Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 28

Status
Not open for further replies.
pgwenthold said:
How much of Hunter Biden's "fame" that leads to him selling crappy artwork is due to being propped up by Republicans?
Click to expand...

Zero.

The Republicans wouldn't be hounding him if he weren't Biden's son, and I don't believe any Republicans will be buying any of his clever artwork, so it wouldn't be relevant anyway.
 
The Atheist said:
Zero.

The Republicans wouldn't be hounding him if he weren't Biden's son, and I don't believe any Republicans will be buying any of his clever artwork, so it wouldn't be relevant anyway.
Click to expand...

No one would care even given he is Biden's son if they didn't make such a big deal about him.

He'd still be on random BoD of overseas corporations who think he matters, but in the US he'd be as relevant as Tiffany Trump.
 
pgwenthold said:
No one would care even given he is Biden's son if they didn't make such a big deal about him.

He'd still be on random BoD of overseas corporations who think he matters, but in the US he'd be as relevant as Tiffany Trump.
Click to expand...

Chelsea Clinton's a better analogy, since Trump barely acknowledges Tiffany.

How many books has she sold?
 
What about Mary? She might be a better comparison for Hunter, she's known only for her name and relationship to the President, she wrote a book, and she has no power in government.

Just look back over the last few years in this subforum to see how much power the Trump offsprings have wielded without cause. Remember the whole kerfluffle over the security clearance?
 
Well, I'll be darned. I had scoffed at the idea of Hunter Biden's "art" being worth anything, but I took a peek at the works in the link The Atheist posted, and it's not nearly as bad as some have made it out to be. Is it really any better or worse than a Jackson Pollock? (I don't know art, so feel free to correct me.)
 
Galaxie said:
Well, I'll be darned. I had scoffed at the idea of Hunter Biden's "art" being worth anything, but I took a peek at the works in the link The Atheist posted, and it's not nearly as bad as some have made it out to be. Is it really any better or worse than a Jackson Pollock? (I don't know art, so feel free to correct me.)
Click to expand...

His art has a certain "savoir faire" and "je ne sais quoi" to it! It's bold, daring, and cuts against the sensibilities of traditionalism! Most importantly, he uses more than one color! It's very recherche!
 
I don't think I'd pay much for Hunter Biden's art, but it's far from the worst art I've seen. No worse than George W. Bush or Dwight Eisenhower. On the great scale of evils in the world, peddling bad art is pretty far from the top. While it may be true that he would sell less, or none at all, if he were not a President's son, I think it's also true that if he were not a President's son his artistic efforts would warrant very little interest from anyone anywhere.
 
That’s true, but also true that everything he did and ever will do is going to be viewed in the light of being a presidents son
 
I've never seen his work until just now when I googled it. I've seen a hell of a lot worse! It's not my style, but frankly, I like it better than Picasso (whom I think is severely overrated) and Warhol's junk. I mean really....a can of tomato soup is art?
 
Stacyhs said:
I've never seen his work until just now when I googled it. I've seen a hell of a lot worse! It's not my style, but frankly, I like it better than Picasso (whom I think is severely overrated) and Warhol's junk. I mean really....a can of tomato soup is art?
Click to expand...

LMFAO. What's next...you endorse his "work" that he did on that stripper?

You libs crack me up.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
…Warhol's junk. I mean really....a can of tomato soup is art?
Click to expand...

There’s a fascinating album by Lou Reed and John Cale called “Songs for Drella”. It’s an ode/tribute to Andy Warhol. Quite a trip and worth a listen.

I was reminded of this lyric from the album:

“I've got a Brillo box and I say it's art
It's the same one you can buy at any supermarket
'Cause I've got the style it takes…”

For what it’s worth.
 
Warp12 said:
LMFAO. What's next...you endorse his "work" that he did on that stripper?

You libs crack me up.
Click to expand...
Certainly is a nice change to see a conservative standing up for Warhol and Picasso, especially since I suspect in their private lives they both could have given old Hunter's peccadilloes a run for their money.

I disagree with Stacy on this. One may not like what Warhol and Picasso did, but they were both accomplished artists and draftsmen, both influential in the history of art (like that or not as well) and they chose what they did for reasons unrelated to their inability to do something else, which I would not be so sure of in Biden's case.
 
bruto said:
Certainly is a nice change to see a conservative standing up for Warhol and Picasso, especially since I suspect in their private lives they both could have given old Hunter's peccadilloes a run for their money.

I disagree with Stacy on this. One may not like what Warhol and Picasso did, but they were both accomplished artists and draftsmen, both influential in the history of art (like that or not as well) and they chose what they did for reasons unrelated to their inability to do something else, which I would not be so sure of in Biden's case.
Click to expand...

"Accomplished" because they were given accolades I don't think they were necessarily worthy of. Picasso was actually quite a good artist but his fame is derived from his non-realistic works. Blah. Warhol is a matter of taste. But come on, a painting of a frigging soup can or Brillo pads? Value is only what WE give it, and I think his work is blah. But that's art in a nutshell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom