Hunter the "artist"

[rogue06]

This is pretty typical of the art world.

It's hard to make an argument he's not doing what lots of famous people who decided they were artists do.

The problem is that the standards of quality in contemporary art are so shockingly low anyone can declare themselves an artist, and if they have the right connections, go right to the top. You can't do that with ballet or the violin.

It is typical when it comes to legitimate masterpieces when the owner doesn't want to become a target for thieves, but not so much for a starting artist who probably used finger paints the last time he painted.

Moreover, this is the son of the current U.S. president. Aren't you even the least bit concerned about various unscrupulous people and foreign entities funneling millions of untraceable dollars into his pocket. Especially given the Biden family's propensity to find jobs where the only thing they have going for them is being related to old Joe.

Look at it this way. Would you be this nonchalant if it were say one of Trump's kids who had announced that they woke up one morning and proclaimed they were selling paintings for up to a half million dollars -- no questions asked?

[Sparko]

It is typical when it comes to legitimate masterpieces when the owner doesn't want to become a target for thieves, but not so much for a starting artist who probably used finger paints the last time he painted.

Moreover, this is the son of the current U.S. president. Aren't you even the least bit concerned about various unscrupulous people and foreign entities funneling millions of untraceable dollars into his pocket. Especially given the Biden family's propensity to find jobs where the only thing they have going for them is being related to old Joe.

Look at it this way. Would you be this nonchalant if it were say one of Trump's kids who had announced that they woke up one morning and proclaimed they were selling paintings for up to a half million dollars -- no questions asked?

Remember this?

06-vintage-billy-beer-can-back.jpg

[rogue06]

Remember this?

06-vintage-billy-beer-can-back.jpg

I had a six pack in my basement which although never got wet (on a shelf), corroded on the bottom. I ended up giving the one good one to a cousin when he visited.

But at least Billy wasn't selling them for $75,000 to $500,000 a can and keeping buyers secret.

[Backup]

Yup.

Source: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-off-invisible-sculpture-18300-literally-made-nothing-1976181

An Italian Artist Auctioned Off an ‘Invisible Sculpture’ for $18,300. It’s Made Literally of Nothing

“It is a work that asks you to activate the power of the imagination,” Salvatore Garau said of his sculpture.
Taylor Dafoe, June 3, 2021


Italian conceptualist Salvatore Garau, via Instagram.

From the department of “They sold that for how much?!” comes today’s story, about an Italian artist who, for the cool price of €15,000 ($18,300), recently auctioned an artwork that is… well, nothing.
Last month, the 67-year-old artist Salvatore Garau sold an “immaterial sculpture”—which is to say that it doesn’t exist.
To be fair, the artist might disagree on conceptual grounds. For Garau, the artwork, titled lo sono (which translates to “I am”), finds form in its own nothingness. “The vacuum is nothing more than a space full of energy, and even if we empty it and there is nothing left, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that nothing has a weight,” he told the Spanish news outlet Diario AS. “Therefore, it has energy that is condensed and transformed into particles, that is, into us.”

Lo Sono went up for sale in May at the Italian auction house Art-Rite. The pre-sale estimate valued the piece between €6,000-9,000, according to AS, but competing bidders pushed the price tag to €15,000.

The lucky buyer went home with a certificate of authenticity and a set of instructions: the work, per Garau, must be exhibited in a private house in a roughly five-by-five-foot space free of obstruction.

“When I decide to ‘exhibit’ an immaterial sculpture in a given space, that space will concentrate a certain amount and density of thoughts at a precise point, creating a sculpture that, from my title, will only take the most varied forms,” the artist went on.

“You don’t see it but it exists; it is made of air and spirit,” he explained in a video documenting the Milan piece. “It is a work that asks you to activate the power of the imagination, a power that anyone has, even those who don’t believe they have it.”

Indeed, many people on the internet seem to be having trouble tapping into that power. “So you really just taped a square and called that a sculpture?” reads the most-liked comment on the video page.

© Copyright Original Source

$18,000 for an invisible sculpture?

humph, I got one I'll sell you for $14,000

[Sparko]

I had a six pack in my basement which although never got wet (on a shelf), corroded on the bottom. I ended up giving the one good one to a cousin when he visited.

But at least Billy wasn't selling them for $75,000 to $500,000 a can and keeping buyers secret.

Yeah but it is just another relative trying to leach off of their famous dad/brother/etc.

[rogue06]

Yeah but it is just another relative trying to leach off of their famous dad/brother/etc.

True, but FWIU Billy only started doing this after Jimmy became POTUS, whereas the Biden clan has been living off old Joe's being a senator and then Vice President for decades.

