except Picasso is just and always was a hack fraud… just a damn y-head worshipping lecher superstar of marketing
as usual with co-opting and deliberate social engineering, some legit ideas and directions feed and drive the fraud being propped up, and it couldn't have worked without them, but Picasso was 99% marketing and 1% about painting.
star-system.
celebrity worship.
barely hidden satanism.
yup, odd.
i can access pf's catalog page, and it lists the 440 page, but get a 404 page not found too
the thing is, neither of those were points made (Picasso being the first or a nobody)… at all.
i didn't, but one could argue Picasso was the big first painter superstar of the modern era (and his name still being referenced in pop culture as the generic "painter" celebrity would tend to show how successful that was), but sure, that didn't pop out of nowhere.
and of course if he's a player in the cult he's not a nobody, so not sure why you'd crash through these open doors.
Pollock and the whole faked abstract expressionists thing is another issue, but yes, tied to the same social buttons and functions in many ways
it's funny cause it sorta looks like we're debating somehow but i don't quite see where we disagree at all… i originally just jumped in to point out how Picasso's fame and carreer wasn't in any way organic or authentic… so yes, agree with the coin, the system behind it, etc.
but guys like you are a daily (multipletimes) occurence…
sad that you don't get the responses you want in the way you want, as if that proves anything other than anons don't want to play with you - and certainly not by your rules…
inb4 hahaa see no arguments at all i win
huh? yes, i responded to one of your posts as it is one example of many, many similar posts daily.
the pattern is always the same, using the false argument of "anons aren't doing exactly what i'm asking them to do so my point is proven by default".
just saying you might not be getting engagement that satisfies your requirements for arguments for the reasons you think, and that it isn't in any way a proof by itself
> “They call us to report small fires and then attack us when we want to help,”
how in the fuck are these "youths" oppressed by firemen? wtf do they even gain from attacking emergency services
>Proof for me is how everyone here is stuck on one idea and one narrative. You had to have open minds at some point to accept this, now you have and that's it. Nothing else is accepted ever again. Even when people just SUGGESTIONS other potentials. That tells me all I need to know here.
it's like you're not aware what shills are or that they're here.
why would most people who think by themselves bother engaging with you?
they know not to trust faked consensus, or just any anon barging in
true
but just trying to understand how it can make sense for the youths… not seeing how that could be either defensible, or even a positive thing FOR THEM (unless just haha chaos & keks?)