With every modern advantage

I know this has been pointed out by others, but given every modern advantage, our “artists”, celebrated in the media, are still producing inferior works compared to the average in ancient times.

Behold, amygdala atrophy.

This is the full-size image, fitted to blog requirements.

Source here:  disenchantedscholar.files.wordpress.com +


I’m as good with actual art as I am with faces. Without going through everything because that would be harsh, a reproduction does invite comparisons. Gem quality on right superior, shape even and smoother (just worn at top), border is perfect with some gaps, modern border wobbles and varies, While both leg pairs seem muscled, the right is in keeping with the figure and the left on the man would tauten as lifted, a knowledge of anatomy. On the modern, the legs are fat because the left is as big and the upper torso shrunken, the right arm (his right) is shriveled compared to the antique and the left attempts to compensate with fat, almost out of socket from body compared to the antique, where the arm is held close to the body, in joint, in pose to stabilize weight. Left figure seems to have visible spine whereas on the right he has defined muscles including possibly abdominals. The flat hair on the right is fashion but correct for side of head, the left misinterprets this design and there’s no hair almost, the head seems almost to cave in at the back and touch the border. Facial details show the difference the most though. The antique smiles.

With modern microscopes, electronic tools and an example to imitate, this wouldn’t pass muster back then.

Video: STEAM is not STEM

The first time I heard this I thought it was about the video games platform. Some type of joke.
They’ve been trying to do this for a few years actually, I heard about it when they first tried it on and everyone in a real Department was giving them serious side-eye because it came just after there were rumours about a funding cut to their arts departments. What a coincidence…
We all know what it’s about – the Valley trough. They want some of that sweet, sweet VC funding. They see billions and multi-billion IPOs and think that the barrier to entry is simply saying Me too! These are the douchebags hiring people to program BS apps nobody wants. The ideas people actually implement them, that’s their mistaken attitude talking – having the idea is simply the first step to its execution. We have a name for them, though – “non-technical founders” and without technical skills, or worse, a disrespect of them and disdain at the idea of learning any, they get none of the in-industry respect.
There is a shade of SJW entryism (they’re actually turning on the rich Jews by calling them white male oppressors in hiring decisions) but that’s a minor point. It’s mostly about the cash.

The only addition from AN art that would make any sense is STEMP, with psychology aka largely neuroscience. 

I know how that sounds.

pause stop wait what is going on confused da vinci demons leonardo

Hear me out.

The majority of Fortune companies are taking on board psychology findings anyway and it trickles down from leadership psychology (duh) and the likes of Greene’s Power book to the embodied cognition of uniforms (and why labcoats are white, encouraging moral behaviour) to the neural substrates of introversion (aka no you can’t bring them out their shell with team-building quit trying). Look up how Apple design their buildings with psychology in mind for proof this is already in effect. Ever since Ford, ‘scientific management’ (a psychology theory taught in occupational psych) has been quietly turning the wheel of capitalism. This is why we have the rules we do about working hours, clocking in and all this other BS designed to increase unit worker productivity. The worker isn’t supposed to like it. That’s because it works.

Aaron hates psychology though (mostly the clinical side tbf) so I doubt he’ll look into any of that.

Not to mention, if you got to know many scientists (all STEM), aside from finding a surprisingly high rate of secretly religious people (very surprising) you’d also know most scientists, especially the Big Names, have an artistic hobby. Practically all, it isn’t even uncommon. Engineers doing beautiful sketches, mathematicians who compose, biologists who take up taxidermy, whatever. These people have ideas, they are artistic and it’s deeply offensive to suggest they can’t be, that there’s some barrier in the high IQ technical mind preventing them. It’s basically comparing them to Sheldon Cooper.

FYI Never compare a scientist to Sheldon Cooper unless you wanna die.

The scientists are smart enough to know you can do both, but art doesn’t pay the bills. They self-teach and that’s what the official art people want to cover up. They can usually do it to a higher standard of quality than is required in Art Academies, ironically. There is no politics. Honestly, ask to see examples, I think you’ll be impressed.

Link: The future direction (don’t wait for the collapse)


Short V: skip to War on All Fronts

…We have anticipate their needs so that we can meet them, anticipate their fears so that we can dispel them, anticipate their desires so that we can fulfill them. Especially if they are irrational.

Two—impress to inform, don’t inform to impress….

I like the idea of a counter-culture like this, but there’s a critical lack of detail. HOW.

…Facts are important, but at this stage they are subsidiary, because a mind remains closed so long as the spirit remains unmoved.

Three—think in pictures. Help people visualize what you are offering. A picture speaks a thousand words, and it’s a lot easier to remember. And much more difficult to argue against because images resonate at an emotional and spiritual level.

It works beneath conscious filtration.

Four—be positive. No one wants to be around a person who complains all of the time, who is always negative, who is always doom and gloom. Humans respond to optimism, because they want to feel good.

This is why I have a laugh.

And our people in the West are crying out for a renaissance. So be positive, and focus on the future….

Be the change, in essence.

I would like to see people less reliant on haircuts, brags, symbols dangling on their person – and more development OF the person.

Arts policy is the crucial policy


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

The 19th century was the one where art began to run downhill into a pretentious market

Into the abstract abyss.


There are very many familiar things here, and it is not hard to suggest modern-day equivalents to the hard-nosed dealer, the artist with more of an eye on capitalising his talent than developing his skill, the collector who buys and sells with such rapidity that he could really best be regarded as a species of dealer.

One thing that does differentiate the 19th-century art market from the present day, however, is the greater danger of a crash in value, of the money underpinning an artist’s career simply vanishing. That seems much less likely to happen to an artist now. [DS: cocks an eyebrow] The difficulty is in succeeding in the first place, not in hanging on to an income once success has been attained. It is quite hard to think of a school of art, or an individual artist, that was once considered excellent and valuable whose prices have collapsed utterly. The reason, I guess, is the creation in recent years of art-market indices, which purport to show collector/investors that the price of this artist has gone up and up, and must therefore hold. [faith holds it]

The 19th century, which at a certain point looked at the painting on the gallery wall and thought ‘I just don’t like it any more’ before walking off to buy something more fashionable, was a much more precarious period for an artist to exist within. To a large extent, these artists and dealers were still learning how to rig the market, and were not very good at it.

This is a brilliant account of learning, or failing, to survive in a market of extraordinary brutality. The interesting question is how far this market also succeeded in creating artists of the highest quality and innovative power. [it hasn’t, it failed completely]

FT Article: “Everything is rigged, art edition”

What did I say?

I saw it coming and I still don't care, funny really

article here; in full;

“John Gapper has an excellent column on Thursday about art auctions, focusing on the degree to which they are fixed or obfuscated by insiders and long-standing established practices.

As he notes, the auction market is a duopoly geared towards protecting and serving vested interests through a system of guaranteed bids and sales incentives, which to some degree obscure public price discovery.

Herein lies the similarity with modern market structure more generally. By providing the means to disguise the hands of “informed” players, the duopoly of Sotheby’s and Christie’s behaves like a dark pool system within a wider market which has no public alternative to cross check prices against.

That is to say, it is a public market, but one that’s structured specifically to reduce the impact of the informed players who have most to lose.

As Gapper says:

Art auction houses bring together buyers and sellers in what is at least an approximation of a public market (allowing for tricks of the trade such as “chandelier bids” made up by auctioneers to meet the reserve). Without some transparency at such auctions, the entire market is vulnerable to fraud.

As Gapper also notes, the auction houses will sometimes waive the 10 per cent seller’s fee to secure prestigious works and even offer something of a rebate to the seller for the opportunity to gain his business. Some sellers may demand a guaranteed bid as well, i.e. the promise from the auction house that they will buy their work if a better price doesn’t appear.

Just like in the world of stock market trading the battle is over top quality flow, with auctioneers acting both as the platforms that facilitate exchange as well as market-makers who can internalise order flow and take real risk if and when it suits them.

That market-making side of the business proved risky for Christie’s in 2008. The auction house was left holding up to $50m worth of work it could no longer shift.

But in another parallel with what’s happening with stock markets, the auction houses have learned a valuable lesson. Yes, they still provide guarantees — since those guarantees generate business, flow and help to support prices — but they offset that risk by striking up deals with collectors or dealers.

As Gapper notes:

The latter put up their capital in return for a fee, and a share of takings of a strong auction. Sotheby’s disclosed in April that it had made $279m of guarantees, of which $65m had been laid off to third parties, and the latter figure has since risen.

This, of course, echoes what happens with exchange traded products (ETPs) in regular markets. It’s just that rather than pre-agreeing arrangements in which risk is passed off for a fee, market-makers in regular markets use ETPs as an extremely cheap parking lot for inventory which it doesn’t suit them to budge right away. In fact, it’s better than that. With ETPs institutional money is actually paying the dealers — or the market arbitrageurs — a fee to provide them with the opportunity to absorb flows no-one else wants at that time.

When guarantees are forthcoming (indicated by strong ETP inflows) the dealers can shift ever greater portions of risk off their own books. In the inverse scenario (indicated by strong ETP outflows) the risk passes back to the dealers who are then inclined to dump stock into the market, but with the advantage that they know what’s about to hit the market as a result.

In the art market, Gapper says a sophisticated collector can get a good return form being a guarantor (by sitting on stock). In financial markets, a sophisticated collector of stock, will end up paying the middle man for what is basically the opportunity to liquidate the stock he holds on demand.

Seen from this perspective, the dynamics can to some degree be compared to those of a risk-transferring futures market.

In fact, when it comes to the art market the work of Prof. Rachel Pownall of Maastricht University, argues this point eloquently.

As she notes in a presentation shared with FT Alphaville via John Gapper, the guarantees offered by the business represent formal structures and contracts for transferring risk. This provides the market with the opportunity to introduce further structured products for hedging purposes using an index as the underlying asset if it so desires.

The problem the art market faces, however, is that any such index would suffer feedback loop effects from the products themselves. The more people who invest, the more likely the index goes up in price, irrespective of any physical demand for the underlying products themselves.

But then who needs to enjoy the aesthetic beauty of art if it’s real purpose is providing the world with investment assets that only go up in price?

In that sense modern art is much more Bitcoin than Leonardo.

It also means the more financialised the artworks get, the greater the incentive to have them go dark, ideally by storing and forgetting about them in bonded warehouses in tax efficient jurisdictions.

On that basis we presume a bunch of limit-order, hoard exposing HFT types would not be appreciated in this market either.”‘


The Fight for Realism and Natural Beauty

Abstractions can be wonderful, if taken in small doses. What happens to a craft (as artistry, once named for years of technical skill) when All is Art, and abstraction is an excuse for commercial quick buck shock value?

How many pieces in a modern gallery will be valuable in a century? How many will be considered pretentious scrap metal?


When the shock value of the most gasp-inducing pieces (some politicized, crass and immoral to every normal person, it is no coincidence artists have high sexual deviance rates) have subsided completely, what shall be considered artful? I bet 99% of the contents of these so-called galleries will be giving them away. I realized we have devolved our own former Arts, worthy of the name, to the plain, crude tat of primitive cultures. It’s an outcome of multiculturalism, that Europe has diminished its own standards to random “found” objet.

You may well accuse me of speaking in abstractions on this, but the enemy has defined the terms. Part of my process is to meet their home ground and entice it back into reality. For context, I was reading this article about gallery purchases and am frankly alarmed at the still-increasing exponential amounts being poured into “Modern” “Art”. What could be causing this now? I looked around and found a truly beautiful article about the Art Market I would recommend anyone with a passing interest study closely.

Short version: The transferal of global wealth from the ailing Western economy to expanding Asia (core China) is causing a flurry of demand in the art market because of taxes/status/longevity et cetera. They have a preservationist mentality and strategize for a store of value with flexibility and versatility of easy sale, profit potential and aforementioned, status of ownership, Special Snowflake in sculpture. I understand this perspective entirely, truly I do. Yet their entire plan and billions in the market swishing about have one egregious and a second minor flaw.

1. The valuation at purchase is true, let alone increasing. This is patently false, anyone with eyes to look can see a bubble has been forming over the decades of prattle but the unique properties of art have kept it at bay for this long.

2. When you wish to sell, there will be a buyer. Assumes a good economy where buyers have interest to keep the bidding high and pay its appreciated value.

There is absolutely no reason to believe either of these, connected priors, have the slightest semblance of truth or reason. They are pure faith. I don’t exaggerate, it is a literal logic problem. High intelligence people should KNOW this and its singular Achilles Heel of the Art Market (the fact we have a market maintains we handle it as such).


Relevant: Dying Achilles, Achilles thniskon

This shall be the fate of the present Art Market, a cataclysmic correction, unless a miracle from Olympus occurs and they fall back on the Art Tradition (remember that? me neither) and Realism, sworn enemy of frauds.

You may think I am bitter. However, I can paint to the highest standard (were this the Renaissance, I’d apprentice at a studio easily), and find abstract pieces too cheap to produce to be worthy of my talents. My last canvas, an abstract, took under an hour and in spite of my efforts to draw out the production time. I speak from a bounty of experience.


Famous Example? Picasso was a hack. It is an open secret that he used to paint normally i.e. well, until he found his works didn’t sell (no one cared). He painted/designed random shit in frustration after his love of African savagery (see above) and Communism’s epic lowering of standards, it became famous and sold handsomely and now we’re lumbered with Cubism. He was a known prick during his life, stating the likes of “The academic teaching on beauty is false…”, “It is not what the artist does that counts, but what he is” and bitterly complaining repeatedly “Everyone wants to understand painting” – gee, almost as if it’s an artform, Pablo??

“Art is not made to decorate rooms. It is an offensive weapon in the defense against the enemy.” Hello, Cultural Marxism, nice to see you at the heart of cultural desecration and promotion of mediocrity.

A Happy Ending

You disagree with any of this? Wait. I’ll be proven correct on the market and in taste. Galleries find their “Traditional” wings most popular for a reason – regular people aren’t falling for it. Backlashes are forming. In California, Nouveau Realism is an ever-growing style. You see, talent and craftsmanship do not simply disappear, however much they are suppressed. There will always be artists, true to their ideals who produce beautiful work. As Wilde said in his glorious novel, “An artist should create beautiful things, but should put nothing of his own life into them.” That includes politics, economics and moralizing, pretentious twaddle.

How many artists need to be learned to be loved? The description beside a work has become a substitute for the philosophy which should be clear in the piece itself.

When is Cultural Appropriation encouraged?

When is Cultural Appropriation encouraged?

When it erodes white European pride in our heritage: our arts, science and history. You cannot buy membership into one of the best cultures the world has ever known, especially with fakery.

Click through gif to explanation of what appropriation is, from feminists.

Pictured: Beyoncé, at the beginning of her crash into The Wall.

The Fairytale of Fashion Week

Feathers aflutter, stilettos at the ready. No this is not The Sales at a high-end couture boutique.

This, is Fashion Week.

A time when every key capital city in the world is overrun with insatiable, lusting, rich women.

God help the guy who crosses these women though.

With their own terminology and clique uniforms, they judge all they survey: “Oh I ADORED that Chanel story, Largerfeld’s take on the glacier handbag was a masterpiece!”

Personally I found it tacky, like a child superglued feathers onto a box. Just because Anna Wintour approves of it, and it gets a whole page in Vogue doesn’t mean it’s good (hear me, fashionistas?). That shrivelled crow of a bitter cynic should crawl back to her cave. No need for fashion in the dark. (I saw The September Issue. Awful waste of time. 1 star for seeing her stressed.)

These fashionistas act like groupies at a rock show in the majority. Crowding outside venues, clutching totems of fashion power (Chanel 2.55 in Noir, anyone?), hoping to glimpse their idol, and -gasp- perhaps score a spare seat at the show?!