[Mountain Man]

Yup.

Source: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-off-invisible-sculpture-18300-literally-made-nothing-1976181

An Italian Artist Auctioned Off an ‘Invisible Sculpture’ for $18,300. It’s Made Literally of Nothing

“It is a work that asks you to activate the power of the imagination,” Salvatore Garau said of his sculpture.
Taylor Dafoe, June 3, 2021


Italian conceptualist Salvatore Garau, via Instagram.

From the department of “They sold that for how much?!” comes today’s story, about an Italian artist who, for the cool price of €15,000 ($18,300), recently auctioned an artwork that is… well, nothing.
Last month, the 67-year-old artist Salvatore Garau sold an “immaterial sculpture”—which is to say that it doesn’t exist.
To be fair, the artist might disagree on conceptual grounds. For Garau, the artwork, titled lo sono (which translates to “I am”), finds form in its own nothingness. “The vacuum is nothing more than a space full of energy, and even if we empty it and there is nothing left, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that nothing has a weight,” he told the Spanish news outlet Diario AS. “Therefore, it has energy that is condensed and transformed into particles, that is, into us.”

Lo Sono went up for sale in May at the Italian auction house Art-Rite. The pre-sale estimate valued the piece between €6,000-9,000, according to AS, but competing bidders pushed the price tag to €15,000.

The lucky buyer went home with a certificate of authenticity and a set of instructions: the work, per Garau, must be exhibited in a private house in a roughly five-by-five-foot space free of obstruction.

“When I decide to ‘exhibit’ an immaterial sculpture in a given space, that space will concentrate a certain amount and density of thoughts at a precise point, creating a sculpture that, from my title, will only take the most varied forms,” the artist went on.

“You don’t see it but it exists; it is made of air and spirit,” he explained in a video documenting the Milan piece. “It is a work that asks you to activate the power of the imagination, a power that anyone has, even those who don’t believe they have it.”

Indeed, many people on the internet seem to be having trouble tapping into that power. “So you really just taped a square and called that a sculpture?” reads the most-liked comment on the video page.

© Copyright Original Source

That reads like a Babylon Bee article.

[Sparko]

That reads like a Babylon Bee article.

But it's real. "The Emperor's New Clothes" but done with art instead, and rich fools bought into it.

[seanD]

I'm pretty sure that someone picked up a nearby crack pipe and put it in Hunter's mouth when he was asleep/passed out and took the picture as a joke.

But the very fact that a crack pipe was next to where Hunter was speaks volumes.

Obviously you've never seen a crackhead in action. I live in downtown LA and have seen crackheads in action. Trust me, it's extremely plausible.

[rogue06]

Aaaaand... they dropped all pretenses that the buyers will be anonymous. CBS is reporting that Hunter will be personally meeting with those who are interested in buying access to the "big guy" some of Hunter's masterpieces.

Hunter Biden is expected to meet with prospective buyers at two art shows where his paintings will be on display later this year, according to a spokesperson for the New York gallery retained to sell art made by the president's son.

The shows, a small, private affair in Los Angeles and a larger exhibition in New York City, will give Biden an opportunity to interact with potential buyers of his paintings, which the gallery expects to sell for as much as $500,000.

Asked whether Hunter Biden would attend both events, Georges Berges Gallery spokeswoman Robin Davis said, "Oh yes. With pleasure. He's looking forward to it. It is like someone debuting in the world. And of course he will be there."

So Hunter will now know who is eager to spend from upper five figures to middle six figures for "his art." Nothing is said about whether there is anything to keep him from contacting them later about a specific contracted piece.

Btw, and how does Hunter respond to questions about the ethical and legal issues all this raised back when Hunter was supposed to have any idea who the buyers might be? With among those expressing concern, Obama's Director of the United States Office of Government Ethics for four and a half years, Walter Shaub^[1]?

He answered that when he was asked that (specifically about the "prices of the work" [sic], during an interview for the "Nota Bene: This Week in the Art World" podcast. His answer was, at least, candid.

Other than [f-bomb] 'em?

On the plus side, at least he doesn't hide his contempt.





1. who is on record of saying that Hunter certainly "has the right to pursue an artistic career just like any child of a president has the right to pursue a career" but that this shtick is a "perfect mechanism for funneling bribes" before the latest revelation.

And as he put it in in an interview with The Dispatch:

As disappointed as Shaub was with the White House’s hiring process, he was near irate discussing Hunter Biden. The president’s younger son’s business dealings in Ukraine and China played a prominent role in former President Trump's first impeachment trial and the closing days of the 2020 campaign, but Hunter has made no effort to shy away from controversy now that his dad's in the Oval Office. He published a memoir in the spring and launched a for-profit art career a few weeks later—planning to sell his pieces through a dealer at up to $500,000 a pop.

"People get lost in the weeds asking, ‘Well, is this good art?’ That’s not the question,” Shaub said, arguing Hunter is "clearly" profiting off his dad’s presidency. "The question is, would somebody be paying half a million dollars for a piece of art if it wasn’t the president’s son? And the answer has got to be no."

Watch him for yourself on CNN:

[seanD]

Aaaaand... they dropped all pretenses that the buyers will be anonymous. CBS is reporting that Hunter will be personally meeting with those who are interested in buying access to the "big guy" some of Hunter's masterpieces.

Hunter Biden is expected to meet with prospective buyers at two art shows where his paintings will be on display later this year, according to a spokesperson for the New York gallery retained to sell art made by the president's son.

The shows, a small, private affair in Los Angeles and a larger exhibition in New York City, will give Biden an opportunity to interact with potential buyers of his paintings, which the gallery expects to sell for as much as $500,000.

Asked whether Hunter Biden would attend both events, Georges Berges Gallery spokeswoman Robin Davis said, "Oh yes. With pleasure. He's looking forward to it. It is like someone debuting in the world. And of course he will be there."

So Hunter will now know who is eager to spend from upper five figures to middle six figures for "his art." Nothing is said about whether there is anything to keep him from contacting them later about a specific contracted piece.

Btw, and how does Hunter respond to questions about the ethical and legal issues all this raised back when Hunter was supposed to have any idea who the buyers might be? With among those expressing concern, Obama's Director of the United States Office of Government Ethics for four and a half years, Walter Shaub^[1]?

He answered that when he was asked that (specifically about the "prices of the work" [sic], during an interview for the "Nota Bene: This Week in the Art World" podcast. His answer was, at least, candid.

Other than [f-bomb] 'em?

On the plus side, at least he doesn't hide his contempt.





1. who is on record of saying that Hunter certainly "has the right to pursue an artistic career just like any child of a president has the right to pursue a career" but that this shtick is a "perfect mechanism for funneling bribes" before the latest revelation.

And as he put it in in an interview with The Dispatch:

As disappointed as Shaub was with the White House’s hiring process, he was near irate discussing Hunter Biden. The president’s younger son’s business dealings in Ukraine and China played a prominent role in former President Trump's first impeachment trial and the closing days of the 2020 campaign, but Hunter has made no effort to shy away from controversy now that his dad's in the Oval Office. He published a memoir in the spring and launched a for-profit art career a few weeks later—planning to sell his pieces through a dealer at up to $500,000 a pop.

"People get lost in the weeds asking, ‘Well, is this good art?’ That’s not the question,” Shaub said, arguing Hunter is "clearly" profiting off his dad’s presidency. "The question is, would somebody be paying half a million dollars for a piece of art if it wasn’t the president’s son? And the answer has got to be no."

Watch him for yourself on CNN:

You'd think that after the Burisma stories, the laptop stories, the pics depicting the type of degenerate he is, the dude would kind of chill and stay out of the spotlight. But no, he engages in a blatant money laundering ring that's obvious to everyone, even pundits on the left. It just shows how much the guy knows he's of the elite class and has total impunity to corruption and the law.

[rogue06]

You'd think that after the Burisma stories, the laptop stories, the pics depicting the type of degenerate he is, the dude would kind of chill and stay out of the spotlight. But no, he engages in a blatant money laundering ring that's obvious to everyone, even pundits on the left. It just shows how much the guy knows he's of the elite class and has total impunity to corruption and the law.

He is clearly relishing rubbing people's noses in his status of being untouchable.


Something tells me that it won't last and he's irritating the wrong people. At least one can hope.

[rogue06]

A "rogue's gallery" of art concerning
the artiste formerly known as crackhead.

art-of-corruption.jpg

hunter-how-much-art-access-to-white-house-200k.jpg

hunter-biden-art-for-sale-all-access-joe-biden-big-guy.jpg

hunter-biden-500k-paintings-don-jr-15-20-years-jail.jpg

04-Paint-Scam-LI-1080.jpg

82e7612b-2b56-4078-9bed-dae4ab0396a6.jpg

7f7a1464-1553-43fc-8a53-eceef9eac698.jpg

05c89416-73a2-4798-be49-d690f7318cf6.jpg

frauds.jpg

[Starlight]

What can / should be done to prevent this type of corruption?

I think ethics rules to prevent this would be very hard to write well. Let's imagine Hunter was a good artist and was already selling his paintings prior to his father's rise to fame. How could anyone say for sure whether Hunter was then getting overpaid for his art due to corruption vs not?

