The Art of Impeachment: Why I Still Just See A Banana Taped To A Wall

YouTube Screenshot

Below is my column in The Los Angeles Times on the decision of the House leadership to proceed with an impeachment of President Donald Trump on two articles of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Art and impeachments are rarely an exercise of objectivity.  I testified that the impeachment alleged crimes like bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations, and other crimes (including those based on the Mueller investigation) are wildly outside standard definitions of those crimes.  Where the Committee obviously departed from my position was moving forward with this record. While I testified that Trump could be impeached for non-crimes like abuse of power, the record in this case is far too thin and incomplete to support submission to the Senate. Yet, how one sees this impeachment seems to depend on one’s perspective in the art of impeachment.

Here is the column:

Last week, artist Maurizio Cattelan reportedly sold his art piece “Comedian” for $120,000. The work consisted of nothing more than a banana affixed to the wall with duct tape.

Some viewers of the piece saw art. Some saw hype. One person, performance artist David Datuna, saw lunch and proceeded to walk up and eat it. (It was later replaced by another banana and fresh duct tape.)

Frankly, when I look at the House efforts to impeach President Trump, I see a banana taped to a wall. As others coo over the power and evidence of the report, I continue to look around scratching my head, wondering why others don’t see the obvious gaps and conflicts. Yes, we’ve heard disturbing accounts, but they are surrounded by contested facts.

To extend the art metaphor, the Democratic case is an exercise in pointillism, a painting style in which individual dots, viewed from a distance, form a picture. That is not itself improper. All cases are to some degree a mosaic of evidentiary points. But in this case, the dots are too few and the gaps too great.

That is why last week in my testimony before Congress I encouraged the Democrats to wait and build a more complete case.

Past presidential impeachments were far more Rockwellian — literal, richly detailed, non-abstract.

In all three previous cases — those of Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon — criminal acts had been clearly established and the facts surrounding them were widely accepted.

This would be the first presidential impeachment to go forward with no credible (or at least uncontested) crime at its heart. That does not mean that the Democrats’ case is necessarily invalid. The problem is that this is the thinnest record of any modern impeachment as well as arguably the shortest impeachment investigation in history (Johnson was impeached after three prior attempts and the House had been working on creating the grounds for impeachment for a year).

This would not matter if the non-criminal acts were clear and uncontested. They are not. The most serious impeachable act raised by the Democrats is abuse of power, a legitimate basis for impeachment, as I stated in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.

But in inexplicably rushing to an impeachment vote, the House is forgoing the subpoenaing of key witnesses who could shed light on potential abuse of power, including former national security advisor John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Instead, the Democrats insisted we should go forward on “inferences” or interpretations rather than delay further. Yet I have looked at that banana taped to the wall from all angles, and I just don’t see how it clearly establishes a quid pro quo.

There are three direct conversations on the record. Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which does not state a clear quid pro quo. He asks for a favor but promises nothing in return for it. Moreover, in his August conversation with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Trump reportedly denied any quid pro quo. In his September conversation with U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, he also denied any quid pro quo.

The House Intelligence Committee did an excellent job of undermining the final two calls by showing that Trump was already aware at the time he was speaking of the whistleblower controversy emerging on Capitol Hill. However, that does not alter the fact that those direct accounts have not been contradicted by countervailing statements from the president.

Another complication is that Zelensky himself has said that he did not discuss any quid pro quo with Trump. Moreover, the funds were released on Sept. 11 without apparent action on Ukraine’s part to do the president his requested favor. One can certainly claim that this happened only because Trump got caught. The problem is that such a claim is based on presumption rather than proof. It is guaranteed to fail on that basis in the Senate.

That is why I have suggested ways to paint a realistic case rather than an impressionistic case for the removal of Trump. As it stands now, with so much in the Democrats’ case relying on inference, how one views the impeachment is entirely based on one’s view of the president. That is the trouble with impressionistic impeachments: They leave too much in the eye of the beholder.

Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in an impeachment trial before the Senate in defense of Judge Thomas Porteous. He also testified as a constitutional expert in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.

144 thoughts on “The Art of Impeachment: Why I Still Just See A Banana Taped To A Wall”

        1. Imagine how Robert E Lee felt! LOL 😉

          It isn’t like we’re Balgraia…. this week anyway, but that’s no doubt why Goole/Youtube/… Commie/Fascist are shutting down the internet as fast as they can.

          They see the future also.

          Stand back, looks to me it’s goinna blow.

  1. I deeply respect your civility, Professor Turley. Please keep being that collegiate role model to the community.

    The previous two impeachments in the modern era WERE deeply contested on the facts. And they were also bitterly divided, except Nixon’s crowd finally turned when the tapes came out.

    Second problem is, Trump’s support consists of the real dreamers in this country. Ones that believe that Mexico will pay for a wall, or that Trump University provided excellent education, or the evangelicals who give a pass to his blatantly carnal and reprobate escapades.

    Finally we live in the spawning era of deep fakes. Even if we had tapes from Cohen, or Giuliani, or Parnas, or literally anything recorded, Trump would simply whip out the Fake News moniker and *poof* the direct evidence is a hoax and irrelevant.

    It’s a wash to the case whether they obtain more evidence. We don’t live in an age where realism has any oxygen. This is the age of Trumpism.

  2. The problem is that I don’t particularly believe that “abuse of power” IS a legitimate basis for impeachment. Hamilton certainly does not use those words, what he references is the “abuse or violation of some public trust.”And what is it that elected officials are entrusted with? Well, in my mind, tangible resources. So I don’t buy this argument, rather I see Hamilton’s language here to be so vague as to be disregarded.

    Look, there is no doubt that Hamilton was an energetic and prolific writer, Washington’s mouthpiece for precisely that reason, but he does not possess Washington’s precision or concise use of words. He’s a sounding board, a bit part player, second fiddle with no hope of ever being first clarinet, and not an authority. Although his later role as treasurer, I believe, is an interesting study in itself.

  3. JT: “The problem is that such a claim is based on presumption rather than proof. It is guaranteed to fail on that basis in the Senate.”

    Unlike an assumption which refers to the act of taking for granted something, a presumption refers to a belief on reasonable grounds or probable evidence. In the absence of rebuttal, a presumption inexorably will give way to an inference based upon one’s common sense reasoning, and inferences lead to proof.

    Incidentally, Republicans refuse to accept Ambassador Sondland’s testimony that Trump had in mind a quid pro quo because it was his “presumption” based upon his conversations with Trump. On the other hand, despite the fact that Horowitz testified that he found no evidence that the FBI agents’ official acts were motivated by their bias against Trump, Republicans “presume” that the evidence establishes a “Deep State coup d’etat.

    Who wants to bet that JT will be on Trump’s defense team in the Senate trial?

    1. Paragraph two is essentially just another hypothesis as fact argument. And Sondland himself stated that “quid pro quo” extended only to a meeting, not funding. There is nothing tangible there, meetings are not actionable.

      1. You are avoiding the larger point that evident presumptions are legitimate and ineluctably lead to inferences of guilt unless rebutted by countervailing evidence. Republicans are being two-faced when they insist that Sondland’s presumption is just that while their presumption that the FBI agents’ biases must have motivated illegal investigative conduct in spite of the lack of explicit testimonial or documentary evidence to infer such an illicit motivation.

        1. JS:
          “You are avoiding the larger point that evident presumptions are legitimate and ineluctably lead to inferences of guilt unless rebutted by countervailing evidence. “
          Before you represent anybody, take an evidence class or a logic class or have a seminar on common sense with a bright fifth grader.

        2. Silberman, Sondland admitted to presumptions and then provided countervailing evidence that there was no quid pro quo even though the countervailing evidence wasn’t legally necessary. The FBI agents demonstrated bias in their emails and their actions. There was loads of evidence indicating bias including lying to the FISA Court and changing the words in documents.

        3. Jeffrey Silberman:

          “You are avoiding the larger point that evident presumptions are legitimate and ineluctably lead to inferences of guilt unless rebutted by countervailing evidence.”
          You mean like specific evidence from the parties to the conversation that directly rebuts your “presumption”? How about an OMB memo explaining the reason for the hold unrelated to any quid pro quo?

          Like I said, stay outta court.

          1. Both “parties” to the conversation have a compelling interest to claim innocent intent in the conversation and one of them is a compulsive liar who bats around 500 on the truth of his statements.

            Continuing his wilful gullibility, Mespo also accepts as fact official statements at odds with the understanding of the Presidents entire Ukrainian diplomatic team and the explanation of his WH Chief of Staff, himself a firmware OMB head. Elsewhere I asked Mespo to explain the actions of the Trump administration – including the work done by those members to extort Zelensky – that would not include an impeachable offense and he ducked, and has chosen instead to “waste his time” insulting me and others seeking a discussion based on the evidence. I put the same question to Karen, and she ducked as well. Watching national GOP politicians avoid that same discussion and one detects a pattern.

            1. It wouldn’t be an impeachable offense even had he put the screws to Zelensky. You fancy because Biden is a Democratic politician he’s immune from investigation for his extortion of the Ukrainian government on behalf of his train wreck son. He is not.

              1. Pretty sloppy thinking there absurd.

                1. There are legitimate channels for coordinating investigations with foreign governments and they don’t involve forcing a public announcement of the Presidents most powerful political rival. You understand why, I’m sure.

                2. The public announcement part was all Sondland testified was necessary.

                SCHIFF: But he had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct?

                SONDLAND: He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.


                GOLDMAN: Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

                SONDLAND: I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced. … President Trump presumably, communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on-record publicly that they were going to do those investigations

            2. Anon/burn-duh-book cant seem to stay away from JT’s blog in spite of being banned by the moderator for threatening someone. SMH

              Anon’s next fake name should be Jack Twist

              “I wish I knew how to quit you!”


              1. Anon, Natchacha, Peter Shill, etc all come on this blog for cult proselytizing of lying, insulting and anarchy

                Such is the intollerant left: their way or blow everybody up to smithereens

            3. Peter, your problem is you neither understand the law or can separate facts from presumptions.You are wrong on almost everything and you have insulted everyone that votes for Trump many times. You have demonstrated a hateful attitude towards new borns, children soon to be delivered, women, caucasians and a whole host of other groups without even recognizing it.

              When you learn the difference between proof and opinion along with the other things mentioned come back to us but at present you are a waste of time.

              1. Between the number of names for Anon originally Jan F and Peter I switched the two but most things I said apply to both.

  4. Please review the Horiwitz Report.

    The standard for starting an investigation is Reasonable suspicion.

    That standard was met.

    That is all that matters.

    You want a deeper record. I don’t. We saw entirely different things.

    You saw too much of what Democrats wanted you to see. Carreer civil servants trying to serve the country.

    I saw the same people so certain they were right and everyone else was wrong that they were thwarting the president in every way.

    Much of the Inquest was NOT about Biden or QPQ. It was about who determines US foreign policy. The constitution tells us the president does.
    But all the witnesses kept telling us how the interagency concensus was being violated.
    I do not recall that in the constitution anywhere.

    If Trump’s conduct was so egregious – House democrats should start by passing a lwa making it illegal .

    That is not going to happen. We all know that. The objective is not to impeach any president who uses presidential power in a way that benefits himself politically ALL acts of the executive either benefit or harm the president politically – and that is how it should be.

    I would challenge you to draft a law that bars the conduct you do not want while allowing what you do.


    – More “Banana Art”. The title character is a vicious Mafia figure who ratted out others to save his own neck.
    Stecchino’s wife happens to see a guy who is his exact double, and lures him to Palermo to be killed so that all those trying to kill Stecchino will think he’s dead.
    This dolt, the double, thinks they’re trying to kill him because he stole a banana.

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-eight citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I have to disagree. Jackson Pollack is by far the better artist.

  6. The Democrats are debating adding a new impeachment charge, in addition to “abuse of power” and “obstruction of justice.” The new impeachment charge under consideration is “Boosting the U.S. Economy for Personal Political Gain.”

        1. Actually, support for Scots independence varies within a narrow band and it’s performs better as a ghostly option on a pollster’s list of questions than it does in an actual referendum. But you keep hoping.

            1. That’s ironic, thinking that leaving the EU will be most difficult on Scotland.

              It’s been trying to rid itself of British rule since the days of William Wallace. Then there was the oppression after they were defeated in Culloden in 1745.

              Hundreds of years of trying to rule themselves…only to fall apart now? A Highlander is built of sterner stuff than that.

              The EU puts a bureaucracy in charge of member nations. They spend 114 million euros on shipping the seat of the EU from Brussels to Strasbourg every month. It’s a racket. They waste an absurd amount of money on devoted trains and lorries. Box everything up. Unbox it. Box everything up. Unbox it. It’s written into the charter, so although everyone knows it’s stupid and dreadfully wasteful at a time when that money is badly needed elsewhere, but the only way out of it is to amend the charter with a level of approval very difficult to get, or leave the EU.

              The UK voted to leave the EU. Elitists wouldn’t hear of it. They’ll just keep having elections, apparently, until they get the vote they want.

              It is patently absurd to posit that nations cannot possibly manage themselves, or alliances, without some Monty Python bureaucracy passing laws and regulations its own people dislike. That’s not doing what’s best for their own citizens. They can’t figure out alliances, trade deals, or work visas?

              Here Alastair Williams uses an escape from Burger King metaphor for Brexit.


    1. David:

      Yeah the Romans, Vikings, Danes, French (too many times to count), Germans (twice), Spaniards (with an Armada) couldn’t do it but a bunch of panty waist “Remainers (now Returners)” will. Right!

      I want you to start running your comments by the medical staff.

  7. It’s Ok if the democrats fail to successfully impeach Trump. Congresswoman Bass will have another go at it again in 2021!

  8. The White House counsel, in his two letters to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, made clear the President’s absolute defiance of Congressional oversight and stated his direction to Administration officials to offer no cooperation whatsoever to the impeachment proceedings. It beggars belief that the House Committees should pretend that the President’s defiance and directive are simply hindrances to the additional process that you desire, rather than a clearly impeachable act in an of itself, which is what the Articles rightly conclude they are.

    1. True if only the Congress had subpoena power over the Executive Branch. And, in going for adjudication in the courts, Trump is only imitating what Obama did several times, as has been pointed out here. Pay attention please.

  9. “Frankly, when I look at the House efforts to impeach President Trump, I see a banana taped to a wall.”

    I don’t. I see people filled with hate, trying to overthrow a lawful election, or cheat in the next one. I see a total loss of reason. A will to divide. Intolerance. Abuse of power. Total commitment to alienate the other side. Blatantly ignoring that Democrats are guilty of what they have accused Trump of.

    And I see a lot of their voters going along for the ride. When you point out the evidence, they are silent. They are glad that someone is abusing power, as long as it benefits them. But if the other side does it, they’ll riot.

    1. Well-said. I guess now Joe Biden has stated that he will “obstruct congress” by refusing to testify if issued a subpoena by the Senate. But, it’s ok if he does it, yes?

      1. Where does it say in the Constitution that a President may not investigate alleged criminal activity by a Democrat Presidential candidate?

        What is this? Organized Crime?

        1. Karen, I discussed this misconception on your part – seeking a public announcement of an investigation of your main rival is not an actual investigation, nor should a president be the one seeking them on rivals – in Titanic thread and asked you to offer a plausible explanation for Trumps behavior in this matter which is not impeachable.

          Can you answer? No one else can.

          1. In other words if Al Capone were alive he could run for President at which time according to Anon no one could ask for him to be investigated.

            Pretty silly, right?

            1. Democrats have no principles, merely improvisations which provide specious excuses for them getting what they want, BAMN.

            2. Allan,

              I know next to nothing about AlCapone & the Chicago Mafia, The Outfit.

              As I understand some of the history Hillary Clinton’s dad was a Capo under Al Capone.

              I can’t help but wonder if the world would be better off if Al Capone had stayed in power & put a contact out on Hillary’s dad?????

              I’m just wondering…

          2. bythebook:

            The impeachment allegations have kept changing, just like all the previous false allegations.

            First it was that Trump had a phone call that tied aid to an investigation in a quid pro quo.

            Transcripts disproved that, thus disproving hearsay witnesses who thought the call was different.

            Then it was not taking a meeting was a quid pro quo. That fell apart.

            Then it was that he wanted to investigate Joe Biden for political gain. Their own witnesses admitted that Joe Biden behaved improperly, and that an investigation was justified. That’s fallen apart.

            Then it was that going to the Courts was obstruction of justice. That fell apart.

            Now it’s that aid was tied to a public announcement of the investigation in a quid pro quo. That announcement never took place, so it’s falling apart, too.

            If there was a high crime or misdemeanor, Republicans would be on board with impeachment. So would I. I have seen nothing that deviates from any other president working foreign policy.

            At least he didn’t pull an Obama, and whisper on a hot mike to a Russian official to cool it because after he’s re-elected, he’ll have greater flexibility. Even that is not an impeachable offense.

            You stated that a president should not be seeking investigations on rivals. Why? Why shouldn’t allegations of criminal wrongdoing be investigated, merely because Joe Biden is running for President for the Democratic Party? Is that a get out of an investigation free card? No one can answer me that.

            If no President should investigate a rival, then Obama should not have investigated Trump. I see the reasoning applied in a unilateral fashion, seemingly without awareness.

            I agree that you shouldn’t sic the FBI on political rivals for no other reason than to gather dirt, a la J Edgar Hoover. We have seen this happen throughout history.

            However, criminal or other allegations of wrongdoing should be investigated.

            It was fine to follow the Papadopoulus’ contact with Joseph Mifsud. It is my suspicion that Mifsud was one of the academics used in active measures, such as Dialogue of Nations. This undermines America, capitalism, and promotes socialism. In any case, Mifsud told Papadopoulus that Russia had Hillary Clinton’s emails. A lot of us said that Russia, and probably everyone else, has her emails since she uploaded them to the Cloud. That’s like shouting them on the street. In any case, Papadopoulus told this to the Australian PM, who told the FBI. So the FBI followed that thread. That’s fine.

            What wasn’t OK was when the case against the Trump campaign fell apart, the FBI lied, misrepresented, and even fabricated documents to keep it going. They targeted Carter Page, but it was determined that there was insufficient cause to surveil him. Then came the political op research fabricated Steele Dossier. The CIA confirmed to the FBI in an email that Carter Page was working with them, and had informed them about his Russian contact. The FBI doctored that email to change it to say that they did not have a relationship with him. A series of malfeasance continued. That’s the problem with the Trump investigation. It starts out following a simple lead, and metastasized.

            1. Karen, how about returning to our conversation on the Titanic thread. I don’t want to have to start from scratch with you, and especially since I’m communicating on a mobile device,

              Thanks, and it may be this evening before I respond again.

  10. A banana taped to a wall is not art. It’s not any more meaningful than the everyday existence of our day.

    I am offended at the stupidity of today’s art community, that actually paid $120,000 for a banana taped to a wall. The banana is fresh, so it rots. Apparently, what you’re buying is a certificate of authenticity. You are supposed to replace the banana. What about the duct tape?

    It’s duct tape and a banana!!!

    This is the emperor’s new clothes. The art community has made irredeemable fools of themselves! If this is art, then everything is art, and nothing is!

    Did David Datuna do performance art by eating a banana? Normally, I would say no. It was more a form of protest. But in a way, it’s more meaningful to see David Datuna eat the reputation of the art community.

    I knew art had become a laughingstock when that scam artist Tracey Emin put up her messy bed as an art installation, eponymously entitled My Bed. It came complete with stained sheets, menstrual stains, used condoms, a pregnancy test, and a half drunk bottle of booze. Someone paid $3.77 million for her menstrual stained sheets. Ack. Gag. Since her first scam was an international success, she created a play tent covered with the names of everyone she ever slept with. She must have laughed all the way to the bank.

    These people are morons. Complete morons. I know, they’re rare, but apparently they are overly represented in the Art community, as well as the House of Representatives. More than half, in fact. Hopefully, we will correct that in 2020.

    1. Karen S – I went to a contemporary art museum yesterday where they had a dual performance piece of a single young man standing in water for 45 minutes and on a matching screen the same man and a woman. This was the North Sea. Now I cannot figure out if he stayed in because he did not want to wussy out in of her or vice versa. I learned nothing other than they got pneumonia.

          1. There was a documentary about one of the most egregious art frauds. There was a talented artist named Mark Landis who could get nowhere in the art world. He longed to get some sort of recognition for his art. So he started forging. He made quite excellent forgeries and donated them as a benefactor to museums across the country over 30 years. He enjoyed the respect and recognition he was afforded for his generosity, and his art was adored. Granted, he was not recognized as the actual artist until he was eventually caught. He made the mistake of painting multiple versions of the same masterpiece. Eventually, a museum recipient made a standard inquiry, and discovered that two other museums were displaying the exact same work.

            The forger broke no laws, because he gave them away for free.

            There are talented artists who can’t make a living with quality work. And yet there are people taking advantage of the ironic lack of taste in the art world, and getting millions for a dirty, stained bed, and over 100,000 for a banana taped to a wall, that requires the banana to be replaced every few days.

            Beauty and meaning are in the eye of the beholder. But there should be some minimum standards of composition and quality.

            I’m sorry. I’m still obsessing about that stupid banana. it’s symbolic of our times.

    2. Hitler didn’t like Picasso, either. I’ve often wondered: does the “S” in your surname stand for “Schicklgruber”?

      1. Natacha – taste is personal. I own a lot of modern art as well as traditional art. However, there are artists I do not like and pieces by artists I do not like. You bring your own experience to the art. What do you bring?

          1. I had to look up Godwin’s Law. That’s awesome.

            There needs to be a similar term for all internet threads eventually contain Fox news.

