Does it not seem a bit ridiculous that in a world where people are starving, not everyone has a home, and there are billions (yes…billions. about 6 billion) of people who do not have access to the internet, that we can spend that amount of money on something that, lets be honest, doesn’t actually look all that good.
Ok, it is a moving bit of fabric. Very good…she can paint without actually having to see it. Lovely. But first of all, what makes it the “phantom painting”? When I saw the news title on the BBC, I thought it meant a picture that was like eery, or had been found behind another or something like that. I didn’t think it would be a picture of a bit of silk.
O and one last thing. What is the definition of a charity?
dictionary.reference.com says this:
–noun, plural -ties.
|1.||generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one’s life to charity.|
|2.||something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.|
|3.||a charitable act or work.|
|4.||a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.|
|5.||benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.|
|6.||leniency in judging others; forbearance: She was inclined to view our selfish behavior with charity.|
|7.||Christian love; agape.|
So tell me which part of that definition The Art Fund (they gave half of the money for the painting) have anything to do with?
“The Art Fund is an independant charity that exists to save art for everyone to enjoy”
I get it…they are giving money to rich people. Got it. These art sellers need that money. Homeless people don’t.