I forget where I saw it, but someone was pointing out how modern art is basically a method of dumbing down society as a whole. Later on it morphed into a money laundering scheme, as so many things do.
Art was once inspirational, it made people strive to do better. Seeing what others can do is always a good motivator for people to grow and try new things. But modern art doesn't even pretend to motivate. It just leaves people asking, "Why? What is the point of this? I could do this in my sleep…" Or, the ever popular, “That’s our tax dollars at work.” as one shakes their head in disbelief.
Seeing exemplary work by another person(s) sometimes makes what might seem impossible -- possible.
It’s one of the things I’ve noticed over the years. There aren’t many people who strive to be the best anymore. Where I’m from we call it badass. Why does any kid want to become a super hero? Because their super hero is badass! Their favorite super hero is the best at something, or at least not easily matched. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to exceed, and that tendency is natural -- it’s why comic books are a successful business.
Modern art is an attempt to remove that want to exceed, because look how well this random person did with their nonsense “art.” I mean, why try to do better when you can drop something on the floor, take a picture of it, and it’s considered “modern art?” Remember the banana duct tapped to a wall? The work of art is titled Comedian, it’s by Maurizio Cattelan, an Italian artist and an absurdist. That’s right, there’s a category of art called Absurdism. The banana duct tapped to a wall sold for $120k.
You have to breed complacency into society to arrive at a point where modern art is considered exceptional. I don’t want to live in a society where modern art is the best anyone can produce. I always say, “It’s not art if I can do it without practice.” I’m not inspired by things that I could do by accident, or on the first try, why should I, or anyone else be? Modern art inspires people to become grifters (con artists). Look at that, another form of art, con jobs.
On the money laundering side, most of the excessively expensive modern art is purchased by government organizations, not private individuals. Is it so hard to believe that the “artist” who made that art might not give a little incentive to the government employee who authorized the purchase? For example, the artist sells their “modern art masterpiece” to some government agency for $1.6 million, then the artist pays for the authorizing government employee and their family to go to Europe for a month on an all expenses paid vacation.
Of course that’s just a hypothetical, but I wouldn’t doubt that these kinds of things go on. We know money laundering happens with a number of other government programs. Like $10 million for gender studies in Pakistan -- where it’s arguably illegal to be gay. Where is that money really going, because I don’t see Pakistanis lining up to hear about 52.5 genders?
Modern art is the best for of con “art” out there.
I'll have to check it out. I've never seen that channel before.
I've always thought something was up with modern art even as a kid. People (in documentaries and such) would say, Jackson Pollock was a genius, because he was generating fractals in his paintings!
To which I replied, "So, I can generate fractals with a Spirograph and a pen. I'm not impressed." If you make enough squiggles on a canvass or paper, you're going to find repeating patterns. That doesn't mean they were intentional, it means that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, and make you believe that things are much more in-depth than they really are.
They can date Pollock's work by analyzing the patterns in the paint splatters. People age, it's incremental, things will vary over time, and there's nothing astonishing about that. People's signatures change over time as well., because that's just how things work. It's in no way revolutionary.
But hey, the people who did the analysis on Pollock's work were the first to publish it right? And I bet they received more funding as a result. 😉👉
Probably since the 1950s or so, Western art has become insufferably ugly. Postmodernism, deconstructionism, Dada—not sure the cause, but we need a return to the classical aesthetic ideals of the Renaissance.
I forget where I saw it, but someone was pointing out how modern art is basically a method of dumbing down society as a whole. Later on it morphed into a money laundering scheme, as so many things do.
Art was once inspirational, it made people strive to do better. Seeing what others can do is always a good motivator for people to grow and try new things. But modern art doesn't even pretend to motivate. It just leaves people asking, "Why? What is the point of this? I could do this in my sleep…" Or, the ever popular, “That’s our tax dollars at work.” as one shakes their head in disbelief.
Seeing exemplary work by another person(s) sometimes makes what might seem impossible -- possible.
It’s one of the things I’ve noticed over the years. There aren’t many people who strive to be the best anymore. Where I’m from we call it badass. Why does any kid want to become a super hero? Because their super hero is badass! Their favorite super hero is the best at something, or at least not easily matched. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to exceed, and that tendency is natural -- it’s why comic books are a successful business.
Modern art is an attempt to remove that want to exceed, because look how well this random person did with their nonsense “art.” I mean, why try to do better when you can drop something on the floor, take a picture of it, and it’s considered “modern art?” Remember the banana duct tapped to a wall? The work of art is titled Comedian, it’s by Maurizio Cattelan, an Italian artist and an absurdist. That’s right, there’s a category of art called Absurdism. The banana duct tapped to a wall sold for $120k.
You have to breed complacency into society to arrive at a point where modern art is considered exceptional. I don’t want to live in a society where modern art is the best anyone can produce. I always say, “It’s not art if I can do it without practice.” I’m not inspired by things that I could do by accident, or on the first try, why should I, or anyone else be? Modern art inspires people to become grifters (con artists). Look at that, another form of art, con jobs.
On the money laundering side, most of the excessively expensive modern art is purchased by government organizations, not private individuals. Is it so hard to believe that the “artist” who made that art might not give a little incentive to the government employee who authorized the purchase? For example, the artist sells their “modern art masterpiece” to some government agency for $1.6 million, then the artist pays for the authorizing government employee and their family to go to Europe for a month on an all expenses paid vacation.
Of course that’s just a hypothetical, but I wouldn’t doubt that these kinds of things go on. We know money laundering happens with a number of other government programs. Like $10 million for gender studies in Pakistan -- where it’s arguably illegal to be gay. Where is that money really going, because I don’t see Pakistanis lining up to hear about 52.5 genders?
Modern art is the best for of con “art” out there.
Nice comment! Reminds me of the Art vs. Machine channel!
https://www.youtube.com/@artvsmachine3703
I'll have to check it out. I've never seen that channel before.
I've always thought something was up with modern art even as a kid. People (in documentaries and such) would say, Jackson Pollock was a genius, because he was generating fractals in his paintings!
To which I replied, "So, I can generate fractals with a Spirograph and a pen. I'm not impressed." If you make enough squiggles on a canvass or paper, you're going to find repeating patterns. That doesn't mean they were intentional, it means that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, and make you believe that things are much more in-depth than they really are.
They can date Pollock's work by analyzing the patterns in the paint splatters. People age, it's incremental, things will vary over time, and there's nothing astonishing about that. People's signatures change over time as well., because that's just how things work. It's in no way revolutionary.
But hey, the people who did the analysis on Pollock's work were the first to publish it right? And I bet they received more funding as a result. 😉👉
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/pollocks-fractals
Probably since the 1950s or so, Western art has become insufferably ugly. Postmodernism, deconstructionism, Dada—not sure the cause, but we need a return to the classical aesthetic ideals of the Renaissance.
https://www.classicalfuturist.com/p/guided-by-the-beauty-of-ones-philosophies
I am guided by the beauty of our propaganda.
What a relevant and fascinating article, thanks for recommending it! Do you follow the Classical Futurist?
Yes, but they haven't published super recently.
I think Étienne closed down Classical Futurist. Is that true? https://open.substack.com/pub/etiennefd/p/so-long-classical-futurist?r=2o7hq7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Also, do you use your Substack chat feature? It might be an easier way for us to have these fun discussions together, I think.