        1. Paul – you once referred me to a Native American artist that you liked. I recall it was a modern style, which I usually don’t like. In this case it really appealed to me. I remember an earth tone palette, taupes, and the like.

          Does that ring a bell? I can’t find it in my art bookmarks.

          1. Karen S – I collect a couple of Native American artists. However, I have several David Paladin’s. If that is not who you were thinking of we will try for plan B

        1. Look up “Schicklgruber” and Hitler’s views on art. You obviously don’t know much about either, and neither does Karen S, who refuses to admit that she doesn’t have much education, but still thinks she can blather on and on about everything, mostly repeating the crud she heard on Fox the night before.

          1. Natacha – why don’t you go head to head with me on art?? Hitler was an artist himself, who didn’t like modern art. Taste is personal.

            1. Hitler’s art couldn’t get him into the Vienna Conservatory. He was turned away, twice, because although he could competently render buildings and landscapes (“competent” is the best thing you can say about his work), the results were uninspired, lacking any kind of soul. His sketches and watercolors rarely had people or living creatures, such as cows, horses, dogs, cats, in them–just streets, buildings, etc. He supported himself by doing watercolors on postcards. Our National Archives has several examples of his work which are never shown because, after all, it’s Hitler. It’s not a matter of taste–few to no experts on art are or were impressed enough to call Hitler an “artist”.

              1. Natacha – Background: Hitler often claimed to be something of a frustrated artist, and art was certainly one of his major interests throughout his life. He probably sold several thousand paintings and postcards during his stay in Vienna, some of which turn up even today. Hitler himself made no great claims to greatness as a painter (architecture was something else….). There was a thriving market for his paintings during the Third Reich — and even today, there are eager collectors.

                The best book on the matter is Frederic Spotts’s Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics, which takes Hitler’s artistic side seriously. Spotts comments: “He had a modicum of talent —— at least in sketching buildings —— but what technique he learned he picked up on his own. Like most amateurs, he began by painting simple landscapes. With neither innate originality nor professional training, he went on to imitate the watercolors and prints of the south German school and the postcard scenes —— everyday urban views —— that were popular at the time….. Moreover, he had to paint the sort of thing that an unknown and untalented amateur might be able to sell, and that was inexpensive reproductions of familiar places” (p. 125). Spotts’s book also has color reproductions of four of Hitler’s paintings.

                The problem is that is if you cannot get into an art school you are not going to get past the amateur level. However, if he sold several thousand paintings during his stay in Vienna, he sold a hell of a lot more than Van Gogh.

          2. Natacha:

            You are still at 100% wrong about me, which means it is deliberate. Blind guessing would at least give you 50/50. Where did you get the idea that I wasn’t educated? It’s just another lie you made up about me. As a lawyer/nurse, you should have better judgment. Sounds like bitterness that I keep proving you wrong.

            And, oh, dear, there’s your Fox tic again.

          3. Natacha, it is ridiculous to claim someone is like Hitler because they both dislike an artist. Are you kidding?

            Your obsession with Fox is weird.

            Dennis Prager is right. There are no happy Leftists. There are happy and unhappy Liberals, Progressives, and conservatives, but there are no happy Leftists. They are too consumed with hatred, intolerance, and misery.

            You are wasting your life constantly going after strangers online. You don’t seem to be open to new ideas or improvement. I love the stimulation of this blog. I learn something new all the time from either the blog posts or the comments. Those who are just here to troll feed a very dark place in themselves. Your constant harping about the existence of a conservaive news site, and regular misrepresentations are symptoms of this deep unhappiness among Leftism.

            You are wasting your time on Earth sniping and looking for negative attention. Do something fulfilling and be happy.

    3. the “art” is where they rip stupid people off with their masterful artistry of a con job, ie a fraud

      a fun read if you can stomach it, is “Long Con” by Iceberg Slim, the infamous pimp turned auteur whose name has been appropriated by various hip hop artists

    4. Karen,

      Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo , That’s art.

      Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, That’s Art,

      Ludwig Van Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, That’s Art.

      Conspiracy Theory – AlicexJerry – Can’t Take My Eyes Off Of You., Mel Gibson/Julia Roberts, the movie, the songs contained, the script, the actors, That’s Art.

      Banana taped to a wall, that’s a snack for a construction worker.

      Our 12+ senses tell us what’s art & what’s not, not some fool with to much money & no sense.

Leave a Reply