The rows of power are a game of fashion politics. Further forward, better, where you can see the models sweat and grunt from the front row? “You’re so hot right now.”

What such people fail to realise is the essential difference between fashion and style.

Every single item of apparel and accessory is in Fashion. Think about it. It’s on a constantly revolving conveyor belt of Time. Jumpsuits and camel are in, stripes are out, graphic prints are in, velvet, leather, even PVC.

Now they even have fashions for hairstyle and make-up.

Am I the only one who thinks the point of owning clothes is to look different from everyone else? To express yourself?

If you take someone else’s idea of what you should wear, without changing it or thinking for yourself, what is the point? You may as well be a mannequin for all that individuality.

Style is a timeless quality. We know when we see it. The guy in a leather jacket, the girl in a well-fitting jersey shift dress, these tools that we call clothes and jewelery are expressly different and kept on rotation so shops can sell us the latest look. If every shop sold every look, imagine how much less you would buy.

Adds up, doesn’t it?

I used to be a fashion-follower (fashionistas are too brainwashed in the Cult of Couture to realise their folly) and it was an addiction. It happens to men as much as women. We fall for ad campaigns and aspire to be like the beautiful god-like models, because looks are the key to happiness, right?

I lost so much money. When I had run out, I started to look around. Not only at the boxes of still unused formalwear, the boots, the watches but at the world.

We have Choice.

Now I base my fashion choices on what I like. I find it entirely of my own volition. I hate 9/10 of what I see in fashion magazines. Clothes are meant to make you look good, that is why we’re so selective about them. They make us feel better because we feel better looking.

How many items of clothing you own truly make you look better?That couldn’t be improved at all?

You buy things because they look wonderful in themselves: smart piping, designer logo/visible trademark print, shiny soft fabric.

Fashion can be art. I am a believer in that. But of the catwalks I see, almost none of it is.

It isn’t about “innovation”. No table skirts, or machine-sprayed dresses. That’s shock value. It is about a human being. Wearing something to cover part of their natural flesh and make them look beautiful.

That is art. It doesn’t require a certain number on the tag or the name of a person you have never met (and probably don’t want to, trust me).

Don’t fall for it. This fall, see past the labels. See past McQueen (don’t get me started), $$$$ supposed value, colours like Noir, Ivory, Toffee, Chocolate and the lies they tell you.

If Fashion is really your friend, it’ll stay with you even when you stop with the expensive habit of excessive buying.

I’m happy to report that for a few years now I have in fact been ahead of the trends. I wore stripes, grey, berets and toffee colours, and many more trends before they came back in. Even neons for nightclubs.

Catwalk shows should be taken as a form of entertainment. If you went to a ballet show they wouldn’t expect you to walk out wearing tights and a tutu, would they?

Sugarplum fairies are fairytales. So is the vision the Fashionable sell you. This is a mass cult that often in jest cite The Fashion Gods. Too seriously taken, for fabric.

Size Zero & the Fashion Whores

The beauty of a culture reflects its values and emotional state.

Generally, as far as other people go, I say Hey, live how you want as long as it doesn’t impact me. Bother me, and I will bother you. With Size Zero, I think if they’re healthy, fine, let them do whatever they want to, but honestly, how many people are naturally healthy and that doll size? Where it impacts their health in favour of an image, that’s when you need to intervene.

Parade of the Fashion Whores

Nowadays, Amazonian-limbed, food-deprived children stomp catwalks, looked to as representatives, conforming to a new androgyny rooted in politically-correct  non-sexist motivation, designed to appeal to all.

Our “models” are angry, their pain apparent, the emaciation a physical representation of our own dissatisfaction with our lives.

Who says Fashion isn’t relevant?

They, the models, have the tokens of happiness; money, fame, looks, but they evoke an emptiness in the eyes sympathetic to us, not dissimilar to our own ingrained self-loathing at the lives we have chosen.

“If only” is not just the cry of the aspiring fashionable, pawing at the window of a designer store, but is a materialistic metaphor of us, pawing at the imaginary altar of future, potential contentment.

…You just can’t go on without that new cashmere sweater.