Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Museum director who exhibited fake paintings, fabricated an interview with an expert that vouched for their authenticity, told expert to "shut up" when she complained, leaves post after an FBI raid. Even museums are not immune to the Florida tag   (yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Florida, Art, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Florida museum Friday, fake paintings, museum's board, Aaron De Groft, new Chicano art museum  
•       •       •

3419 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jul 2022 at 6:30 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



54 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-07-06 6:37:08 AM  
Art is a scam for the rich to launder money.

This person should be given eleventy billion tax cuts for their grift.

It's the Floriduh way.
 
2022-07-06 6:39:36 AM  
Eye of the beholder....
 
2022-07-06 7:09:55 AM  
The problem with art forgeries is that the owner WANTS them to be authentic, so it's almost impossible to prove them fake.
 
2022-07-06 7:10:03 AM  
Thank God for the F.B.I.

I feel much safer knowing they are protecting us.
 
2022-07-06 7:12:37 AM  
So, uh, free Pickassoes and Van Goes?
 
2022-07-06 7:17:20 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-07-06 7:19:32 AM  
Ok. This is WAY more information than the previous thread on this....The previous article did not mention
the full reasoning for the FBI taking stuff and NO mention of the director being shady and trying to cover up
the opinions of the authenticate.That makes a HUGE difference compared to what we were presented before,
which was that the FBI came in a yanked stuff off the walls for being possibly fake.. Without the WHOLE
story, it seemed to me, to be a heavy handed FBI action that was more of a civil matter with the owner of the fakes..NOW this makes more sense..It was totally a cover-up and essentially attempting to "launder" the
paintings into authenticity between the museum director and the owner and faking the art authorities
approval..
 
2022-07-06 7:25:03 AM  

dryknife: Thank God for the F.B.I.

I feel much safer knowing they are protecting us.


Surely you don't expect the upper class to have to call some plebian local police department, do you?
 
2022-07-06 7:28:41 AM  

dryknife: Thank God for the F.B.I.

I feel much safer knowing they are protecting us.


I'm 'ascairt Pa, the paintings are going to eat me.

And everyone I know.
 
2022-07-06 7:31:05 AM  
Before I read the article, I thought it was this place but it looks like it's in Florida and not New York. Art theft must be a thing now.
 
2022-07-06 7:34:34 AM  
On the other hand, I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.
 
2022-07-06 7:38:41 AM  

skinink: On the other hand, I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.


Well, historically speaking, their value is a bit spotty.
 
2022-07-06 8:11:39 AM  
Art is subjective, of course, but if the end result looks like something a toddler literally threw together during an afternoon tantrum, i give it no value.

Same with artists who overexploit the grift like Picasso. At least half of his output is shoddy crap, like napkin scribbles or pots with a smiley face on them, done so he can pay off debts. Idiots eat that crap up for some reason. I don't value much of anything Picasso has done because he's devalued the good stuff by doing that.
 
2022-07-06 8:15:41 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-07-06 8:23:39 AM  

skinink: On the other hand, I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-07-06 8:27:50 AM  

Mr. Shabooboo: Without the WHOLE
story, it seemed to me, to be a heavy handed FBI action that was more of a civil matter with the owner of the fakes..


Fraud is always a criminal matter.  It doesn't matter if the victims are wealthy, it is always a criminal matter.
 
2022-07-06 8:37:48 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-07-06 9:13:12 AM  
ok let's see...

Art is a scam for the rich to launder money.
I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.
Same with artists who overexploit the grift like Picasso. At least half of his output is shoddy crap,

uh huh
 
2022-07-06 9:17:44 AM  

dryknife: Thank God for the F.B.I.

I feel much safer knowing they are protecting us.


There's only so many unruly parents at school board meetings that you can investigate.  Have to move on to real social issues, like rich white people being stupid with their money.
 
2022-07-06 9:21:42 AM  

skinink: On the other hand, I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.


I can argue either way.  He was pretty groundbreaking in that he put a lot of intention and planning behind what appears to just be paint splatters, and was able to get people to buy in.  I don't find it visually appealing, but I can understand the hype.
 
2022-07-06 9:27:03 AM  
Isn't this the plot in the Lies ift Lock Lamora books?
 