It seems to me that this is an inherent problem with a US style Presidential system which puts a huge amount of power specifically in the hands of one particular politician, as compared to a UK / Canadian / Australian / New Zealand type Parliamentary system which does a better job of distributing the power among the politicians. Lobbyists and foreign actors can target a President, and his family, with bribes. Whereas in a Parliamentary system it's not as easy to give targeted bribes, and you would really need to try and bribe all the politicians at once which is a lot harder / borderline impossible to do (it would be highly likely to cause one of the politicians to blow the whistle on you to the public in order to further their own personal popularity and political career).

[CivilDiscourse]

What can / should be done to prevent this type of corruption?

I think ethics rules to prevent this would be very hard to write well. Let's imagine Hunter was a good artist and was already selling his paintings prior to his father's rise to fame. How could anyone say for sure whether Hunter was then getting overpaid for his art due to corruption vs not?

Depends.

If Hunter was already an established artist, then his father grew in fame, then there are a number of things that we could look at for signs of corruption. As an established artist, he would already have a general range for his artwork in price. As this is the artworld it wouldn't be like a menu, but his work would already be seen to be worth a certain amount of money to people. He would also have a general level of productivity. Finally, he has an established level of quality for his work.

If after his father gained political power, those things started changing dramatically, it would be red flags on potential corruption. If paintings that normally sold for 18k started going for 100k, a 5-fold increase in value would stick out, especially if the artwork quality hasn't changed. If he suddenly goes from selling 2-3 paintings a year to selling 20-30,it could be a red flag, depending on who's doing the buying.

Honestly, him being established would likely make this scheme easier to detect, as we would have a direct apples to apples baseline to compare to.

Right now, he's an emerging "artist". So, we don't have a direct self-comparison that can be done. The baseline is not direct apples to apples, it's more lemons to limes. Art professionals have an eye towards his quality, they know what "typical" artists that are new, and have his level of skill sell for. The problem is that it's not direct. We know the art-world is fickle, which is why it is often corrupt.


What are the signs there's something fishy going on?

1. Art experts say that the price range for someone of hunters talent is well below what they are getting ready to sell for.
   Source: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/14/1015895944/the-latest-ethical-pitfalls-involving-joe-bidens-son-hunter

   "I think it's pretty obvious that Hunter Biden's works would not sell for these kinds of prices were he not the son of the current sitting president," said Joan Kee, a professor in the History of Art Department at the University of Michigan. "So that already sets up a potential conflict of interest."

   © Copyright Original Source

2. Keeping the buyers secret. The administration has said that the buyers are not going to be known, and that keeps the WH and Hunter from knowing who over-paid for his artwork, and therefore they don't have influence. But this requires a level of trust in a large number of people. It requires that we take the word of the Biden Administration that they won't look. It requires we take the word of the art dealer who says he won't tell. It requires we take the word of Hunter on him not asking. It requires we take the word of the Buyers who say they won't tell the Bidens. It also requires us to believe that if anyone breaks their word, we would actually know about it. Instead of these purchases being open, so we know WHO bought them, and can see WHO interacts with the WH afterwards, we are to take everyone's word that nobody knows who is buying. And of course, Hunter is now in meetings with the potential buyers, so I'm sure we can take solace that he will in no way find out who bought his paintings.
3. Even the ethics chief under the previous democratic president says this whole things stinks to high heavens.
   Source: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kGgJGpK9JTsJ:[url

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deal-of-the-art-white-house-grapples-with-ethics-of-hunter-bidens-pricey-paintings/2021/07/07/97e0528c-da72-11eb-9bbb-37c30dcf9363_story.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us][/url]
   
   “The whole thing is a really bad idea,” said Richard Painter, who was chief ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007. “The initial reaction a lot of people are going to have is that he’s capitalizing on being the son of a president and wants people to give him a lot of money. I mean, those are awfully high prices.”
   
   A foreign government could front someone to make a purchase, Painter said, or lobbyists could try to buy the art to win goodwill from the White House. Art purchases are notoriously hard to track, and last year the Treasury Department warned that the secondary market for high-value art, and the anonymity of purchasers, could allow foreigners to circumvent sanctions and gain access to the U.S. economy.
   
   “Because we don’t know who is paying for this art and we don’t know for sure that [Hunter Biden] knows, we have no way of monitoring whether people are buying access to the White House,” said Walter Shaub, who headed the Office of Government Ethics from 2013 to 2017. “What these people are paying for is Hunter Biden’s last name.”

   © Copyright Original Source