3 ms·
Art critics and other “intellectuals” (non artists) are to blame. They spread the false notion that art should be provocative not pretty. So the tasteless imita
by 2devnull 4y ago
Art critics and other “intellectuals” (non artists) are to blame. They spread the false notion that art should be provocative not pretty.
So the tasteless imitators who pose as artists have churned out a bunch of cringy beevis and butthead level “art” with pentagrams and blood and sexual perversion, etc… These are edgelords not artists. The public lap it up because they’re uneducated and have no aesthetic sensibilities.
- p0pcult 4y agoPlease enlighten us...since you seem to have cornered the market on art criticism!
- 2devnull 4y agoA bloody pentagram is not good art. It’s juvenile, and frankly cringeworthy. The famous “Twinkie” bust [1], maybe. Baby dolls in red paint is just silliness. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/art/article/SFMOMA-to-display-divisive-George-Moscone-bust-3601068.php https://www.sfgate.com/art/article/SFMOMA-to-display-divisiv...
- p0pcult 4y agoI take no particular stance on your examples of what constitutes good or bad art. I agree: bloody pentagram? Cringeworthy. What I vehemently disagree with is this assertion: >the false notion that art should be provocative not pretty. Why should art be pretty? Why "should" art be anything specific? I would even go further to say that to require art to have (nearly?) any specific quality is the antithesis of art.