Monday, January 14, 2013

Hey Art Majors, You Suck!

Heh heh.

OK, let me level with you little spoiled brat suburbanite kids or you inner city kids that have been living off the government's dime unknowingly and have been lied to for the first 18 years of your lives.

Your art sucks and you have no talent.

No, seriously, you don't.

I know you've been brainwashed to think that it doesn't matter what other people think of your art, but it does, because it is only other humans that can validate the quality of your works.

What, you and your little lonesome and your myopic view of art and your ass-kissing teachers are going to qualify what is "good art."  What "Gaia" or the squirrels in the park are going to tell you that you have talent?  Or, wait, let me guess.  "Art is in the eye of the beholder" and nobody else's opinion matters!

No, I'm sorry, here's a dose of reality for you.  The ONLY thing that can validate your art and thus you is OTHER PEOPLE.  And if your art sucks (which it certainly does) then it's not art, and is nothing more than a child in an adult's body forcing crap on the rest of us.

Here's a good way to tell if your art sucks and if you are indeed not an artist:

Is your "work" subsidized in any way by the government?

If it is, then your art sucks.  The reason why is that your art is SO BAD that it requires the government to FORCIBLY TAKE MONEY FROM OTHER PEOPLE to buy it.  Nobody willingly buys it because it's that bad.  But to spare your worthless feelings, politicians will (for the cost of a vote) make other people waste a percentage of their precious and finite lives to pay the taxes to pay for your veritable crap that you call "art."

Oh, BTW, now's the point in time you rehearse your "you don't understand art" BS and condescend me about being "ignorant" about art and having a close-minded view of your "field."

Enjoy the Decline you worthless people.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Art is one of the biggest con jobs ever created! It's bought by people with more money than brains!!

Bob Wallace said...

Not only does she have no talent, she's fat and unattractive. Blech!

Quartermain said...

Cartoonist Al Capp defined "modern art" as being done by the untalented, sold by the unscruplous, to the absolutely befuddled.

Phil Galt said...

Ummm...this butter dance is some kind of fetish thing, right? I mean, no one in the audience is taking it seriously, and this is just a way to get themselves worked up enough, so they can go home and have sex with their social beards, right?

....right?

Anonymous said...

Art is a very old form of entrepreneurialism, 3:59. Nothing more neatly illustrates the identifying of a need in the market, and fulfilling that need, than trade in goods whose very utility is evident solely to the parties to the transaction. I also rank it as about the highest form, because so frequently only those two can explain it.

Having said that, the best take on it was Heinlein's--"A government-supported artist is an imcompetent whore!" No one reading the Captain needs this reminder, but arts funding is extracted, like all other public monies, on pain of prosecution and imprisonment. Once money removed from my loving care is used to subsidize some smirking pretend-bohemian lowlife, the entrepreneurial principle of freely trading is violated. It's none of my business what someone else wants to do with his money--it damned well is, however, when they're using mine.

I was going to snark at 3:59, but once you do that, you mark yourself as one of those annoying sorts who has an opinion about art, and it's better than whoever he's talking to at the moment. I do know that I've seen pieces that I liked a lot, and wouldn't mind owning. I'd bet that 3:59 has, himself.

I gave up using phrases such as "more money that brains!" because it started to sound like "more money that me!" If it's not my money they're using, it's not much my concern.

Mike James

Anonymous said...

does classical music suck?

it is subsidized...

Anonymous said...

also, since porn is a billion+ industry, that must mean it is "high art."

that's your logic, isn't it? that the free market determines quality...

Lady Gaga and whatever rapper who made the latest hit single are the greatest evar and some obscure jazz guy who can shred anyone is no one because he has to work a day job to support himself....

Anonymous said...

also, yes, I would say art is a luxury but it also shows the "health" of a soceity...

a healthy society produces great art, a declining society, well....

maybe you could study art and come to the conclusion that we are in decline...

Mike Miles said...

Art should not be subsidized. It should be chosen by people who want to spend money on it. We are in the dark ages of art right now, we need a new Medici revolution of art made to be purchased, to be consumed by the free market.

MidKnight said...

Heh - reminds me of the two lines from a guilty-pleasure read SF book :

"It violates the First Law of Art, Carmack's Law, which says, 'If I can do it, it's not art.' How many years of art school did you have to go to to learn to splash paint on a canvas like that? If someone studies music for four years, they walk away with an ability to play an instrument and can do something I could never do or imitate. But you walk away with an art degree, and the best you can do is this? Something any fool can imitate?


and in response to "Well, you just don't get it."

" 'If the artist has to explain what it means, then it's not art.' It's not art, it's a failure. Instead of universal symbolism or universal language, it's gibberish. Or a con job!"

James Wolfe said...

The same with music. Every generation is less talented and less creative than the previous. The only good songs you hear these days are rehashes of songs that were popular 20 years ago and kids today think they are new. There's nothing new being created. Just auto tuned no talent noise. Will there ever be someone capable of great works like Bach, or Mozart, or even the Beatles? Or are we doomed to Korean YouTube videos?

Anonymous said...

About 1 in 1,000 in fine arts will make it professionally and maybe 1 in 10,000 will be good enough to play in a symphony and maybe 1 in 1,000,000 will be good enough to be world famous.

The reason we have crappy art (if that's what it's called) is that bad art is often subsidized.

Good art doesn't need a subsidy.

simplin said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262508/Arts-chief-moaned-cuts-demands-12-500-taxpayers-leaving-party.html

she fits your template perfectly

meerkat11

Roberto Severino said...

Now if you can only speak out against the art school scam and how many lives those institutions have ruined, especially the for profit ones like The Art Institute. I hate art majors.

Hot Sam said...

Waiting to see her fall was worth the time to watch it, but just barely. If our schadenfreude was her point, she made it spectacularly well.

LordSomber said...

Even though I minored in Visual Arts, I could never understand majoring in art. Will it put food on the table?
I have a lot of artists in the family, but everyone parlayed those talents into solid careers, i.e. drafting, photography, custom fashions, graphic design (what we used to call commercial art).

In other words, focus on the day jobs. Do your "art" off the clock.

"Artists" may consider their "work" to be a laborious process, but it is a luxury nonetheless.

Herb Nowell said...

@Anon 5:39

does classical music suck?

it is subsidized...


Yes, and if jazz isn't careful it'll wind up the same way (it flirts with it about once every 20 years).

classical (more correctly called Western Art Music, of which Classical is one specific period) is ossified, entitled, classist, and overcome with weird abstraction.

The only truly vibrant part of the WAM right now is the early music movement. Things like authentic performance, period instrumentation, and so on involve taking chances.

Also, something of note, much WAM (and most if not all early music) is supported by voluntary donations. Some people consider that a subsidy because fund raising beyond tickets is required. However, it is not government subsidy (unless we want to start arguing about tax policy which is I think a bit esoteric for the Captain's point).

If I give a local early music ensemble or the local ballet $500 in addition to my tickets I'm still freely exchanging money for something I find important. That's not subsidy; that's putting my money where my mouth is.

Anonymous said...

Here is a interestinf piece on modern art:

http://thomassheridanarts.blogspot.com/2011/12/celebrating-100-years-of-being.html

Quartermain said...

This one is a classic:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IA30Aa03.html

kurt9 said...

Actually, we had decent art work at my coffee shop. However, it still did not sell well.

Anonymous said...

Heinlein's--"A government-supported artist is an imcompetent whore!"
A physician has a Doctorate in The Medical Arts.

Anonymous said...

also, since porn is a billion+ industry, that must mean it is "high art."

In that particular case, it's nature which is the gifted artist and the porn star who is the masterpiece.

Anonymous said...

I find it counterintuitive that libertarians insist on individual freedoms on one part all the while insisting on slavery to the market.

Given that value is subjective and not objective, this places individuals at the mercy of the subjective valuations of others.

The proper role of the market is as a supplementary option to obtain what we cannot self produce. To insist that the market is an obligation instead of an option goes against the notion of freedom.

While I find her performance to be disgusting and would advise her to loose weight and choose another line of work, I do recognize that value is in the eyes of the beholder and that the impulse to market everything is contrary to human freedom and dignity.

Some traits of individuals, if there is to be dignity, must be allowed to exist through the self efforts of the said individual without needing market approval.

Also, please consider that many married couples, massage techniques and porn movies precisely involve dancing and rubbing with grease and oil.

If you want a free and prosperous civilization, the market must have the right to refuse to buy a product but said individual must also have the right to make the product for himself.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"A physician has a Doctorate in The Medical Arts."

I tend to think that medical science, aside from skilled and experienced surgery, is mostly overrated and over valued quackery.

Credentialism and corporatism is giving doctors wayu too much credit than they deserve and pushing the away from their true mission: customer satisfaction.

Anonymous said...

an artist designed your computer. Even this web page was deigned by an artist.