What is Hunter Biden’s art really worth?
This article is entitled “Pulitzer-Winning Art Critic Reveals What Hunter Biden’s Paintings Are Really Worth”:
Last month, we reported that Hunter Biden’s first solo art show was coming soon and that his paintings were expected to sell for between $75,000 and half a million dollars each.
From the pieces that I was able to see, I found them mediocre, but the media gushed over Hunter’s newfound art hobby, professed his talent, and some “experts” claimed his work is actually good…
Never mind the inflated prices and the whole thing about all the purchases being confidential…
In an interview with CNN’s Chris Cillizza, [famous art critic] Smee was asked outright: “Is Hunter Biden’s work any good, aesthetically speaking?”
“For me, not really,” Smee told him. “I’ve only seen it in reproduction, so I’m sure I’m missing a lot: texture, layering, detail. Parts of them look technically impressive. But the style is eclectic in a way that makes his work feel neither one thing nor another.”
But I submit that there’s no way to tell what Hunter Biden’s (or any other artist’s) work is really worth in some ideal Platonic sense. It’s worth what people will pay, and that can change over time. It’s worth – to each person – is what that person thinks of it. With the paintings of Hunter Biden, it’s even more difficult – in fact, well-nigh impossible – to get an objective sense because politics and the selling of influence enters into it so heavily.
But I have noticed that a great deal of recent art is political, both in concept and in the way it’s treated by museums and critics. I used to go to art exhibits regularly, but in the last decade or so it’s become so “woke” that I’ve stopped going. Even exhibits of older art are increasingly described in political leftist terms, and although that doesn’t completely spoil the art for me, it becomes a distasteful exercise in wading through the explanatory mire.
And new art? Much of it that I’ve seen seems utterly worthless to me, and I wouldn’t pay a dime for it. It’s not esthetic, it’s not appealing, and it’s often so “conceptual” (although that word is a bit passé) that it’s indistinguishable from political propaganda. The artists are also sometimes grouped and evaluated in terms of their ethnicity and sex (or “gender”).
That’s not the way I look at art. But it’s the way we increasingly are being told to see it.
‘it’s worth what people will pay’
This is becoming a lost principle nowadays. Whether football players, musicians, actors or ‘artists’ you are only worth what someone is willing to pay and they do it for many different reasons.
In this case it’s political access and favor.
More than a decade ago I saw a video of a British guy fighting to stop the EU takeover of Britain. One of the things he claimed was that the grotesque art that was popping up in public places was actually part of the broader effort to get the British people to loose their National pride. As in, “ look how bad our art is!”.
Maybe some of the reason the left is attracted to such slop is there is a conscience effort to rebel against traditional concepts of beauty.
I went to an art exhibit way back when — 80’s maybe — and almost all of it was “ironic”. I expect more from art than irony, cheap irony at that. I have no idea what the current fashion in art is.
Hunter’s artwork is worth exactly what his father can do for the buyers, and everyone knows it.
Politics ruins everything.
Value in terms of dollars or kilos?
It’s genious!
They have discovered an unassailable way to funnel kickbacks and bribes to the Bidens. By using “Art”, no one can question the amounts paid because there is no objective valuation.
And, just between us, how much do you want to bet that Hunter Biden didn’t actually paint them?
A lot of the arts and forms of entertainment have been infected with politics. Very little is concern with aesthetics. It is as if some people can’t see anything beyond politics.
And, just between us, how much do you want to bet that Hunter Biden didn’t actually paint them?
Roy Nathanson:
I’m curious about that too.
From the few pieces I’ve seen of the Biden oeuvre he seems to have a pleasant doodle style, which I find I prefer to the empty political pomposity of so much contemporary art.
Of course it’s a scam, point taken. But I don’t think anyone, even in the art world, is fooled. So it’s a refreshingly obvious scam.
It’s not about how good Hunter’s artwork is; It’s not about what it’s worth, in my opinion. It’s not even about how much the buyers paid for it. The real question, which so far remains unanswered, is: “What are they purchasing?”
In classical film terms, Hunter Biden’s artwork is ‘the McGuffin.’
@Aggie:
Does that make Obama the Gunsel?
Interesting etymology:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gunsel
Is Hunter Biden’s art better than this?
https://www.deseret.com/2021/6/9/22519206/this-invisible-statue-just-sold-for-18k-salvatore-garau
Is Hunter Biden’s art better than this?
Andy:
Yes.
Andy:
That certainly sets a low bar.
Take a look at Hunter’s work and you can decide.
I’m excited to tell y’all that Orson Welles’ “F for Fake” is available once again on YouTube to be viewed in its entirety:
_______________________________________
The important distinction to make when you are talking about the genuine quality of a painting is not so much whether it is a real painting or a fake. But whether it is a good fake or a bad fake.
–Orson Welles, “F for Fake” (1974) Trailer (2 1/2 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twlA_yzagXo
–Orson Welles, “F for Fake” (1974) (1:28.45)
https://archive.org/details/F_For_Fake
_______________________________________
Of course this was in the paleolithic days when art tended to be paint on canvas — a tradition which Hunter Biden is bringing back in his typically radical fashion into public awareness.
