Ever wonder how “modern art” ever became a thing? I did, so I thought about it and the answer came up fairly quickly in my analysis: It’s a medium invented for elitists.
While “art” as traditionally known is something that takes skill, “modern art” is just the application of the artistic label to literally anything. Whether its a mish-mash of colors or a collection of shapes presented in a minimalist layout or a dog pooping – its “art” that isn’t actually art. Obviously anything can be looked at and studied with an artistic eye and symbolism, parallels, allegories, metaphors, and deep meanings can be applied to them. But humans already knew that. That act is a gift of our human brains, capable of critical thinking, imagination, and self aware application of knowledge for logical and creative ends. Thinking about things isn’t “art”. Yet Modern Art tells us that anything that we think about after looking at is itself art worthy of pedestalisation (a verb I made up to denote “putting on a pedestal”). But why the need to make a movement out of elevating non-art?
The truth is not that modern art is actually art – which it obviously isn’t – the truth is about inventing art.
If you define art in the classical sense of skill, technique, and quality – then you’re limited to those parameters and anyone with those things can make, identify and appreciate art. That’s no fun for an elitist. Elitists, by definition, want something more Emperors-new-clothes about the things they like, or they are no longer in the elite. So the way to tear down the establishment in the realm of art is to call anything art. Suddenly when John Q Public says “huh?” you are elevated above him because he doesn’t get it and you do. Elitists love that stuff. Nothing makes an elitist happier than to be able to correct or explain something they think they’re well versed in that average unwashed masses aren’t privy to. And that’s why Modern Art exists…
For more, see this Prager U video answering “Why is Modern Art so bad?”…
For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone. Modern art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins. What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated? Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and how it can be stopped and even reversed.
A Florida man has been charged with attempted murder and hate crime after fatally shooting an African American man in the head. He expressed disbelief over his arrest, telling officers that he “only shot a nigger.” That mans name is Walton Henry Butler and if the allegations are true, he obviously deserves a lot of scorn from the public in addition to his hopefully lifetime jail sentence.
Instead of being targeted by activists however, race-baiters are collectively going after a made-up charge of racism in a different Florida shooting in where a hispanic man shot a single bullet, allegedly in self defense from having been attacked and suffering a brutal beating by a teenager. Despite no evidence of racism being involved in the shot that resulted in the alleged attackers death, he is being lionized as a martyr and the shooter is being demonized as a racist.
The prosecution is going big with the “taking the law into his own hands” angle.
Judge Debra Nelson issued her ruling over the objections of Zimmerman’s lawyers shortly before a prosecutor delivered a closing argument in which he portrayed the defendant as an aspiring police officer who assumed Martin was up to no good and took the law into his own hands. “A teenager is dead. He is dead through no fault of his own,” prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda told the jurors. “He is dead because a man made assumptions. … Unfortunately because his assumptions were wrong, Trayvon Benjamin Martin no longer walks this Earth.”
There is literally zero evidence that Trayvon Martin is dead because of “assumptions” that were made because, while there is zero evidence that Zimmermans single shot was based on suspicion or taking the law into his own hands but rather was a legitimate use of self defense against an attacker who evidently assumed it would be a good idea to violently assault someone who had a legal firearm on them.
George Zimmerman called the police to express concern about a “punk” he saw suspiciously roaming the eves of other peoples houses and attempted to talk to the individual. Trayvon Martin called a girl friend and mentioned annoyance about a “creepy ass cracker” he saw watching him. Juan Williams:
George Zimmerman faces life in jail as a jury considers second-degree murder charges against him for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But thanks to the media he is already sentenced to life in the American public’s mind as a racist. NBC edited a tape of Zimmerman’s call to police as he was following Martin to make him appear to be focused on Martin’s race. The New York Times has referred to him in unique racial terms as a “white Hispanic.” The terminology was necessary to have the story fit into a well-worn news narrative throughout American history from the Scottsboro Boys to Emmett Till to Rodney King – the black victim of white racism. Hispanic people can be as racist as black or white people in a country with a deep history of racism. But, apparently for the Times, Zimmerman’s whiteness was important. It fit their good versus evil tale of a white racist killing an innocent black man.
This is a stunning case of media malpractice in fomenting hatred in service to an immoral and divisive agenda. There is absolutely nothing special about this unfortunate case that merits such media attention and making up details in order to fluff it up to justify the undue attention is some crazy propaganda-conspiracy shit unfitting of this Great Republic.
As I saw someone post on Facebook:
My prediction: George Zimmerman will walk on all charges, and appear in the next season of Dancing With the Stars alongside America’s favorite diabetic, Paula Deen. Then maybe (video courtesy of the Washington Free Beacon)
Dayum… This blog post by comic book legend Frank Miller pretty much nails it. Which means of course that his body of work, long respected by the masses will now suddenly become lame, uninspired, hacky, and a list of other bullshit history-revising adjectives that hippies use to smear people and their livlihood once they find out that they don’t agree with them politically on something – even one issue.
Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:
The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.
“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached – is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.
This is no popular uprising. This is garbage. And goodness knows they’re spewing their garbage – both politically and physically – every which way they can find.
Wake up, pond scum. America is at war against a ruthless enemy.
Maybe, between bouts of self-pity and all the other tasty tidbits of narcissism you’ve been served up in your sheltered, comfy little worlds, you’ve heard terms like al-Qaeda and Islamicism.
And this enemy of mine — not of yours, apparently – must be getting a dark chuckle, if not an outright horselaugh – out of your vain, childish, self-destructive spectacle.
In the name of decency, go home to your parents, you losers. Go back to your mommas’ basements and play with your Lords Of Warcraft.
Or better yet, enlist for the real thing. Maybe our military could whip some of you into shape
They might not let you babies keep your iPhones, though. Try to soldier on.
The problem of course is that the few Occupiers (and most of its supporters) who are not pond scum criminals still aren’t bright enough to not get offended at someone like Miller calling out the pond scum criminals. The facts bear Miller out: there are rapes and crime and mass disorganization in the Occupy protests. Just because you support it’s Anarchists for Big Government brand of philosophy doesn’t mean the movement isn’t infested with vermin that is perfectly legitimate to call out.
As one of the commenters notes:
Only 14% of the 1% are actually financial institutions on Wall Street. The majority of the 1% are lawyers and doctors.
Do you know where the largest collection of lawyers in the U.S. is?
Do you know what the richest area in the US is?
I could get behind a movemnet if it truly was protesting the actual causes of this “income inequality” they speak about, but the fact is they should be protesting Washington DC, but then that would make Obama look bad now wouldn’t it?
The politician who has recived more money from Wall Street than any other politician?
Look up the ties between General Electric, the largest corporation on the planet (besides the US Government) and Barack Obama.
G.E. paid no federal income taxes last year, why?
If these Occupy morons had any semblance of intelligence, they would be protesting Washington DC and Barack Obama, but they don’t beause they are simple tools of the DNC and their reelection strategy.
Seriously, 30 minutes on google and anyone can look this up, they should use their $400 iPhones to do so.
PR Daily agrees the Occupy movement is a PR disaster:
Dorothy Crenshaw, CEO and creative director of Crenshaw Communications, praised OWS’s canny cultivation of the media and public sympathy. Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s evacuation of Zuccotti Park seems to have strengthened the movement, she suggests. But she sees risks in the protesters’ tactics of shutting down streets and subway stations.
She adds: “If they start to disrupt the commute or work schedule of so-called ‘regular people’—part of that huge 99 percent who are just trying to get through the workday and earn a living—I think they risk losing the very group that should be most sympathetic.”
The movement’s PR efforts drew derision from Fraser P. Seitel, managing partner of Emerald Partners and author of The Practice of Public Relations. OWS, he says, has “botched an opportunity to capture public opinion and achieve something. Americans, by every measure, distrust the politicians who run Washington and lead major institutions. So public opinion was ripe for the plucking.”
However, the movement blew it by having no overriding purpose, stated goals, or visible leadership, he says, and it is increasingly perceived as a bunch of publicity-hungry complainers intent on disrupting others who are making a living.
“Occupy Wall Street is right about one thing,” he says. “The whole world is watching. And it’s generally repulsed by what it’s seen.”