Are modern artists, con artists?

You be the judge. This has been going on at least a century.

http://www.artinsociety.com/the-controversies-of-constantin-brancusi-princess-x-and-the-boundaries-of-art.html

In person, ordinary lighting:

More like Princess XXX.

See also:

http://livehopething.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/tin-of-shit-valued-at-8000000.html

“Critics of modern art will at least applaud the irony. The Tate Gallery has paid £22,300 of public money for a work that is, quite literally, a load of excrement.”

At least they’re not taking the piss.


That’s this one.

Similar postmodern horrors at http://www.oddee.com/item_98781.aspx

You think the poo emoji is bad? They want to make an Emoji Movie.
You haven’t seen the like of Shit Fountain.

http://weburbanist.com/2010/12/19/poop-culture-11-examples-of-excellent-excrement-art/

21st century. No flying cars, this degeneracy.

Some of it is self-aware in a good way.

“Seeing your ideas live on in the works of others”
If feminism were this witty, I’d be one.

I know that one by experience.

I see you rip-off merchants, and I won’t be blogging (here) forever. I’m getting tired of the meme thing and looking into other arts, one day I’ll submerge from this.
Good luck finding me again to pinch things wholesale when that happens.

 

One response to “Are modern artists, con artists?

  1. Stanton Coblentz, an American writer and poet (1896 – 1982) also criticized modern American poetry back in the 1950s. Yes, this con-artistry has been going on for some time.

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s