Zaphod, if you haven’t seen “Fake,” put it on your list.
“Loose” their national pride, Jon Baker? Seriously?
Why is it that this particular error is so common online, usually amidst otherwise perfect spelling and grammar?
@Huxley:
New one for me. Thanks!
Zaphod:
An Orson “Fake” spoiler apertif:
_________________________________
At the very beginning, … I did make you a promise. Remember? I did promise that for one hour, I’d tell you only the truth.
That hour, ladies and gentlemen, is over. For the past 17 minutes, I’ve been lying my head off. The truth, and please forgive us for it, is that we’ve been forging an art story…
_________________________________
It’s one of those levels within levels things.
Welles thought he had invented a new artform for film. I’m inclined to agree. However, “Fake” failed to win the critics and viewers of its day. Alas.
I am seeing new respect for “Fake” in YouTubes about the film and YouTubes IMO influenced by “Fake.”
I would like to live in a world in which the press judged Hunter Biden’s paintings the way they judge George W. Bush’s paintings.
For that matter, I would like to live in a world in which fashion magazines gave coverage to Melania Trump comparable to the coverage they gave Michelle Obama.
Neo: thanks for the linked photo of Hunter posing in front of his paintings. His new teeth look nice.
Hunter Biden may yet have a new career as the next Bob Ross.
If only Tom Wolfe was still around to write “The Painted Word II.”
How seamlessly has “The Audacity of Hope” transmuted into “The Audacity of Corruption”.
(Though quite likely it was ever thus….)
Indeed, the “trans” administration.
In a nutshell:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/weve-got-fight-disinformation-says-empire-made-entirely-disinformation
Remember how Speaker Jim Wright was blown out of office? He forwarded a set of stale speech excerpts for a buddy who owned a printing company. The buddy assembled this dross into a monograph with the title “Reflections of a Public Man”, secured a copyright, and agreed to pay Wright a 55% royalty for the ‘sales’ revenue he received. (Period rates on royalties were 15% for hardcover sales, 7.5% for paperback sales). Wright managed to circumvent outside income limits applicable to members of Congress by arranging for interested parties to buy his ‘book’ in bulk. The public embarrassment was enough to compel his resignation from Congress. That was our public life in 1989.
In the case of Hunter Biden, his job for nearly 25 years years has been to launder the bribes. Within the Democratic Party, there’s such a sense of impunity that they’re not bothering to conceal it anymore. That’s our public life in 2021.
Visual art IMO entered a decadent period ca. 1920 from which it has yet to emerge. Architecture did so around about 1945. I suspect it’s just another manifestation of the intelligentsia’s contempt for the rest of us.
It’s all grift, the donor class to by position paying the price asked not worth.
No different than one writing a book, selling 2,000 copies mostly in bulk and getting $10M for it.
It occurs to me that a “blind test” of his art (not blindfolding the experts but masking the authorship of course) would settle it’s worth.
Value, of course….caveat emptor.
We don’t even know that Hunter Biden created the “art”. He may have hired a passably talented hack.
They simply seethe with corruption.
They are super-saturated with criminality.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/shades-clinton-joe-biden-used-private-email-send-government
(Not that any of this matters of course… as somewhere True Jen chuckles—though with gravitas—and Harris giggles, while “Biden” continues his boyish experiments with state-of-the-art word salad and Obama, Rice, Jarett et al. kick back with the satisfaction of those who KNOW the future is theirs as they contemplate their next outrage…while anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular view of things, or their policies, or finds the current catastrophe just the slightest bit disconcerting…is an Enemy of the People.)
People will be paying for the signature only. High As A Kite Hunter has been selling his family name for decades. This is probably the first legit thing he’s done in his professional life.
Nobody is buying this c.r.a.p. for it’s aesthetic appeal or because it “moves them”. It is either to gain political favor, a talking piece for hoity toity social gatherings or an investment. While buying something costing 10 times the median household income seems idiotic to 99% of us, for the preceding reasons, it is reasonable.
Brazen corruption is the only way that a heterosexual white male can break into the art world.
I, for one, totally support Hunter’s memorable contribution to the story of our cultural collapse. For that selfless act, any price is too low.
People will be paying for the signature only.
DanJ1:
Not exactly the same, but…
_____________________________
So prized was Picasso’s signature that it is said that when he paid for things by personal check, the odds were that the recipient of the check would save it rather than cash it. Seeing as a simple Picasso autograph can easily fetch $1,000 today, perhaps this wasn’t such an irrational decision.
https://www.fool.com/investing/small-cap/2004/12/08/picassos-checks.aspx
Brazen corruption is the only way that a heterosexual white male can break into the art world.
Cornflour:
You might enjoy this film, “The Next Big Thing” (2001). Chris Eigeman, who was in the first three Whit Stillman films, plays the whitebread artist. I’ve seen it a couple of times.
