Wednesday, May 09, 2007

That's ugly.

Waldo sent me this column for consumption, written by Spengler. No, not that Spengler.

The gist:

In the case of Pollock, people neither like his work nor the way it looks; what they like is the idea that the artist in his arrogance can redefine the world on his own terms.
Well worth the full read.

I don't dislike all modern art, and I even find some it interesting. I do, however, dislike the existentialist and nihilistic philosophic foundations upon on which much modern art rests. I also dislike it when people praise art for the sole reason that it is avant garde and/or untraditional. The greatest tyrannical act of the modern era has been the oppression and suppresion of the historical.

Lastly, I dislike it when people are afraid to call things ugly, or deny that some works, in fact, aren't classifiable as art. They are idiots.


Not interesting. Not art.

Somewhat interesting. Decorative. Still not art.

Ugly. Brainless. Not art.

Transcendent. Sublime. Art.

Further reading:

A good thread discussing the aforementioned column, with great stuff from "Alex" there at the end.

"The Dying of Western Culture," by Navrazov

Labels: , ,


At 5:36 PM, May 09, 2007, Blogger Bass said...

i had some sheets that look just like the second picture when i was 12. to be honest i never should have upgraded from gi joe.

At 9:54 AM, May 11, 2007, Blogger Sir Cody said...

there was one guy who took a dump in a mason jar, then pissed in it, and put it on display as art. Now that's what I call presenting an ugly peice of shit.


Post a Comment

<< Home