"I knew these backstories because the dealers made a point of sharing them, and I included them in my review both as explanatory context and because I found them interesting. But while the figurines and leather were certainly more accomplished than Carrey’s cartoons, the basic components on offer — an art work and its story, or an object and its personality — were exactly the same. And any type of backstory gives you an entry into the work. The Quebecois artist, Cléophas Lachance, built an entire miniature village in his Lafontaine backyard, and Jim Carrey starred in 'The Mask.'"
Writes art critic Will Heinrich in "Art is an object plus a story. Even for Hunter Biden’s pricey paintings. The way a work is talked about and identified is always part of the way we experience it" (WaPo).
There is a big difference between Carrey — and other famous people (including Bob Dylan) who leverage celebrity to access art buyers — and Hunter Biden. Heinrich acknowledges this difference in one sentence tucked away as inconspicuously as possible:
A concern for the Bidens — and the rest of us — is that collectors might attempt to buy influence along with their art; the White House has tried to deal with this by drafting an agreement with the gallery to keep buyers’ identities secret, even from the artist.
But that's not what he wants to write about. His topic is the way "ethics aside, many people simply object to the idea of a neophyte artist making so much money — or gaining recognition and what looks like legitimacy — just because he’s already famous."
पोस्ट्स
६ टिप्पण्या:
Temujin writes:
"Even though, as you have pointed out previously, serious art dealers will not play along with this, there is enough art press to keep it breathing, at least for a while. I think that if not for Hunter's previous career moves that included using his President Dad's name and influence to enrich both he and President Dad (and his uncle), there'd not be anyone even noticing Hunter's new 'hobby'. Given that Hunter's own laptop, and his own emails showed how they work, if you don't have problems with this now, you are probably a member of our journalist class. That the buyers will not be known is expected. The Biden's like to keep their monetary sources confidential. That is, until Hunter leaves his laptop laying around."
K writes:
"I thought Hunter Biden's designs were not at all bad. They just seemed like Pier one designs and had I come across one on a mug at a garage sale I would definitely have considered buying the mug if the price was right - 50 cents maybe. Pier One itself, say at $7.50 - overpriced. Still I wouldn't have minded having the design in my house. But, as the article says, this art comes with a backstory which is the President's son cashing in right in front of us all. As if we didn't know what was happening. Every one of those designs is really just a middle finger at America but, of course, our elites will enjoy having the most expensive middle finger ever on their walls because they will never be able to think it's aimed at them above all. Art is a lonely hunter when it hunts on a Malibu hill."
Michael writes:
"Historicaly, it seems that the art world has survived on the patronage of the rich and powerful. Acknowledging that seems to be shameful when it comes to Hunter Biden and Jim Carrey crowding out artists of otherness. Too bad, I guess for the socially sensitive, satisfying for the cynical."
A different Michael writes:
""...an agreement with the gallery to keep buyers’ identities secret, even from the artist."
"This is an astonishing insult to everyone's intelligence. Someone will have these physical paintings after they are purchased. How hard will it be to get a selfie or other evidence back to Slow Joe? That's what Xi says, anyway."
Owen writes:
"Interesting to see the game deconstructed like this. If I may quote Rod Stewart (quoting some one else) “every picture tells a story.” There is the work itself, a physical disturbance in the world, daubs of graphite or pigment or clay or bronze; then there is author’s crafted narrative about the work and his or her relationship to it; and then there is the critics’ and gossips’ narrative about the artist and the work and the Important Period in which it occurred or didn’t; and then there is the narrative about the narrative, etc.
"And generally speaking there is money to be made at every level of narrative.
"Here we see a certain…suspicion? Or jealousy?…creep into the discourse. How dare Hunter make bank just because he is selling influence rather than “vision”?"
Brian writes:
"Serious Question:
"How much do Former President George W Bush's paintings sell for?
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/191187-now-for-sale-art-by-george-w-bush
"(answer: $30)"
I answer:
Very funny.
Now, those are reproductions, not originals, so $30 is a lot.
The article says that Bush is not selling his paintings.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा