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.

 

Video: The Truth About Modern Art

It’s all ‘performance art‘. All of it.

What is performance art? Nobody knows.

What makes it good or bad? There are no standards.

Why do they do it? It makes a lot of money and allows rich people to avoid taxes. The Left don’t have a problem with that type of tax evasion scheme.

See also: Why is modern art so bad?

Link: Battling the aesthetics of modernity

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/01/12/battling-the-aesthetics-of-modernity/

Trigger warning: gross abortion picture you don’t want to see if you’re eating as I definitely wasn’t…. 

*sound of hiding pasta*

Worst part? At first I thought it was an art project.

Why? Because I’ve seen an IRL art project that looked just like it at a glance.

These are facts.

By triggering aesthetic’s counterpart, disgust, you’re furthering the Overton window.

Arts policy is the crucial policy

http://www.democracyjournal.org/36/museums-can-change-will-they.php?page=all

I tell my students, and only somewhat flippantly, that arts policy is the most important policy arena. Seriously? Well, most people think health policy is right up there—but why live longer if life isn’t worth living? And if you don’t think government has a lot to do with whether and how you can engage with art, you just don’t understand the situation. ….

yes nod sup Lestat IWTV film uhuh I know

The question begs – What Are Museums For?

I just.... I don't even know what to....what??

It’s funny how the anti-capitalist art fans don’t want to stop the tax breaks on art.
If they did, the market for “modern” aka crap art, would collapse overnight.

Europhile politicians right now

Video: Why is modern art so bad?

I’ll interject with a little background since I happen to know something to contribute.

I once heard a thought experiment from a nouveau realist artist. They’re trying to bring back form.

If you were walking around a scrapyard, and you found this work of “art”, a little distressed and muddy, would you know what it was? Would you recognise it? Furthermore, would you feel compelled to ‘save’ it?

I’ve yet to find a better test.

AC has touched on this profound schism between the ancient standard of art (K-selected amygdala) and the postmodern ….excuse.

Historically, the turnaround point could have been at two places. The backlash against The Academy in Victorian times (Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood’s sexualisation onward) or, it laid the groundwork for the likelier of the two. A backlash against Nazi Germany, itself in contrast to “Degenerate Art” aka what we now laud as Modern, almost a century later. When the Nazis lost, it became a show of Allies’ patriotism to oppose the Nazi standards and anything symbolically on a tangent with them (Hugo Boss suits included) and to fill the vacuum with whatever was disgusting, depraved or shocking (cough Holocaust porn cough), and call that “beautiful” to mirror the implied equality of humans (with mud) versus the racial hierarchy. What a lot of people don’t know is that the Nazis did showcase an exhibit of this inferior artwork…. next to ideal Nazi examples with perfect lighting. The contrast was apparent. Hence, when the Jews opened their own art galleries after the war, which style of art do you think they bought? Art is a market after all, a lot of money in it, and even today, the market is overvalued thanks to billionaire tax breaks. When those stop, the market will collapse, and the New Money from China will be left holding its dick.

Naturally, there are those who disagree with the analysis but the timings and statements about the only true art being ‘political art’ are persuasive ipso facto;

We can easily dismiss demonising talk of ‘the Jews who destroy art in order to break Aryan spirit’.

…Photography is to painting as pornography to real women. Both create an illusion of real thing, but leave a lingering emptiness. In the long run, the ‘real thing’ suffers. Pornography undid many happy unions. Reproduction of art conditioned us to view uninspiring beauty. It is difficult to view a painting of Mona Lisa without instinctively comparing it to its endless reproductions. In a way, the modern art was a botched response to reproductions, for an artist needs to attract attention of blasé viewers.  unz

Yet, if you dare suggest there is an objective standard of beauty, and that art must depict both beauty and technical expertise hard-won from thousands of hours in studio, the sudden shuffling of feet to disassociate with you would create another, firmer impression.

The current line? Personal ‘expression’. Lauding the Self and all it makes (cough period art cough) as God.

Think: Is the issue with the artist or the viewer?

A culture can be readily judged by the superiority or inferiority of their artwork.

Beauty has become a hate crime

http://didactsreach.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/beauty-and-freedom.html

to see it, to think of it, to feel it, to judge it, to parse it

…There is no discussion of it because by convincing the public that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the Left has placed it beyond the realm of discussion. According to the Left, beauty is a matter of taste, and arbitrary taste at that. There is no discussion of taste because to give reasons to prefer tasteful to tasteless things is elitist, nasty, uncouth and inappropriate. To have taste implies that some cultures produce more works of art and better than others, and this raises the uncomfortable possibility that love of beauty is Eurocentric, or even racist. To admire beauty has become a hate crime.

Syphon off the blood supplies to the beast

When the societal split comes, they can live among their primitive ‘art’ in a hut and we can live in the Roman columned-mansions. Personally, I prefer the Greek style, but w/e.