15 February 2011

More grand designs c/o an unfathomably confused Australian Gummint

More evolved Australians investing their superannuation funds, quite sensibly, in quality art, will soon have to either rent the evil artifact to someone or pay for its professional storage.
The art rental market is on its knees, and paying for fine art storage is an unnecessary cost which undermines the investment value. But even if investors promise to avert their gaze when passing their artworks in the hall, or to sit in chairs with their backs to the painting, it is STILL - NOT - OK! It is also apparently not OK to safely and sensibly store the artworks in their alarmed, insured and secure spare room. 

How does this make it a better investment?

Our government allows us to invest in art as long as we don't look at it! And we voted for these people.

Pretty weird huh?

Do Julia Gillard & Co think that art is unAustralian? Do they think paintings wear out under an appreciative gaze? Or more likely, perhaps they don't think at all - even about how Australia is laughed at for such nonsense! We are hicks! We are rednecks!
No. Investors must pay to store their art somewhere else - after all, they might succumb. They might creep into the spare room in the dead of night, peel back the bubble wrap and guiltily indulge in forbidden visual pleasures. And where would we all be then?

The government must protect us from the pleasures of fine art at all costs, even if it does mean breaking a still warm election promise!

And even if it does put yet another bullet in the heart of Australia's once fine art industry!


  1. I am completely confused. Not because you weren't clear, but the policy itself. WTF?

  2. I don't quite understand. You can buy art but then aren't allowed to look at it?

  3. like anybody actually keeps election promises.

  4. I am also puzzled by the policy. It sounds like they need to get their priorities straight.