
<p>The money magnet of the Biden family, First Son Hunter, is now officially an artist – having had his first gallery showing. ; There is a folklore belief that artists are not financially successful in their lifetime – that is often the case, but not always. ; ;</p>



<p>Many artists make a very nice living off their creations. ; And it appears that Hunter Biden is in that category. ; A couple of his paintings have sold for an astounding $75,000 each. ; That makes Hunter one of the most successful living neophyte artists of all times. ; He is right up there with the likes of Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock &#8212; both of whom received handsome prices while they were still alive. ; And even better after they died.</p>



<p>But Hunter is not like those other artists. ; The prices they commanded were based on the quality of their artistry that developed over many years. ; They did not sell their first attempts at anything near the prices that launched Hunter’s career as an artist.</p>



<p>Most fine art is purchased by people who like what they see AND as an investment. ; They expect the value of the paintings will increase over time. ; That is not always the outcome, but it is almost always the anticipation.</p>



<p>There is one thing that could explain why Hunter’s art works are commanding such a high price. ; It may have to do with the unique and exceptional quality of his work. Hmmmm. ; That does not appear to be the case. ; Quite the contrary.</p>



<p>Art critics have deemed Hunter’s work product as “pedestrian,” “amateurish” and even “garbage.” ; One art expert said it is one step above paint-by-numbers. ; Another called it computer screensaver stuff. ; When asked to do a professional estimate of the value of Hunter’s paintings, another expert said between $200 and $2500. ; Another sarcastically suggested that the canvas was worth more before Hunter applied paint to it.</p>



<p>Having seen a number of Hunter’s paintings, I think the critics are being a bit harsh. ; As a person who has put brush to canvas on occasion, I have to say that Hunter has more talent than I would have expected for a professional grifter. But there is a Pantheon of reprobates who have exhibited artistic talent – including serial killer John Gacy and Adolph Hitler.</p>



<p>At least we can surmise where Hunter may be getting his inspirations. ; Those years of serious drugging? ; Hallucinogenic flashbacks?</p>



<p>What we have in Hunter is a self-proclaimed artist with mediocre talent. ; There are undoubtedly thousands of young gals and guys coming out of art schools with more talent than Hunter. ; Yet, he is getting the big bucks for pedestrian paintings.</p>



<p>Why?</p>



<p>Well, we all know why. ; Because he is the controversial son of the President of the United States. ; Being controversial may even add to Hunter’s market value. ; Makes him a celebrity. ; But why are people willing to pay exorbitant prices knowing that – as investments – Hunter’s paintings are guaranteed losers. ; They will never be worth anything near those initial purchase prices in the future.</p>



<p>To understand what is going on, we only need look at the Clinton Foundation. ; It was getting millions of dollars of donations from shakers and movers all over the world – as long as it appeared that Hillary was going to become the President of the United States. ; Once she lost the election, all those mega donors became a lot less “charitable.” ; I suspect that once Daddy Biden is no longer in the White House, the value of a Hunter will drop faster than his father’s current favorable rating.</p>



<p>Hunter is currently commanding higher prices for his works than former President George W. Bush. ; That is because – as an ex-President – Bush’s sketches and paintings do not have that influence peddling surcharge.</p>



<p>Those paying $75,000 and up for Hunter’s works are not doing it for the artworks. ; They want to get on the radar of the White House – curry favor. ; Claiming to not want Hunter’s works being seen as common influence peddling, the White House came up with the questionable idea that the buyers’ names would remain secret – arguing that daddy Biden, or other administration officials, would never know who purchased the paintings.</p>



<p>That is a sham. ; Those who purchase the paintings can let anyone they please know of their purchase – including the folks in the White House. ; The only folks who are not likely to ever find out who purchased the paintings are the American people. ; This is reverse transparency. ; We the people will not even know who the purchasers tell.</p>



<p>This whole art operation has a putrid smell to it. ; But what can be done about it? ; Nothing. ; There is no law against Hunter peddling paintings – and no law against overpaying for them. ; Unless the Justice Department can tie a purchase of a painting with some favor coming from the Oval office, there is no case to be made. ; And the folks at the Department of Justice are more likely to buy a painting than investigate the artist.</p>



<p>And finally …. Having perused the artworks displayed in several museums of modern art, I cannot say Biden is not producing the worst art – even if it is one step above paint-by-numbers. ; But who would hang a Hunter ;next to their Picasso?</p>



<p>So. There ‘tis.</p>

What would you pay for a Biden?
