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.

Examples:

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