Could Modern art be a money laundering scheme?

I don't know about the money laundering....that would be the business of the buyer of the painting, not the artist...I don't look that deep into it.....I am looking at it innocently.......Artists are good at what they do, too...just because you may not appreciate a piece of artwork does not mean that someone else does not.

 

I feel like a broken record this morning.

This is like the 5th time I've had to type out this exact thing: I never said that.

 

6-eyed shaman, of course...

 

You kind of did though. You said art speaks to people. Unless you don't think I'm people. But if art speaks to people, then it don't speak to other people too nom sayin. So you still said it. . You done did that. You can't undone did it.

 

Art elicits a response from its audience. Could be negative; could be positive. The fact that it provoked you in some way--that you had a reaction to it--meant it "spoke" to you. I think art is supposed to be provocative. It's supposed to make people feel, react, think, discuss...even challenge. You wrote multiple paragraphs in three different posts. Clearly it spoke to you.

 

I'm not opposed to using tax money to make one's community beautiful. We all benefit from that

But unfortunately it does seem like the people who find themselves in charge of choosing art installations have horrendous taste in art. We have a piece in my city that looks like a giant metallic piece of canned cheez whiz

 

Damn right LOL

I agree that displaying quality art to enhance the beauty of a town square is a reasonable investment. Key word being quality. People are much happier, joyful, and better behaved when they're in an atmosphere surrounded by beauty.

I too have lived in cities that had beautiful neoclassical sculptures in the town squares, and I've also lived in cities with ugly erratic sculptures that were similar in nature to your city's can of cheese whiz.

 

No, it's not interesting. I'm sorry.

I took an art history class in college, and I studied Duchamp.

Duchamp's bicycle wheel would be mistaken for a prop at a mechanic's work shop if displayed in a machine shop, and would be mistaken for a piece of junk if displayed anywhere else. The laborer who worked in the assembly line in the bicycle factory spent more time crafting that wheel then Duchamp did by attaching it to a stool.

If it's a work that requires to be displayed in an art gallery or art museum to be called "art," then it's not art, it's junk.

What you read about Duchamp being a pioneer in art and revolutionizing the art scene, is nothing more than a sales pitch to influence the feeble minded. Duchamp was a manipulative salesman who duped many people into believing his lack of talent or craftsmanship had "a deeper meaning." It's not about "the discoveries in science in regards to time, motion, points of view, etc." That is a bunch of pretentious snooty obscurantism described by elitist art-snobs who can use this pretend intellectual superiority to sneer at those of us who see the "art" for what it really is: obscure, meaningless, garbage.

Duchamp was the same guy who invented the "readymade." He took an existing snow shovel, hung it on the wall, and titled it "In advance of a broken arm." Another one he did was a urinal that he displayed and named "fountain." And again, he did not actually make any of this stuff himself. None of these readymades made any actual sense, it's just pretentious obscurantism. Nor did the artist actually build or craft these things themselves.

What's worse is that Duchamp has inspired many more artists to be just like him, adding more low quality crap to the art scene and watch as our government continues wasting its money on this shit.

Prior to the early 20th century and the modernist movement, there was an objective standard of art for thousands of years.


Although he is not the only one responsible for this, Marcel Duchamp is an aesthetic terrorist, and a saboteur of humanity's progress in art over several millennia.

It all comes down to this: We have to maintain objective standards of quality and talent in order to discern the value in ANYTHING. When I see people awing over Duchamp's work, to me it is like watching an audience applaud singers who deliberately sing off beat.

 

You think I watch Fox News? Ha! That’s adorable! Never change, Anakin

 

Once again, who determines quality?

The average person on the street? A panel of art critics? It doesn't matter. Some people are going to think it's garbage, while others will champion it as beautiful manipulation of negative space, or whatever art critics say. It's still the same result, that's a microcosm for everything wrong in America at the moment: that we feel we have to divide ourselves over just about everything. People who don't like it won't shrug and move on with their lives: they'll bitch, piss, and moan about how they are having an artistic agenda forced down their throats. Then the other side will feel attacked.

And on, and on, and on it fucking goes. Just ban all art, ban all fun, ban all thinking, ban all people, ban everything because because something, somewhere is going to make someone nuts all of the time.

I just...can't. Jesus Christ. Happy 4th.

I'm going back to bed.

 

Sorry, 6, everything after the first three sentences of the above post has nothing to do with you. I'm just in a shitty mood this morning

 

It's part of history and can't be duplicated similar to vintage wines, gold, antiquities, silver and diamonds. The dollar has lost 98% of it's value over the past 100 years while a Spanish silver coin from the 1500's has held on or even increase in value. It only makes sense to purchase if you're trying to build mutigenerational wealth.

 

have i got news for you!



i don't actually know if he will even appear in the show. i just happened to learn about this show's existence today, so it was kind of funny to see your post right now.