provided FOR YOU. This is elitist, relativistic, "see what you want to see but hey; make sure to get all the zeros on the check right." *****. -
Show 51 - 100 of 174 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is