DONALD BRYANT & HENRY KRAVIS: DON’T INVITEMS TO SAME PARTY
January 27, 2013 5:28 pm | Author: Jerry Berger
Our town’s businessman and vintner Donald Bryant and NYC billionaire Henry Kravis split the purchase price of a $20 million masterpiece, “Tantric Detail,” by Jasper Johns, which depicts a skull. The pair agreed to share joint custody for a year each. Both also agreed to eventually donate the work to The Museum of Modern Art. All went well until 2012, when Kravis claimed Bryant refused to let it go back to Kravis by Jan. 14. Bryant reportedly said it was too much trouble and asked for a new agreement. Kravis filed a lawsuit alleging that “Bryant continues to hold the artwork hostage.” FYI: Kravis is among the richest people in America ($4 billion net worth); Bryant is the ex of Barbara Bryant, whose main guy is Jack (Enterprise) Taylor.
I’m pretty sure Henry has a personal livery of limos and isn’t the slightest bit impressed by rental cars.
Kravis and Bryant…Kroenke and Staenberg…to paraphrase a Bob Dylan line, ” Trading wives, Cadillacs and Diamonds just leads to envy and malice…which costs everyone involved their vanity at too high a price.”
One of Henry Kravis’ wives was a hometown gal…whose name escapes me…doesn’t matter, she either got a good settlement, or gets a restful night’s sleep.
That was Carolyne Roehm, who I think was from Kirksville and went to Wash U.
Right you are flyover…thanks.
Spliting ownership of a painting is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of, unless of course a judge awarded joint custody in a divorce case. For two men to do this sounds very gay to me. Stupid Fools and Pissy Queens run amok.
We can always count on Kitty for some stupid ass remarks.
Can someone at the psychiatric hospital please keep Kitty away from the internet??!!
Notice how Kitty’s character was called into question, but not her answer to the topic. Now, that’s a show of both immaturity, and intellectual laziness. Liberals always attack the person…never on their ideas. A Rule for a Radical is this country’s “little red book”, and there are far too many people that embrace it.
Here’s a response for Towncar about Kitty:
Kitty has no business telling anyone how they should or should be buying a painting. It’s none of her business. If these two guys want to spend all their money and then fight over it, it’s their business. If they are gay who cares? It’s their business. Not Kitty’s business, nor her right to complain about it. Did that do the trick Towncar?
Besides Kitty just giving her opinion, the only response should be a counter opinion with facts on why dual ownership is a problem…or just take it for an opinion, and then provide your own. Name calling, finger pointing, dirt on the shoes goes out after you leave the kindergarten playground.
Kitty and Towncar must be married – and to each other – which explains a WHOLE BUNCH of stuff.
Rteired1 makes a conclusion not based on any evidence…true to from again.
I’m not sure if the subject of the story or the comments thread is more pathetic.
Reggie – we ARE talking about Kitty and Towncar – what do you expect?
I understood the topic to be joint ownership errors regarding a painting. The rest just sort of flew in and took root.