2022-07-06 9:42:35 AM  

Lady J: ok let's see...

Art is a scam for the rich to launder money.
I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.
Same with artists who overexploit the grift like Picasso. At least half of his output is shoddy crap,

uh huh


So did you have a point?

Please, explain the greatness of Jackson Pollock's splatter paintings and Picasso's smiley-faced pottery for the rubes such as myself. Bonus points for justifying the multi million dollar valuations on some examples.
 
2022-07-06 9:42:36 AM  

ProfessorTerguson: [Fark user image 168x301]


i.pinimg.comView Full Size

The comic predated the movie by 14 years.
 
2022-07-06 9:55:15 AM  
The FBI declined to comment on the investigation, or its status, the Times reported. If authentic, the Basquiat paintings would be worth about $100 million, according to Putnam Fine Art and Antique Appraisals, which assessed them for the owners.

OK, I know very little about this world, but, how do you assess a collection of likely fakes & establish their value at "about $100 million" without realizing that they're likely fake?

If anything, this should've been the point at where alarm bells should've gone off - sure, Aaron De Groft is an asshole, but, how are the fine folks at Putnam Fine Art and Antique Appraisals not in on this deal?
 
2022-07-06 10:10:12 AM  

Harrogate the Melon Bunger: skinink: On the other hand, I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.

I can argue either way.  He was pretty groundbreaking in that he put a lot of intention and planning behind what appears to just be paint splatters, and was able to get people to buy in.  I don't find it visually appealing, but I can understand the hype.


Yep - it wasn't just hype, though. I'm not much for the more aesthetic aspects of art, but, I can appreciate Pollock's work. In many ways, he reintroduced the "it's the journey, not the destination" aspect back into art.

The paintings weren't merely a product, the output of an unregarded input. Not the culmination of the effort, but merely the result, the proof of the effort. It was the effort itself, the idea that the entire process of painting, not merely the paint on a surface, was the work in question. Canvas on easel, brush on canvas, hand on brush, a process of deliberation and rote? Nope!

Canvas nailed to the floor, paint flung at it from just about anything, hand creates or destroys, process thrown to the winds! The process becomes unconscious, the product a snapshot of expression, emotion, attacked from all sides and with whatever's at hand by someone in the throes of anger, or grief, or joy, or frenzy, a mix of control and chaos, thought and emotion, a tarantella that results in wreckage, exhaustion, catharsis... and some paint on a canvas.

But, that's me; that's how I see them. Your mileage may vary.
 
2022-07-06 10:21:32 AM  

FormlessOne: Harrogate the Melon Bunger: skinink: On the other hand, I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.

I can argue either way.  He was pretty groundbreaking in that he put a lot of intention and planning behind what appears to just be paint splatters, and was able to get people to buy in.  I don't find it visually appealing, but I can understand the hype.

Yep - it wasn't just hype, though. I'm not much for the more aesthetic aspects of art, but, I can appreciate Pollock's work. In many ways, he reintroduced the "it's the journey, not the destination" aspect back into art.

The paintings weren't merely a product, the output of an unregarded input. Not the culmination of the effort, but merely the result, the proof of the effort. It was the effort itself, the idea that the entire process of painting, not merely the paint on a surface, was the work in question. Canvas on easel, brush on canvas, hand on brush, a process of deliberation and rote? Nope!

Canvas nailed to the floor, paint flung at it from just about anything, hand creates or destroys, process thrown to the winds! The process becomes unconscious, the product a snapshot of expression, emotion, attacked from all sides and with whatever's at hand by someone in the throes of anger, or grief, or joy, or frenzy, a mix of control and chaos, thought and emotion, a tarantella that results in wreckage, exhaustion, catharsis... and some paint on a canvas.

But, that's me; that's how I see them. Your mileage may vary.


They sound rather vaginal.
 
2022-07-06 10:42:36 AM  

FormlessOne: Harrogate the Melon Bunger: skinink: On the other hand, I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.

I can argue either way.  He was pretty groundbreaking in that he put a lot of intention and planning behind what appears to just be paint splatters, and was able to get people to buy in.  I don't find it visually appealing, but I can understand the hype.

Yep - it wasn't just hype, though. I'm not much for the more aesthetic aspects of art, but, I can appreciate Pollock's work. In many ways, he reintroduced the "it's the journey, not the destination" aspect back into art.

The paintings weren't merely a product, the output of an unregarded input. Not the culmination of the effort, but merely the result, the proof of the effort. It was the effort itself, the idea that the entire process of painting, not merely the paint on a surface, was the work in question. Canvas on easel, brush on canvas, hand on brush, a process of deliberation and rote? Nope!

Canvas nailed to the floor, paint flung at it from just about anything, hand creates or destroys, process thrown to the winds! The process becomes unconscious, the product a snapshot of expression, emotion, attacked from all sides and with whatever's at hand by someone in the throes of anger, or grief, or joy, or frenzy, a mix of control and chaos, thought and emotion, a tarantella that results in wreckage, exhaustion, catharsis... and some paint on a canvas.

But, that's me; that's how I see them. Your mileage may vary.


I hadn't thought about that way..But ya, it could be seen as creating through un-conscious means..
Just going at it semi-mindlessly without intent for the end product to be a certain thing...
But yet it's still intent to create overall..

I watched part of the movie Pollock (With Ed Harris) and thought it was fairly interesting..Intending to
see it all at some point but it just hadn't come back up..Now maybe I will..
 
2022-07-06 10:50:38 AM  
Let's say I am the art director for a public city museum that does not charge an admission fee and I hang a bunch of fakes of some long dead artist that I never intend to sell, have I committed fraud?
The Louvre charges an admission, and rumor has it that the real Mona Lisa is stored in the basement....
 
2022-07-06 10:54:04 AM  

Mr. Shabooboo: FormlessOne: Harrogate the Melon Bunger: skinink: On the other hand, I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.

I can argue either way.  He was pretty groundbreaking in that he put a lot of intention and planning behind what appears to just be paint splatters, and was able to get people to buy in.  I don't find it visually appealing, but I can understand the hype.

Yep - it wasn't just hype, though. I'm not much for the more aesthetic aspects of art, but, I can appreciate Pollock's work. In many ways, he reintroduced the "it's the journey, not the destination" aspect back into art.

The paintings weren't merely a product, the output of an unregarded input. Not the culmination of the effort, but merely the result, the proof of the effort. It was the effort itself, the idea that the entire process of painting, not merely the paint on a surface, was the work in question. Canvas on easel, brush on canvas, hand on brush, a process of deliberation and rote? Nope!

Canvas nailed to the floor, paint flung at it from just about anything, hand creates or destroys, process thrown to the winds! The process becomes unconscious, the product a snapshot of expression, emotion, attacked from all sides and with whatever's at hand by someone in the throes of anger, or grief, or joy, or frenzy, a mix of control and chaos, thought and emotion, a tarantella that results in wreckage, exhaustion, catharsis... and some paint on a canvas.

But, that's me; that's how I see them. Your mileage may vary.

I hadn't thought about that way..But ya, it could be seen as creating through un-conscious means..
Just going at it semi-mindlessly without intent for the end product to be a certain thing...
But yet it's still intent to create overall..

I watched part of the movie Pollock (With Ed Harris) and thought it was fairly interesting..Intending to
see it all at some point but it just hadn't come back up..Now maybe I will..


The cool & interesting part, at least for me, was the context in which this was all happening - I typically think of the post-War '40s as "conservative middle-class white-guy suburban paradise," but it's also the birthdate of pop culture, of counter-culture - we get Jack Kerouac and Gore Vidal at the same time we get Harry Truman and suburban sprawl. Pollack's work shows up right smack in the middle of all of this economic tumult and social chaos.
 
2022-07-06 11:13:18 AM  

drgloryboy: Let's say I am the art director for a public city museum that does not charge an admission fee and I hang a bunch of fakes of some long dead artist that I never intend to sell, have I committed fraud?
The Louvre charges an admission, and rumor has it that the real Mona Lisa is stored in the basement....


The fraud is claiming a fake work is real.  Doesn't matter if you charge admissions or not.
 
2022-07-06 11:15:46 AM  

sensitive yet dangerous: Lady J: ok let's see...

Art is a scam for the rich to launder money.
I think all Jackson Pollock paintings are really not worth the money or hype they generate.
Same with artists who overexploit the grift like Picasso. At least half of his output is shoddy crap,

uh huh

So did you have a point?

Please, explain the greatness of Jackson Pollock's splatter paintings and Picasso's smiley-faced pottery for the rubes such as myself. Bonus points for justifying the multi million dollar valuations on some examples.


Jackson Pollock was the first to do that kind of painting, so it has historical value and rarity. There are some paintings that would be very easy to replicate (see "Yves Klein") but historical value and rarity in and of themselves have value just as in every other field of collecting. It's why reprints of comic books are worth nothing but original comic books are worth millions.

Jackson Pollock also did it a hell of a lot better than his imitators, see "fractal analysis of pollock's drip paintings". HTH. YW.
 
2022-07-06 11:26:25 AM  

drgloryboy: Let's say I am the art director for a public city museum that does not charge an admission fee and I hang a bunch of fakes of some long dead artist that I never intend to sell, have I committed fraud?
The Louvre charges an admission, and rumor has it that the real Mona Lisa is stored in the basement....


The fraud is claiming a fake work is real.  Doesn't matter if you charge admissions or not.

So if I lie and brag to my friends that the Van Gogh handing in my living room is authentic, I have committed a fraud that should be investigated and criminally prosecuted by the FBI?
 
2022-07-06 11:34:28 AM  

drgloryboy: drgloryboy: Let's say I am the art director for a public city museum that does not charge an admission fee and I hang a bunch of fakes of some long dead artist that I never intend to sell, have I committed fraud?
The Louvre charges an admission, and rumor has it that the real Mona Lisa is stored in the basement....

The fraud is claiming a fake work is real.  Doesn't matter if you charge admissions or not.

So if I lie and brag to my friends that the Van Gogh handing in my living room is authentic, I have committed a fraud that should be investigated and criminally prosecuted by the FBI?


You're overthinking things.  Stop.
 
2022-07-06 11:39:26 AM  
One Pollock is worth every bitcoin ever created. (° ʖ°)╭∩╮
 
2022-07-06 11:53:55 AM  

sensitive yet dangerous: Art is subjective, of course, but if the end result looks like something a toddler literally threw together during an afternoon tantrum, i give it no value.

Same with artists who overexploit the grift like Picasso. At least half of his output is shoddy crap, like napkin scribbles or pots with a smiley face on them, done so he can pay off debts. Idiots eat that crap up for some reason. I don't value much of anything Picasso has done because he's devalued the good stuff by doing that.


Yeah!!!  He's no Jon McNaughton!!!   /s
 
2022-07-06 11:57:05 AM  

FormlessOne: In many ways, he reintroduced the "it's the journey, not the destination" aspect back into art.


Then why are people paying so much for his destination that is just paint splatters?
 
2022-07-06 11:59:28 AM  

NM Volunteer: drgloryboy: drgloryboy: Let's say I am the art director for a public city museum that does not charge an admission fee and I hang a bunch of fakes of some long dead artist that I never intend to sell, have I committed fraud?
The Louvre charges an admission, and rumor has it that the real Mona Lisa is stored in the basement....

The fraud is claiming a fake work is real.  Doesn't matter if you charge admissions or not.

So if I lie and brag to my friends that the Van Gogh handing in my living room is authentic, I have committed a fraud that should be investigated and criminally prosecuted by the FBI?

You're overthinking things.  Stop.


Don't tell him to stop, I have the very same questions.  My understanding of fraud is that money changing hands somewhere has to be involved, but it doesn't sound like that happened here?
 
2022-07-06 12:00:29 PM  

flamingboard: FormlessOne: In many ways, he reintroduced the "it's the journey, not the destination" aspect back into art.

Then why are people paying so much for his destination that is just paint splatters?


...that's what you got out of that? Huh.
 
2022-07-06 12:06:44 PM  

Jake Havechek: [Fark user image image 425x248]


...I shall bid three million quatloos for this work!
 
