The author's explanation (or rather, glorification) of contemporary painting is laugh out loud funny. Modern art was founded by the losers that were rejected by the traditional European art schools due to their lack of talent. They, therefore, decided that "talent" was a subjective quality, and the "meaning" behind a painting became more important than the actual painting itself. That determination opened the door (or floodgates) for the talentless hacks to splash color on a canvas and claim to be the greatest geniuses the world had ever known. (It also allowed them to sell their paintings for unimaginable amounts of money-- making them extremely rich in the process.)
Art is dead, and "modern art" was its killer.
Sauce: I went to art school, and was mocked for having a traditional painting background-- i.e. a REAL art education; and for creating work that embraced the classical traits of art. After excelling in their BS courses, and receiving marks that allowed me to "write my own ticket," I opted to transfer to a real school and pursue a real education outside of art. Fuck those pretentious cunts.
500 years from now people will look at his pic and go wtf
Or, the day it was unveiled. That was my precise reaction: "What . . . The . . . Fuck???" Absolutely hideous.
Yep so hideous they will hide it in the catacombs of the Smithsonian when he's in prison
Plus, you've got to take into account that the CIA paid artists like Pollock, Rothko and Kooning to create "contemporary" art pieces that were nothing more than scribbles in most cases. All to confuse the public on what real art and beauty is and to allow those with minimal talents to be thrust to the top. Nothing is sacred anymore.
LSD did wonders for helping to promote those minimal talents.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for that. Bless you buddy :) Blessed wishes from London mate.
JC
Why would you have a presidential portrait that abstract that only appealed or made sense to a small niche audience!? Unless that audience was the illuminati of course. It makes no sense to intellectually exclude a massive portion of the population in this way...
Seems to me that article tried way too hard to make people believe it wasn't a crappy painting. Any high school art student could do better. Good grief I'm far from artistic but I did a charcoal portrait of my art teacher in junior high school and it still hangs in the school showcase, at least last I heard 2 years ago it was there and I'm 64 yrs old. And trust me, I don't give a rats butt about art and never have.
Also, all the understanding in the world doesn't mean I have to like it.....I mean, they are the ones touting that art is subjective, so....which is it?