____________________________________
Gus Bishop is a talented but failing New York painter who lacks the marketing savvy to make it in today’s art world. After getting pick-pocketed in the subway, Gus’ destiny is turned over into the hands of Deech—who promptly burglarizes his home and steals his paintings. To capitalize on his stolen goods, Deech generates interest in Gus’ work by creating Geoffrey Boiardi, a fictional artist with a fascinating profile. Geoffrey becomes an overnight sensation while Gus is forced into the shadows of the ever-elusive rising star.
–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Next_Big_Thing_(film)
Imagine if Hitler had as much luck selling his paintings.
Well, I suppose it could always be worse. (Not that I want to give “Biden” any ideas, mind you….):
https://besacenter.org/turkeys-mobgate-reveals-the-islamist-deep-state/
HB’s artwork is as good as any of the older ladies in my small town exhibit at the library.
And I get reminded of the ending of a 1st season episode of “Justified.”
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1588042/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ql_sm
And I get reminded of the ending of a 1st season episode of “Justified.”
geoffb:
I had that thought myself when I saw tcrosse’s comment.
I recommend the video series “Justified” — it’s about the only show which comes close to a conservative worldview. It’s about a US marshal who returns to his hometown in Kentucky to do battle against the Dixie Mafia and other organized crime types.
Outspoken conservative actor, Nick Searcy, plays the marshal’s boss. The Kentucky natives are portrayed with affection and respect. Tim Olyphant and Walt Goggins play the ongoing Good Guy, Bad Guy conflict wonderfully for all six seasons.
@huxley: “So prized was Picasso’s signature …
I’ve read exactly the same thing about Salvador Dali, who was a famous cheapskate. He would schedule dinner parties at very expensive restaurants for large seatings, and then pay for it with a check, that often featured not only his signature but doodling as well. Same strategy, if true.
Geoffb and Huxley-I happen to be rewatching Justified currently (for the third time). Since I no longer watch baseball it is my evening entertainment. Agree wholeheartedly with your comments.
I’ve read exactly the same thing about Salvador Dali…
Aggie:
That rings a bell.
I would note that Picasso and Dali, whatever one might think of their radical modern paintings, were truly artists who had developed massive technique, which would put to shame all the current poseurs.
Huxley & boatbuilder
We’d, my wife and I, always buy series we liked to save to watch again. With most of what is put out now dreck, in our retirement, we have dozens of series and movies we like to rewatch whenever. “Justified” is a favorite. Currently we are rewatching the 2 seasons of Nero Wolfe.
@tcrosse:
He’d have gassed all the Art Dealers. Oh wait.. he did.
Still it’s possible that artistic success might have narrowed his scope.
More than one movie plot had the payoffs buy artwork overpriced as a means of covering thing AND laundering the money at the same time…
@DNW:
I’ve missed your sober, philosophical takes!
🙂
LOL
I figured I would try doing something more constructive for awhile: chopping wood, sorting tools, dusting off the barbells; trying to finish up some Trust business.
Then when I returned to the land of daily outrage, I hoped I would have a more temperate, tolerant, equable view of the pranks and scams of, and the structural damage done by, those constantly beavering organisms of the left.
But really, after even a short vacation away from them. they just look all that much worse. And I find myself unable to pretend even that occasionally conditional wisp of potential fellow fellow feeling for them should they somehow “turn from their sins and repent”.
Now, regarding this last, I think that despite the biblical language and references some of us around here use, that for all purposes of official exchange we wear the masks of skepticism or a kind of non militant atheism, as a default.
But … when you look at the behavior of these people, at their casually cynical, smirkingly deceitful self-dealing, and at the social destruction they spread and the human costs resulting from their vicious lives spent in vainglory and hedonic nihilism, then, you are bound to say that: If there were a God, and if He were all good, and all true, neither deceiving nor capable of being deceived – and by His very nature incapable of admitting evil into his presence, then, you would have to conclude that 90% of these damned souls would just automatically be flung into the outer darkness by … their … own … internal … moral inertia.
Correction: All the non-Aryan art dealers.
OTOH he may have been so busy churning out the goods (and putting his Johann Hancock on napkins and restaurant receipts), going to endless openings, hobnobbing with the high and mighty and holding interminable interviews that he might not have had much time for anything else.
On the third hand, yeah, he probably would have—for the sake of Art, of course…
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14735789909391486?journalCode=rctc19
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4140244
I’d hazard a guess that the list of Aryan Middlemen in Daubings and Chiselings wasn’t all that long.
When it came to Chiseling and Casting, Arno Breker at least refutes the specious claim that they never produced any art of any note.
Still there is the funny story about the Exhibition of Decadent Art with the very long queues to get in.
But always ready to offer a helping hand…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildebrand_Gurlitt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Gurlitt_(art_collector)
To Loot is a time-honored hoot, although pro-forma frowned upon in polite circles. And rightly banished from the pages of History. Looting is Right Out. Now that everyone and everything has been Financialised, we can rest assured that Never Again is.. available for sale at the right price as a Non-Fungible Token.
Funny how the Swiss ended up with the unclaimed loot. Per usual. No @#$% ever sticks to the Swiss — just other people’s money. If I ever run out of tasteless witticisms we could always have a Pick on the Swiss Week.