(CNN)Hunter Biden has been many things over his 51 years. But, in the last few years at least, he has been an artist.
"For years I wouldn't call myself an artist," he told The New York Times, from his Los Angeles home and studio, last year. "Now I feel comfortable saying it."
Hunter's art has, of late, received a lot of attention -- for all the wrong reasons. Some of his pieces are set to go up for auction and the White House has been forced to deal with ethics questions about people buying the artwork for huge sums as a way to curry favor with President Joe Biden. Two sources familiar with the sales arrangement told CNN that buyers will be anonymous and Hunter Biden will never have any knowledge on who even bid on his pieces.
White House helped form ethics agreement with art gallery that's selling Hunter Biden's paintings, sources say
White House helped form ethics agreement with art gallery that's selling Hunter Biden's paintings, sources say
Ethics questions aside though, I was interested in something different: Is Hunter Biden's art, well, any good? So I reached out to Sebastian Smee, the Pulitzer Prize-winning art critic for The Washington Post, to get his evaluation of Hunter Biden, artist.
That article confirmed what I already thought, but when I read that Hunter (and presumably Joe) will never know who spends ridiculous amounts of money for his mediocre "cafe art", I had to laugh.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
So how does this work? Does the high bid winner of the "ART" agree to never display it in order to prevent Hunter and Joe from finding out who paid them for it? Ya that's the ticket
Freezeman wrote: So how does this work? Does the high bid winner of the "ART" agree to never display it in order to prevent Hunter and Joe from finding out who paid them for it? Ya that's the ticket
I wondered the same thing, that's why I think this is all just a good way to launder influence money.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Freezeman wrote: So how does this work? Does the high bid winner of the "ART" agree to never display it in order to prevent Hunter and Joe from finding out who paid them for it? Ya that's the ticket
I wondered the same thing, that's why I think this is all just a good way to launder influence money.
In addition, I think that fact that he paints them with a straw is a giant sharp stick in the eye of the rank and file.
Same reason Jeffrey Epstein displayed this.
Jackson Pollock let the paint drip off the end of a stick and made art worth millions. What's your point? oh, wait - you're making fun of his drug addiction.
koobookie wrote: Jackson Pollock let the paint drip off the end of a stick and made art worth millions. What's your point? oh, wait - you're making fun of his drug addiction.
koobookie wrote: Jackson Pollock let the paint drip off the end of a stick and made art worth millions. What's your point? oh, wait - you're making fun of his drug addiction.