2022-07-06 12:07:35 PM  

Highly evolved sloth: NM Volunteer: drgloryboy: drgloryboy: Let's say I am the art director for a public city museum that does not charge an admission fee and I hang a bunch of fakes of some long dead artist that I never intend to sell, have I committed fraud?
The Louvre charges an admission, and rumor has it that the real Mona Lisa is stored in the basement....

The fraud is claiming a fake work is real.  Doesn't matter if you charge admissions or not.

So if I lie and brag to my friends that the Van Gogh handing in my living room is authentic, I have committed a fraud that should be investigated and criminally prosecuted by the FBI?

You're overthinking things.  Stop.

Don't tell him to stop, I have the very same questions.  My understanding of fraud is that money changing hands somewhere has to be involved, but it doesn't sound like that happened here?


The thing is, that's not what the article says - the word "fraud" isn't used anywhere in that article. The FBI's investigating, the article's relayed what's known about the investigation, and indicates that the FBI hasn't commented at all on the investigation - including what and why they're investigating. The New York Times article on which this article's based indicates that the F.B.I.'s Art Crime Team is investigating the authenticity of 25 paintings that the Orlando Museum of Art says were created by Basquiat and are on exhibit there, according to a federal subpoena and several people with knowledge about the situation.

The question is leading, and it does seem like it's overthinking if not actual concern trolling.
 
2022-07-06 12:18:54 PM  

FormlessOne: Highly evolved sloth: NM Volunteer: drgloryboy: drgloryboy: Let's say I am the art director for a public city museum that does not charge an admission fee and I hang a bunch of fakes of some long dead artist that I never intend to sell, have I committed fraud?
The Louvre charges an admission, and rumor has it that the real Mona Lisa is stored in the basement....

The fraud is claiming a fake work is real.  Doesn't matter if you charge admissions or not.

So if I lie and brag to my friends that the Van Gogh handing in my living room is authentic, I have committed a fraud that should be investigated and criminally prosecuted by the FBI?

You're overthinking things.  Stop.

Don't tell him to stop, I have the very same questions.  My understanding of fraud is that money changing hands somewhere has to be involved, but it doesn't sound like that happened here?

The thing is, that's not what the article says - the word "fraud" isn't used anywhere in that article. The FBI's investigating, the article's relayed what's known about the investigation, and indicates that the FBI hasn't commented at all on the investigation - including what and why they're investigating. The New York Times article on which this article's based indicates that the F.B.I.'s Art Crime Team is investigating the authenticity of 25 paintings that the Orlando Museum of Art says were created by Basquiat and are on exhibit there, according to a federal subpoena and several people with knowledge about the situation.

The question is leading, and it does seem like it's overthinking if not actual concern trolling.


Not to mention that by creating exhibits that claim it to be legitimate, the museum is generating fraudulent provenance for the fake art work.  Art forgery relies heavily on museums claiming the artwork is legitimate.  Some forgers try to dupe museums, while others sneak into museum's archives to smuggle in paperwork claiming past exhibits already included the forgeries in question.

And then the forger tries to sell the artwork.  And claims that it was on display at various museums (regardless of whether or not it actually was displayed), which can trick art appraisers.
 
2022-07-06 12:35:19 PM  
How much is this art worth?
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-07-06 12:38:45 PM  

FormlessOne: Highly evolved sloth: NM Volunteer: drgloryboy: drgloryboy: Let's say I am the art director for a public city museum that does not charge an admission fee and I hang a bunch of fakes of some long dead artist that I never intend to sell, have I committed fraud?
The Louvre charges an admission, and rumor has it that the real Mona Lisa is stored in the basement....

The fraud is claiming a fake work is real.  Doesn't matter if you charge admissions or not.

So if I lie and brag to my friends that the Van Gogh handing in my living room is authentic, I have committed a fraud that should be investigated and criminally prosecuted by the FBI?

You're overthinking things.  Stop.

Don't tell him to stop, I have the very same questions.  My understanding of fraud is that money changing hands somewhere has to be involved, but it doesn't sound like that happened here?

The thing is, that's not what the article says - the word "fraud" isn't used anywhere in that article. The FBI's investigating, the article's relayed what's known about the investigation, and indicates that the FBI hasn't commented at all on the investigation - including what and why they're investigating. The New York Times article on which this article's based indicates that the F.B.I.'s Art Crime Team is investigating the authenticity of 25 paintings that the Orlando Museum of Art says were created by Basquiat and are on exhibit there, according to a federal subpoena and several people with knowledge about the situation.

The question is leading, and it does seem like it's overthinking if not actual concern trolling.


Well wait, your comment seems to imply that there doesn't necessarily have to be fraud involved, for the FBI art crimes group to get involved, so what other crime could have been committed?
Is it actually a crime to simply hang them, claiming that they are real?
 
2022-07-06 12:43:36 PM  

Highly evolved sloth: FormlessOne: Highly evolved sloth: NM Volunteer: drgloryboy: drgloryboy: Let's say I am the art director for a public city museum that does not charge an admission fee and I hang a bunch of fakes of some long dead artist that I never intend to sell, have I committed fraud?
The Louvre charges an admission, and rumor has it that the real Mona Lisa is stored in the basement....

The fraud is claiming a fake work is real.  Doesn't matter if you charge admissions or not.

So if I lie and brag to my friends that the Van Gogh handing in my living room is authentic, I have committed a fraud that should be investigated and criminally prosecuted by the FBI?

You're overthinking things.  Stop.

Don't tell him to stop, I have the very same questions.  My understanding of fraud is that money changing hands somewhere has to be involved, but it doesn't sound like that happened here?

The thing is, that's not what the article says - the word "fraud" isn't used anywhere in that article. The FBI's investigating, the article's relayed what's known about the investigation, and indicates that the FBI hasn't commented at all on the investigation - including what and why they're investigating. The New York Times article on which this article's based indicates that the F.B.I.'s Art Crime Team is investigating the authenticity of 25 paintings that the Orlando Museum of Art says were created by Basquiat and are on exhibit there, according to a federal subpoena and several people with knowledge about the situation.

The question is leading, and it does seem like it's overthinking if not actual concern trolling.

Well wait, your comment seems to imply that there doesn't necessarily have to be fraud involved, for the FBI art crimes group to get involved, so what other crime could have been committed?
Is it actually a crime to simply hang them, claiming that they are real?


Yes, art fraud.  Trademark and copyright can come into play too.
 
2022-07-06 12:43:56 PM  

sensitive yet dangerous: Art is subjective, of course, but if the end result looks like something a toddler literally threw together during an afternoon tantrum, i give it no value.

Same with artists who overexploit the grift like Picasso. At least half of his output is shoddy crap, like napkin scribbles or pots with a smiley face on them, done so he can pay off debts. Idiots eat that crap up for some reason. I don't value much of anything Picasso has done because he's devalued the good stuff by doing that.


I wonder why a painting by my 4 year old grandson is absolutely priceless.
 
2022-07-06 12:54:11 PM  
Apparently, fraud and fakery is a time-honored tradition in the high-end art world.

While I don't see those as victimless crimes, I can't get as mad about them as with other types of crime. They are interesting to read about, though. More proof that rich people really aren't smarter than the rest of us and are as easily duped by someone who appears to know what they're talking about.
 
2022-07-06 12:56:08 PM  

sensitive yet dangerous: Please, explain the greatness of Jackson Pollock's splatter paintings and Picasso's smiley-faced pottery for the rubes such as myself.


Why can't you simply accept that other people enjoy and appreciate it, but it's really not your bag?

Explain what's the point in being smug about not liking things other people enjoy?
 
2022-07-06 1:20:49 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Apparently, fraud and fakery is a time-honored tradition in the high-end art world.

While I don't see those as victimless crimes, I can't get as mad about them as with other types of crime. They are interesting to read about, though. More proof that rich people really aren't smarter than the rest of us and are as easily duped by someone who appears to know what they're talking about.


Trump's "Renoir"...
 
2022-07-06 3:02:20 PM  
Really? I'm the Weeners this? Fark, I am disappoint
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-07-06 4:02:55 PM  

FormlessOne: flamingboard: FormlessOne: In many ways, he reintroduced the "it's the journey, not the destination" aspect back into art.

Then why are people paying so much for his destination that is just paint splatters?

...that's what you got out of that? Huh.


lulz... like when ppl say about poetry 'it doesn't even rhyme!'
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.