From "Blue-Chip Art From Bitter Macklowe Divorce Brings $676 Million at Sotheby’s/A Sotheby’s executive called the court-ordered sale on Monday night 'the most valuable single-owner auction ever staged.'"
Lindemann, endeavoring to look woke, makes a gaffe. The article is clear that it was the wife who made the selections. It's an old white woman's taste. Not an old white man's. She picked "The Nose":
Pun intended.
Sculpture by Alberto Giacometti.
The comments over at the NYT don't pick up the racial justice theme. They're nearly all about wealth: This sale proves the rich should be heavily taxed. It's not enough that these bastards buy more things made by people of color and women. Their money ought to flow massively to government, so that things can be given to other people.
The top-rated comment comes from someone who claims he was involved in "the packing and delivery of this collection to Sotheby’s." Did the NYT fact-check that? He says: "We were there for weeks busting our humps and the Macklowes will make well over a billion dollars from this sale but couldn’t even bothered to offer us so much as a glass of water. Typical billionaire behavior."
I presume that the NYT wants the art market to rage on, and that can only happen if the rich survive. So there's no disparaging the rich in the article (as in the comments). The racial justice theme is shoehorned in to give the newspaper the look of progressivism.
It's convenient sometimes — isn't it? — this racial topic.
Posts
40 comments:
Max Greater Fool Theory. In spades.
peckerwood
The nose looks like a Jules Pfeiffer drawn character
Perhaps the racial justice theme is a reflex, or like Tourette's.
Leftist movements always fall apart when the supporters' visions diverge.
This story now reveals splits by (1) race, (2) gender/sex, and (3) class/wealth. The left has ignored or papered over class differences for the last few years as blue states are routinely wealthy, regulated, and anything but working class.
Next options: Lower income people shift to the right, or the left ejects their own wealthy supporters.
I presume that the NYT wants the art market to rage on, and that can only happen if the rich survive. So there's no disparaging the rich in the article (as in the comments). The racial justice theme is shoehorned in to give the newspaper the look of progressivism.
It's convenient sometimes — isn't it? — this racial topic.
Every major art auction comes with unlimited side orders of performance art.
Guy shows up as part of a crew to forcibly take an art collection pursuant to a court order so that it can be pieced out and sold off against the wishes of at least one owner and who's the likely custodian at the the time and is surprised the owner isn't friendly, handing out water and treats to the crew.
Read the room, dude.
Heck, it's all just money-laundering anyway.
Frieda Kahlo was a white man?
The Times’ own younger staff and subscribers don’t realize they’re living off crooked billionaires and ads for 100K watches?
So much confusion.
I don’t think the art mover was upset about not being offered a glass of water. I think he was upset about not getting a big fat tip from the rich art collectors.
"Anti-racism" is the rich leftist's distractive bobble.
Maybe BIPOC make shitty art.
You have to earn the right, with talent and a track record, to sell your art for millions.
This is why the racial/sexual grievance game rubs me the wrong way: it's nothing but whining and bitching and moaning looking for a handout.
Get off your asses of color and do something. Make something of value and people will buy it.
And when did the NYT turn into Pravda?
Never mind...don't answer that.
It is sad that art cannot be seen as a thing of beauty, inspiration, or great talent. Young people are taught that art, literature, music cannot be evaluated without reference to the race or sex of the artist. The thing itself becomes meaningless. Now, even the ownership or provenance of the art must be considered more important than the art itself. There is no longer any purpose to art if your appreciation involves no understanding, only the currently-approved emotions.
"Liberty Leading the People," a picture of a white woman painted by a white man. Of no value.
Racicim, is there anything it can't do?
It's the duct tape of journalism
If that object is "art" give me paintings on velvet of dogs playing poker.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Silly rich people shouldn’t spend money on art. They should pay more taxes instead. What does the NYT commentariat make of Hunter Biden’s $500,000 a piece art?
Biden just signed a massive tax break for the wealthy. Pdjt had capped the amount of state and local taxes that can be deducted from federal income taxes.
Biden restored it. It will save the wealthy as well as high income earners hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases.
It will probably reduce the taxes on this sale by hundreds of thousands.
Why is Brandon's SALT tax deduction never mentioned by those wanting to (unconstitutionally) "tax the rich"?
John LGBTQBNY Henry
It's convenient sometimes — isn't it? — this racial topic.
Blackface on, blackface off.
Meh, don't care either way. If the creation of art is driven by money, then it has no integrity. If it can be hoarded and then split up like silverware upon a divorce, then it's no different from any other status-driven accumulation. May as well have been a collection of vintage sports cars or English doubles.
But yeah, as Richard said, the race thing is comically reflexive. Like a 1930's German making sure to shoehorn an anti-Semitic trope in there...
