Not too sure about this private property concept then?

A growing group of artists is hitting back against Ivanka Trump, with some even demanding the president-elect’s daughter take their work down off her walls.

You sold it honeybuns, you sold it.

31 thoughts on “Not too sure about this private property concept then?”

  1. Also, I thought art was meant to be redemptive/revolutionary? Are they saying Ivanka is beyond their (perhaps more limited than advertised) powers?

  2. Well Ivanka is much more aesthetically pleasing than their ‘art’.

    Also I don’t think it’s uncommon for ‘creative’ types to think they own their stuff after it’s sold. I’m sure I remember Lucas moaning about something Disney did with Star Wars after he happily took their 2billion in cash.

  3. Wasn’t there a Banksy painting of rich people eating round a table near starving people which was supposed to show the difference between the affluent west and poor third world for which Angelina Jolie paid a gizzilion dollars?

    Jolie obviously having missed the lesson in which irony was explained.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    “She can send them a bill for renting her wall space.”

    And marketing.

    My wife would love to get someone that famous buying and showing her work.

  5. She could claim to be bisexual, and say that the artists’ desire not to trade with her is just as bad as bakers not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

  6. @JuliaM

    “Hmm, just what is the collective noun for these?”

    Is it a Toss of Artists? e.g ” Look at those Tossers overs there.”

    As for the ‘Art’ itself, it looks like typical modern shite.

  7. It’s a perfect illustration of their character though – flog their ‘art’ for huge piles of cash and then affect to be edgy and alternative. Cunts.

  8. Be fun to see a Silentnight van pull up outside Tracey Emin’s gaff to remove her bed on the grounds that she had brought their products into disrepute

  9. A ‘dissatisfaction’ of artists?
    On the basis that there’s no recorded instance of any of them being happy about anything & the only time they stop hating each other is when they combine for a collective whinge.

  10. “Not too sure about this private property concept then?”

    They’re (probably all) socialists. Of course they’re not.

  11. Ivanka’s response:
    “Fortunately, for me at least, we have this little thing called property rights. The fact that it turns out you are a fuckwit, even if talented, is therefore your problem”.

    Collective noun: clusterfuck, or perhaps a circle jerk. Maybe an Oedipus?

  12. The time to make a stand was at the point of sale.

    The artists may now feel compromised, but that must have been a known risk when the works were offered for sale. Clearly they were overcome by greed.

    This isn’t really their fault; they are unwilling victims of capitalism, neoliberalism and the patriarchy.

    Ivanka is very much on the less appalling end of the privileged white western male spectrum. Which would have made things even more difficult for these artists.

    It’s not going to get any easier under the new fascist dispensation.

  13. So, let me get this right: a group of artists is demanding their work is not displayed in the home of a man who happens to be Jewish. But they’re not demanding this because he’s Jewish; heaven no! They’re demanding it because… antisemitism.

  14. And, if I have the facts right, they took the Jew’s money but are angry at any possible association with him.

  15. Note that they were quite happy to take Ivanka’s money when they sold the stuff, knowing full well that her dad was The Evil Donald. Strange that it’s only now that they have the vapours about it. I guess their perceived need to preserve their ‘right on’ reputations demands this kind of virtue signalling, grubby as it looks to everyone else.

  16. I’m sure they’re more than willing to pay $20 million a piece to liberate those art work away from that awful woman and her husband. Right?

  17. Why would Ivanka destroy, deface or dispose of things which she presumably bought because she liked them and to which she retains full legal ownership? Cutting off your nose to spite your face is a remarkably foolish thing to do and she does not strike me as a fool. The most satisfying put-down of these ridiculous, preening narcissists would be to make sure that their pieces are featured as prominently as possible in the background of any photos of her house that are taken. The best revenge is living well.

  18. @ BiCR
    Maybe she could auction them on ebay, with a minimum price and see whether anyone bids for them?
    And then publish the absence of bids above the minimum price for the works of each of these self-opinionated lefties?

  19. So Much For Subtlety

    It is just ar$ehole virtue signalling. A bunch of ar$eholes make a living selling over-priced over-hyped sh!t. The problem is that the wrong people sometimes buy them. They need to stay in the good books of their tribe, so they condemn the wrong people for buying them.

    They are whores who want to pretend they have virtue. But actually they are still just whores.

    Personally she should do what her father did. He played songs on his campaign trail. Some artists did what they always do – they complained. He told them to f**k off. Good for him. People don’t tell Bruce Springsteen to do that half often enough. Personally I would play U2 just to annoy Bono.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *