Here is another weird inconsistency regarding art as compared to other categories of entertainment, music, literature, poetry, prose, etc.
There is a weird consensus amongst pop culture that noone is allowed to question what they are told is pimped out at the public as "art." Ever everever.
We are not allowed to discuss content. We are not allowed to discuss the obvious, or lack thereof, evidence of genuine discernible *talent.* "Oh you're so closed-minded, you just don't understand it."
We are not allowed to discuss the personal preferences -- and very legitimate topic -- of taste. Mention the words ""tasteful" or "palatable," and they scream that you are being judgmental and closed-minded, that taste has absolutely nothing to do with art; who are you to decide what is and isn't appropriate; how dare you try to tell the artist what they can and can't charge the public audience ten bucks on Tuesdays to see, ad nauseum.
Like Thomas Kinkade just a few short years ago. He has gorgeous paintings of cottages and cabins in the countryside. They are cute and cozy and comfy and fill you with feelings of warm fuzzballs all inside. I see one and I crave a cup of hot cocoa.
Then, all these self-proclaimed temperamental artiste types were saying, "he is a sellout, ohhhhh,” caterwauling, “he is so popular with the mainstream so he could not POSSIBLY have any genuine talent. Plus look how happy peppy perky his art is, hah! That is not possibly reeaaal art, reaaaall art must portray despair and suffering, it simply mussst portray struggle, it must reach deep into the caverns of the soul and disembowel the viewer!! No ifs, ands, or buts!!"
I wonder if they were just jealous that Thomas Kinkade did genuinely become successful as an artist. He managed to appeal to people who like happy, cozy, comfy things, which is obviously a lot of people.
And the guy has actual talent. That's the part these sniffing haughty "disapproval" types always gloss over. Have you seen one of his paintings? They are gorgeous. Exquisite detailing, it is obvious he labored over it painstakingly. He managed to make a decent living off this art. He probably is able to support this family with food and not food stamps; he was probably able to put his kids through college, etc.
I wonder if the rest of the self-proclaimed “realll” artists were just bitter, jealous, and resentful. A lot of them are like this. They rail against mainstream movies, they sniff haughty derision at happy hollywood endings. They think they are automatically "better," i.e. more intellectual, more profound, more informed, if they only like entertainment that is miserable.
They also rail against kindness and sincerity. They screech and scream, "oh that’s just so fake, oh the mainstream cheerleader and football types are just putting on a facade, oh their public image is so contrived and shallow, whereas I am so very honest and genuine and deep, I don't hide who I am, I don't carefully cultivate a public image at all.""
And then you have the notorious exhibit in NYC to which Rudy Giuliani cut off taxpayer funding. (Agguhh, gag, I've seen pictures of it, and I flatly refuse to acknowledge it as art. That's because it isn't.) I am ever grateful to Mayor Giuliani for doing that, even thoo I don't live in NYC. These people think that because they slapped the label "art" on whatever they vomited out, they can get away with anything? Frankly, they seem rather mentally ill.
There is a weird consensus amongst pop culture that noone is allowed to question what they are told is pimped out at the public as "art." Ever everever.
We are not allowed to discuss content. We are not allowed to discuss the obvious, or lack thereof, evidence of genuine discernible *talent.* "Oh you're so closed-minded, you just don't understand it."
We are not allowed to discuss the personal preferences -- and very legitimate topic -- of taste. Mention the words ""tasteful" or "palatable," and they scream that you are being judgmental and closed-minded, that taste has absolutely nothing to do with art; who are you to decide what is and isn't appropriate; how dare you try to tell the artist what they can and can't charge the public audience ten bucks on Tuesdays to see, ad nauseum.
Like Thomas Kinkade just a few short years ago. He has gorgeous paintings of cottages and cabins in the countryside. They are cute and cozy and comfy and fill you with feelings of warm fuzzballs all inside. I see one and I crave a cup of hot cocoa.
Then, all these self-proclaimed temperamental artiste types were saying, "he is a sellout, ohhhhh,” caterwauling, “he is so popular with the mainstream so he could not POSSIBLY have any genuine talent. Plus look how happy peppy perky his art is, hah! That is not possibly reeaaal art, reaaaall art must portray despair and suffering, it simply mussst portray struggle, it must reach deep into the caverns of the soul and disembowel the viewer!! No ifs, ands, or buts!!"
I wonder if they were just jealous that Thomas Kinkade did genuinely become successful as an artist. He managed to appeal to people who like happy, cozy, comfy things, which is obviously a lot of people.
And the guy has actual talent. That's the part these sniffing haughty "disapproval" types always gloss over. Have you seen one of his paintings? They are gorgeous. Exquisite detailing, it is obvious he labored over it painstakingly. He managed to make a decent living off this art. He probably is able to support this family with food and not food stamps; he was probably able to put his kids through college, etc.
I wonder if the rest of the self-proclaimed “realll” artists were just bitter, jealous, and resentful. A lot of them are like this. They rail against mainstream movies, they sniff haughty derision at happy hollywood endings. They think they are automatically "better," i.e. more intellectual, more profound, more informed, if they only like entertainment that is miserable.
They also rail against kindness and sincerity. They screech and scream, "oh that’s just so fake, oh the mainstream cheerleader and football types are just putting on a facade, oh their public image is so contrived and shallow, whereas I am so very honest and genuine and deep, I don't hide who I am, I don't carefully cultivate a public image at all.""
And then you have the notorious exhibit in NYC to which Rudy Giuliani cut off taxpayer funding. (Agguhh, gag, I've seen pictures of it, and I flatly refuse to acknowledge it as art. That's because it isn't.) I am ever grateful to Mayor Giuliani for doing that, even thoo I don't live in NYC. These people think that because they slapped the label "art" on whatever they vomited out, they can get away with anything? Frankly, they seem rather mentally ill.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment