Chapotraphouse

How on earth does someone write about such weird, tacky pieces and end up focusing more on how they're not by anyone who matters and waxing poetic about the implications of someone daring to display replicas or pieces from unknown artists, than on how grotesque they are or the obscene excess of private "high" art collections? The author's only comment about the estate spending $15,000 a month on storing this rubbish was some snide little "hmm, looks like they won't be able to profit much by selling such a lowly valued collection after that expense, hmmm" remark.

Like they all but gave up the game that the only thing differentiating Epstein's bad taste and collection of grotesquely crafted and vapidly horny pieces from the same things owned by other rich bastards was the name attached to them and the value (or lack thereof) they might have at auction. Focus on how absolutely hideous the pieces are, visually speaking? Focus on the clearly unsettling pieces? Focus on the moral depravity of every other rich bastard who associated with him? Focus on the moral depravity of displaying replicas and "art-like objects"?