This is not consumption at all.

A painting is probably a few hundred $ worth of materials perhaps a couple of hundred hours labour tops.

The average person probably wastes/consumes more rubbish in a week or two.

This is a rich person not consuming if anything.

"Conspicuous consumption" refers to the practice of spending money purely to demonstrate your ability to spend money. Don't be obtuse.

Isn't that true of just about anything relating to the very rich? Maybe excluding the Buffett-style low-key-lifestyle rich. I find it difficult to get more worked up about millions for a painting than millions for a Maybach or ostentatious yacht/mansion/jet. I'm somewhat bothered by the inequality of such concentration of wealth existing in the first place, but if it's going to exist, I guess it's fine with me if they waste it on status symbols.

Jets are actually really useful, and even yachts and cars can be actively enjoyed. Buying shitty ugly art just as a status symbol is nothing like that, and you pretty much deserve a guillotine or a bullet for that kind of bullshit.

It's not really conspicuous, since it's usually not revealed who owns the painting, and the paintings are warehoused or displayed in a private home. It's also not really consumption, since it's just a painting.