I love Giacometti. He is one of my favorite artists. That said, I was never taken by "The Nose." It is one of his works that does not work at all for me.
Though he's renowned as a sculptor, I love his paintings most, his drawings next, and his sculptures last. I do enjoy them, but their very materiality prevents the beguiling indeterminacy of his drawings and paintings, which are not defined by clear edges or outlines. Which is to say, when I first saw Giacometti's paintings, the images seemed to depict the frantic atomic activity underlying the apparently fixed, gross surface appearances we see. His drawings have the same quality.
Their money ought to flow massively to government, so that things can be given to other people.
Yes, let's put a tax on art auctions. Wait.
Remember the yacht tax from the early 90s? The tax caused a net loss for Uncle Sugar & real pain for the thousands who where thrown out of work. Turns out, rich people are skilled at avoiding taxes. Quelle surprise.
'Frieda Kahlo was a white man?'
She had Eugene Levy's eyebrows, so maybe...
It's convenient sometimes — isn't it? — this racial topic.
Convenient indeed: Race replaced class as the American Left’s organizing principle the very moment Democrats became the party of the cosmopolitan rich and Republicans became the party of the deplorable poor.
Well, the liberal complainers will be happy. The sale of art is a taxable event.
Had water been offered, the complaint would be that billionaires offered merely water instead of iced tea. Give an effing mouse a cookie....
Typical billionaire behavior?
Acknowledged anecdotal, but my experiance with billionaires has convinced me they are like homeless people, some considerate, some not
In the race to woke supremacy, nothing is left to chance. It’s maddening.
The comments over at the NYT don't pick up the racial justice theme. They're nearly all about wealth…
The fatal flaw of trying to apply these US/EuroSoros political themes to the art market- the market for major works is international, with a substantial population of new players residing in Asia and the Middle East, where none of this leftie shit will reach.
Robert Cook said...
That said, I was never taken by "The Nose." It is one of his works that does not work at all for me.
...says the commenter dollars to doughnuts is < or = attractive than this thumbnail image.
Railing at billionaires is so.... Republican.
When you clearly have money, it falls on you to tip generously and be generous to the little people, Rush always kept his wallet full of twenties, didn't carry anything smaller for tips, and tipped thousands for a single meal service, as documented in the New York Times interview when the Times picked up the check and the wait staff ended up stiffed. out of the normal 5 grand tip Rush would leave.
What are the bets that this person is a believing Democrat?
[short pause while I DDG it....]
Clinton Foundation donor, quelle surprise!
https://www.salon.com/2007/10/11/clinton_7/
Ass stains like Lush Rimbaugh have to give big tips overcompensating their craven life.
Howard,
Whereas the NYT has butkis to apologize for? These people can't even, after 90+ years, admit that they screwed up by publishing Walter Duranty. There's no one alive now who had any hand in that decision, there's no one who would suffer harm from retroactively giving back the Pulitzer (excepting Duranty's heirs, if any, and I'd think they would be as anxious as anyone else to get rid of it), but noooooo. It's ours; we're keeping it.
Limbaugh's life was not "craven." He was loud and crass, which pissed off the ultra-refined set, just as Trump did for similar reasons. But he fought well and hard, and worked damn hard. I should like to see you run a radio show 15 hours a week for decades.
Perhaps the movers, the thirsty movers, were persons of color. Would that count?
Never listened to him, did you Howard.
The Gray Lady talks equity & diversity but that ain't who she sleeps with.
"'This is the collection of a generation that’s passing — an old white man’s collection,' said Adam Lindemann, the gallerist and collector. 'Yes, these things are always going to be great, but is this what a young tech billionaire wants? I don’t think so.'"
It's a strange comment, and could be read in a different way: young tech billionaires are stupid and shallow and obsessed by race and gender and don't appreciate great modern works.
What's the BIPOC, female, LGBTQ quota that makes a collection that includes Picasso, Pollock, Rothko and De Kooning respectable to today's art world?
I notice the collection includes works by Agnes Martin and Taube Auerbach and would assume by their names that they are both women.
I would be wrong, of course, Tauba Auerbach's bio lists Auerbach as a "they" and not a her.
Michelle, the NYT has repeatedly stated that the Pulitzer prize awarded to Duranty is not something they possess, and they are not able to 'give it back.' The Pulitzer organization notes that the prize was awarded to Duranty, not the newspaper. That said, I don't think either organization has repudiated Duranty. The Pulitzer board did issue a mealy-mouthed statement acknowledging that Stalin was bad.
These people are racist douchebags.
Also, NYC IATSE or trade show or Teamster workers working around the clock hit golden time pretty darn quick. He probably made 400 bucks an hour, at the very least.
Post a Comment