Join Amazon Prime for exclusive deals, fast shipping, and endless entertainment! Sign up now!
Christie’s is owned by Groupe Artémis, François-Henri Pinault’s holding company.
Pinault, as you may know, is the husband of Selma Hayek.
He is also the chairman of Kering, which is the company under which Balenciaga is umbrellaed.
This has led to Pinault being directly tied, at least by online sleuths, to shocking artwork sold at the auction house that is selling absolutely disgusting child “art,” and I use that term very loosely.
Disturbing is an Understatement
I am not sure what type of mind works to even create such horrific and disturbing pieces, let alone someone that wants to buy them.
The pieces are of mutilated children, children with genitalia in place of facial features, or a combination of both.
If you want to see the artwork, I have links below going directly to Christie’s website auction pages for these artists.
These pieces were created by Jake and Dinos Chapman, who have since split their artistic endeavors.
Jake Chapman confirmed that he and his brother have parted ways, stating, “Nothing about our practice was amicable.
“It was never a love-in.
“It was always tinged with a certain seething disdain for each other so I guess at some point that reached critical mass, and we decided to go our separate ways.”
Just how much does Pinault know about the art? Well, I would be fairly confident that he is not personally approving every piece, however, I would note that these controversial pieces have been sold on Christie’s for decades, so he clearly had to have an idea that these pieces had been featured.
This has undoubtedly come to surface because of the controversial photos that showed up recently due to the Balenciaga Objects collection ad campaign.
The campaign featured children holding toy bears in bondage gear.
The photographer of the shoot, Gabriele Galimberti, has also come under fire for the shoot.
Galimberti responded, “I am not in a position to comment [on] Balenciaga’s choices, but I must stress that I was not entitled in whatsoever manner to neither chose the products, nor the models, nor the combination of the same.”
He continued, “As a photographer, I was only and solely requested to lit the given scene and take the shots according to my signature style. As usual, the direction of the campaign and of the shooting are not [in] the hands of the photographer.”
He may not have had a hand in selecting the content, but he sure as hell could have walked away from the project.
IMO, this is akin to a programmer recusing himself from a child porn site as merely providing the programming, not the actual content. You knew what you were creating, yet you chose to go forward to collect that check.
You don’t get a free pass here exploiting children simply because you were a paid gig worker.
Sources: Newsweek, InfoWars, & Christie’s Auction House
