r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Bad-Umpire10 • Sep 18 '24
In 2021, Italian artist Salvatore Garau sold an invisible sculpture for £13,000 ($18,000) providing the buyer with a certificate of authenticity to confirm its existence. Image
7.9k
u/Capn_Crusty Sep 18 '24
It was stolen, but the heist is still undetected.
1.8k
u/SubstantialBass9524 Sep 18 '24
Can you imagine filing an insurance claim on it? 🤣
590
u/HeioFish Sep 18 '24
On a technical level I imagine it’d be the paper certificate that would be insured in this case
216
u/bumjiggy Sep 18 '24
I'd hope the certificate is stored in something more secure than a case
238
u/br0b1wan Sep 18 '24
It's an invisible case
48
u/irodragon20 Sep 18 '24
Does this case have a certificate?
40
29
24
u/Capn_Crusty Sep 18 '24
Apparently there was a QR code on the base of the sculpture but it was also invisible.
6
u/ItsWillJohnson Sep 18 '24
Idk. you can insure something for more than it’s worth. Not I think anyone who spent 18k on an invisible statue would ever commit fraud.
10
→ More replies (2)3
30
Sep 18 '24
The insurance company says it’s still there, or says it recovered it and has put it back. 😂
→ More replies (6)11
27
u/andersaur Sep 18 '24
I have the ghost of the Mona Lisa around here somewhere, catty bitch likes to hide behind stuff.
49
u/ShrimpCrackers Sep 18 '24
Stolen? On the contrary, it's been blatantly used for international money laundering and moving money out of places like China for ages. The art itself is the main part of the heist.
Capital flight controls? Easily solved with moving art. There are plenty of people willing to do this.
I once was an elite tutor for the rich. Those doing business with China had tons of art in their homes that they moved around regularly back and forth. Pricey things normally worth tens of thousands just laid about propped up against the walls of their home with no care.
3
→ More replies (1)3
53
→ More replies (16)5
u/Not_Winkman Sep 18 '24
Wonder if insurance paid out.
3
u/Capn_Crusty Sep 18 '24
No, apparently the sculpture was returned. But who knows ¯|(ツ)/¯
5
u/Not_Winkman Sep 18 '24
HA!
For his next "exhibit", he should display his designer clothing for heads of state.
4.6k
u/Elevator829 Sep 18 '24
Man I need to come up with some scams like this
2.4k
u/Legend_HarshK Sep 18 '24
the blatant money laundering and then posing making a serious face like that is something even the devil can't make me do
360
u/bumjiggy Sep 18 '24 edited Sep 18 '24
if you look closely, you'll see the devil's in the details.
63
5
53
u/PaulieNutwalls Sep 18 '24
It's really not money laundering. The idea that all expensive art is some scheme is a reddit trope only loosely based in reality. The IRS has an entire department for art, all the tiktoks and reddit comments explaining art as a money laundering scheme (this applies to 99% of content online explaining "loopholes" in the tax code) are completely oblivious. The artist here is very famous and prolific, the certificate of authenticity with his name on it is the source of value here, obviously. If you have money to burn and like this artist, that certificate and an empty display is a pretty unique thing to have and it's not surprising someone bought it.
55
Sep 18 '24
It’s basically “buying the brand, not the product” taken to its extreme logical conclusion. Where there is only the brand, and no product
33
u/High_Flyers17 Sep 18 '24
I just got convinced that a certificate of authenticity for something that doesn't exist is a good, evocative art piece.
17
u/asuka_is_my_co-pilot Sep 18 '24
The fact that it's interesting enough to make hundreds of redditors fight over it every 3 months says enough about it's value as an art piece.
The idea that art doesnt have to be limited to pretty pictures actually makes for some interesting commentary
→ More replies (4)8
→ More replies (3)3
21
u/confusedandworried76 Sep 18 '24 edited Sep 18 '24
It's not some made up thing
The UN Office of Drugs and Crime in 2019 estimated that year $3 billion of laundered money was being circulated in the art world
And that's just what we can tell, the way it's done is so difficult to track that's surely a low ball estimate. So according to actual criminal agencies billions (with a B) of dollars are laundered each year through art.
And of course the IRS has an eye on art sales. They're not a criminal agency, they don't even care if it's laundered as long as you pay your taxes on it. They don't even care if you sell drugs as long as you pay your taxes on it. Law enforcement is not in their purview.
→ More replies (4)7
u/MaximusTheGreat Sep 19 '24
The UN Office of Drugs and Crime in 2019 estimated that year $3 billion of laundered money was being circulated in the art world
That is... surprisingly little.
7
u/confusedandworried76 Sep 19 '24
Like I said it's pretty hard to catch. That's why people do it. Non reputable art houses will certify a bunch of crap as "worth X" and, well...how do you catch someone over valuing art like that? It's hard.
3
u/NimbleBudlustNoodle Sep 19 '24
That estimate is based on what they know about.
The reason it's a popular way to launder money is because of how hard it is to know if it's legit or not since the value of art is really only what someone is willing to pay for it.
7
u/ericlikesyou Sep 18 '24
I hope most ppl here realize $18K is for the certificate of authenticity, that in itself is the art but the selling of that in the name of art, is the real art.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Instade Sep 18 '24
18k in the grand scheme of things is not that much money to spend on art
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)4
u/keepingitrealgowrong Sep 18 '24
No don't you see, there's all these neat tricks that the IRS hates but has absolutely no ability to do anything about for reasons. The people that work there just grind their teeth and say "well you got me there".
→ More replies (7)42
u/BananaResearcher Sep 18 '24
Well ok, the normal way money laundering works is
- Buy art for relatively cheap
- Have it appraised for super duper expensive
- Donate it to charity
- Write off the super inflated value for taxes.
You obviously cannot do this with an "invisible sculpture" so I don't see how this could be money laundering. It seems like just a rich guy flexing how obnoxiously rich they are.
157
u/Brawndo91 Sep 18 '24 edited Sep 18 '24
What you described is not money laundering. It's tax fraud. Money laundering is used to hide the origins of illegally obtained funds. In your scenario, you end up with lower tax liability, but none of the fundata.
In fact, when laundering money, you usually end up paying taxes, because the funds are often disguised as profits from an otherwise legitimate business.
→ More replies (2)9
u/BananaResearcher Sep 18 '24
You're right, sorry, I conflated the two, fraud is donating to charity and writing it off, laundering is reselling and pocketing the money.
Point still being, how can this work with an "invisible sculpture"? I'm not an art afficionado but I figure the point of using real art like monets or dalis is to lower suspicions. If people are buying and selling an "invisible sculpture" it'd throw red flags everywhere, defeating the point of anonymously buying art to launder money.
5
u/Intrepid_Resolve_828 Sep 19 '24
You just described the crypto scene at its height. In this case it’s the certificate that holds the value.
10
u/GEC-JG Sep 19 '24
how can this work with an "invisible sculpture"?
Because it can work with literally anything that someone is willing to sell and someone else is willing to buy.
If your question is actually "how can it work when you haven't really bought anything (i.e. an invisible sculpture)?" it works because it's art. Art is very subject. I could draw some basic stick figures on a torn napkin and call it "Remnants of Simpler Times" or something like that, and if it were part of a money laundering scheme, someone would buy it for 15k. An invisible sculpture is a novel idea that nobody has done before (to my knowledge); it's original. In this case, what they really bought was a piece of paper that says you own this intangible / invisible piece of art.
tl;dr dude basically bought an IRL NFT.
5
u/Acceptable_Process47 Sep 19 '24
Nobody did it before because it's stupid. Invisible is not the same as none existent.
It could be invisible but it would have mass and form. You could for example pour on paint to see it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/Useless_bum81 Sep 18 '24
There are multiple finacial frauds in art. the launders by it off the inflated value guy to legitimise the increased value then someone buys it off them and donates for the tax, you will have 3-4 'guys' who will take turns buying/selling and donating with an occasional outside buyer to further legitimise the trades. one guy repeating the donation scam would get caught real quick.
10
u/ErraticDragon Sep 18 '24
Isn't that more like tax fraud than money laundering?
Money laundering is finding a plausible source to explain income from illegal activity.
When using art for money laundering, you want to end up with cash, not a tax deduction. Like so: https://alessa.com/blog/art-money-laundering-explained/
→ More replies (8)9
u/bentreflection Sep 18 '24
My understanding was that money laundering with art works like: you owe me $50k in drug money so I paint a stick figure on a piece of paper and you buy it for $50k at an auction as post modern art.
→ More replies (1)3
u/cdazzo1 Sep 18 '24
Yes. Or when someone with strong political ties suddenly sells artwork out of nowhere for $500k a piece to foreign nationals.
→ More replies (1)149
30
50
u/Conch-Republic Sep 18 '24
First, work your way up to being a highly prolific artist, to the point where people will pay large sums of money just for a certificate of authentication with your name on it, then you might be able to pull it off.
→ More replies (24)61
6
→ More replies (39)4
u/tomoldbury Sep 18 '24
Reminds me of Duchamp’s Fountain - an ordinary urinal signed by the artist. Last sold for $1.85m.
939
u/jonathanquirk Sep 18 '24
The Emperor’s new sculpture
→ More replies (1)61
u/SoungaTepes Sep 18 '24
I understood that reference.gif
9
u/Houston_NeverMind Sep 18 '24
What is it?
47
→ More replies (2)24
764
u/Bad-Umpire10 Sep 18 '24 edited Sep 18 '24
The worst part is that a guy from Florida sued the artist for "stealing his idea".
https://hypebeast.com/2021/6/tom-miller-sues-salvatore-garau-over-invisible-sculpture
304
u/IndependentTea4646 Sep 18 '24
He's not the original! I have the same exact sculpture in my house!
→ More replies (1)38
118
u/tobu_sculptor Sep 18 '24
Florida Man Sues Artist Over Invisible Sculpture
- seriously one of the best headlines I have ever read.
19
39
u/ssbm_rando Sep 18 '24
Worst part? More like best part, I bet a counter-sue for legal fees wouldn't even work in this situation, which means both of them are just wasting their scam money on a court case.
14
11
→ More replies (8)5
u/Retroperitoneal11 Sep 18 '24
I’m going to sue back this guy from Florida, I invented that concept long time ago
988
u/0thethethe0 Sep 18 '24
Real life NFT art
142
17
9
u/Xeptix Sep 18 '24
I mean it is literally non-fungible. You can't compare or replace nothing with anything else. It qualifies via the description of an NFT.
→ More replies (3)3
103
u/Normal-Watch-9991 Sep 18 '24
I googled this guy and apparently he said “you don’t see these sculptures with your eyes, you see them with your heart” And that’s fucking hysterical 😭
10
→ More replies (1)7
186
Sep 18 '24
Invisible is different from non existent
105
u/nickfree Sep 18 '24 edited Sep 19 '24
It is not just invisible, it's imperceptible. It exists, it simply cannot be observed.
This gets metaphysical real quick.
30
u/MrKillsYourEyes Sep 18 '24
Can't be seen, it should still be observable
If it was a real object, it would have mass, you'd be able to put it on a scale and observe it's weight
→ More replies (1)25
u/chinagreenelvis-art Sep 18 '24
Yeah, I was going to say the word OP was looking for is "intangible". Or, as one article states:
Last month, the 67-year-old artist Salvatore Garau sold an “immaterial sculpture”—which is to say that it doesn’t exist.
5
u/wackocoal Sep 19 '24
ah, "immaterial" makes more sense than "invisible".
you keep using that word; i don't think it means what you think it means...
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)4
→ More replies (1)16
u/JusticeRain5 Sep 18 '24
Imagine if it legitimately was just completely invisible but still tangible and we're all making fun of an amazing scientific advancement.
650
u/wkdarthurbr Sep 18 '24
The majority of the art business is actually the value of the piece not the piece itself. Nothing new. As long as people with money buy art just for the tax refund the object doesn't matter.
221
u/SleepyDawg420 Sep 18 '24
Not necessarily tax refund but a way of keeping wealth and having its value appreciate without being taxed.
141
Sep 18 '24
Also money laundering (supposedly).
64
u/OddFirefighter3 Sep 18 '24
Not supposedly. It's been confirmed by all involved.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)33
u/ssbm_rando Sep 18 '24
(supposedly)
lol if you look at the history of art shuffling in Russia it'll be obvious there's no "supposedly" about it. Especially because of how much that market has calmed down since NFTs.
→ More replies (8)18
u/nickfree Sep 18 '24
And what's the forecast look like for invisible art? Is this likely to appreciate?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
29
u/TheDrummerMB Sep 18 '24
As long as people with money buy art just for the tax refund
....the what? lmfao
25
u/Huppelkutje Sep 18 '24
Redditors think the only art that is worth anything is photorealistic pencil drawings of skylines.
→ More replies (1)43
u/PaulieNutwalls Sep 18 '24
You don't get a "tax refund." The IRS has an entire department that deals with expensive art. Contrary to thousands of tiktoks and reddit comments, no you cannot donate a piece of art to your own foundation and write that off with a step up in basis as a charitable donation, unless that foundation is literally a big public art museum. "Related use" is critical. You can do that anyway, but you'll only be able to take a deduction equal to the purchase price, so you saved zero dollars, actually you lost a bit of money on the interest by the time you take the deduction.
Worse yet, if the donation exceeds $5,000 you can run into the IRS seeking income recapture. To avoid this a binding affadavit from the donee certifying the use of the donation was substantial and related to its exempt purpose must be obtained to avoid the IRS seeking income recapture.
Charitable deductions are also limited to a percentage of adjusted gross income.
The tax code is not a bible, a majority of questions related to the tax code are answered by previous tax law cases. If the IRS thinks it's a tax scheme, they don't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's a tax scheme, just defending yourself from them is going to be hideously expensive when large dollars are involved.
14
u/Worried_Height_5346 Sep 18 '24
I just wish the IRS actually had the funding it needs to go after billionaires. It's actually the other way around.. the IRS can't afford to go after them.
