I love Monet: his 'Water Lilies' would look great on my wall. But would I prefer to see money helping kids get better from cancer rather than spending it on a work of art for my own personal indulgence? Yes, I probably would.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If I were related to Monet, I don't know if I would be comfortable becoming an artist because it's too much, the comparison. If I wrote a book and put it out, the comparison to my great-grandfather, the comparison would be hilarious. Every critic, it would be their dream, they'd tear me apart.
People would rather have art or gold instead of paper money.
You have to teach children about money intentionally - create teachable moments.
Some artists are working to buy the mansion or whatever the element of fame must bear, but I spend all my money on my show.
You know, Mike Milken, the money that he has raised for cancer research has been remarkable.
I'd rather have people really be able to step back and get their money's worth and look at me as a true artist than somebody who is just regurgitating other material.
I love Monet - I've nicknamed him King Blob. When you go up to the painting, it's a series of blobs - amazing.
Money is a good thing and it's obviously useful, but to work only for money or fame would never interest me.
There are a lot worse things you can do with all your bucks than giving them to even a mediocre mutual fund - such as, for example, giving them to a mediocre hedge fund. If supporting the lifestyle of a mediocre fund manager is your favorite charity, who am I to stop you?
I feel funny about owning art. I don't really want to say: 'Wow, come and see my Monet - it's in a dark room at the bottom of my cellar.'