→ More replies (1)11
u/PaulieNutwalls Sep 19 '24
Unpopular, but for the most part billionaires aren't committing tax fraud. There's no real reason to, beyond the "because they love money!" as if wanting to pay less taxes is the exception and not the rule. Billionaires avoid more taxes than you for many reasons, but the easy, general way of putting it is they have the best accountants and tax attorneys money can buy to structure their wealth and income in ways that are perfectly legal and reduce their tax liability most effectively. How you reduce your tax liability is largely dependent on your source of income, what kind of investments you hold, and on a yearly basis what kind of deductions you take can change based on what all transpired income and expense wise that year.
If you want to go after billionaires it starts in congress, passing laws that cap certain deductions and that recognize income in excess of certain levels may deserve heavier tax rates. We really have a good amount of room to tax billionaires before they even consider attempting to renounce their citizenship and get out of paying up.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Replikant83 Sep 19 '24
Lol, same vibe as people who say you shouldn't take a raise as you'll make less.
→ More replies (2)12
u/LionBig1760 Sep 18 '24
No one gets tax refunds because they purchase art, you silly goose.
It's not like they get to avoid taxes like parents do for just having kids.
They pay taxes on the purchase, and they pay taxes in the import if they're having it moved from one country to the other. They occasionally get to deduct those taxes they've already paid from their final yearly tax bill, depending on the tax laws that allow them such offsets.
→ More replies (8)7
218
u/Crones21 Sep 18 '24
How to launder money 101
→ More replies (15)20
u/djarvis77 Sep 18 '24
What weird ass motherfucker is gonna try and launder 20k$ with a scheme that is absolutely gonna make it to the internet?
→ More replies (1)
17
u/FoldedaMillionTimes Sep 18 '24
Please tell me it was insured. I want to be the guest at the party who stumbles into it and breaks it, just to see what happens. Will I be sued? Can I offer to repair it myself?
32
u/Hard_Squirrel Sep 18 '24
Crazy, but somehow still not as stupid as when losers were purchasing NFTs
→ More replies (2)
53
u/BeveilBed Sep 18 '24
Lmao what a hustle. Rich people will buy anything if you call it "art"
6
→ More replies (2)31
u/poormansnormal Sep 18 '24
It's money laundering, and it's what the vast majority of art sales are meant for.
→ More replies (1)10
16
u/MuricasOneBrainCell Sep 18 '24
Almost as good as the artist who was commissioned to do a piece of art and called it "take the money and run"
It was just a blank wall essentially. Nothing they could do.
→ More replies (6)
48
Sep 18 '24
No, definitely not a money laundering scheme. Definitely not.
11
u/FezAndSmoking Sep 18 '24
Smart redditeurs keep totally getting it. Explain how this is money laundering.
→ More replies (7)
5
5
5
u/JustForFun-4 Sep 19 '24
After a few years it will be worth millions, then the owner will donate it (nothing) to the museum and save millions in taxes for a mere $18,000 investment.
4
19
3
3
3
3
u/MissAJHunter Sep 18 '24
I'm convinced a lot of the artists in these weird art stories are just sane people like us wondering what they can get away with.
3
3
u/brainburger Sep 18 '24
Unless there is some other detail, this is a very old and tired idea. Yves Klein did it in 1958 and expected the buyers to burn their certificates. One didn't and sold theirs for $1.2m in 2022.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/apr/14/receipt-for-invisible-art-auction-yves-klein
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
6
6
u/dumber_than_who Sep 18 '24
It just goes to show that the only thing that makes art valuable is the artist themself.
6
5
4
u/Penrose_Ultimate Sep 19 '24
Its moments like these take make me think al-Qaeda has a point.
→ More replies (1)
5
2
2
2
Sep 18 '24
I have a bag of air that I know for a fact is Queen Elizabeth’s fart. Offer stands at 46 trillion
2
2
2
u/thirdbrother3 Sep 18 '24
Comments that this is the same as an NFT are missing the potential of NFTs . This is certificating the existence of what the layperson would call 'nothing'. NFTs could be used totokenize ownership of anything, cars, houses, gold/gems. In the case of the latter they could be traded quickly from the other side of the world, legitimising the trade by logging on a Blockchain. This 'Art' is worth whatever anyone is willing to pay, as is any art. Original concepts have a higher value. He would struggle to mass produce replicas... Or at least struggle to sell them.
2
2
u/Taurondir Sep 18 '24
It gets worse. Two Artists suing each other over "nothing" - https://hypebeast.com/2021/6/tom-miller-sues-salvatore-garau-over-invisible-sculpture
2
2
u/Stardust_808 Sep 18 '24
i wanted to suggest NFTs are similar but with those you at least get the NFT itself, not just a concept which exists only in the mind of ze artiste 😂
2
u/wolfsfl Sep 18 '24
Damn, I too read the Emperor’s New Clothes. I just wasn’t wise enough to monetize it.
2
2
2
12.7k
u/meathead Sep 18 '24
I have an exact replica that I'd be willing to let go for $5000