Soapweed
Well-known member
My opinion of art is that it shouldn't be subsidized by the government. Let free enterprise, supply and demand prevail. If there is genuine interest in a certain type of art, and sales of it enable the artist to make a living, so be it, and more power to the artist. What I have a problem with is that so much of "modern art" is merely proclaimed as such by bureaucratic elitists. This modern art has no appeal of any kind, but la-dee-dah types jump on the band wagon and think it is "wundahful, dahling," because some big name movie star said it was good.
It all reminds me of the Emperor's new clothes, so silky and fine indeed, that only the tailor himself knew that the clothing didn't exist. The Emperor thought he was clothed exquisitely, and all of his constituents gasped in awe and amazement at the wonderful new suit. Finally a little child, with honesty as pure as new-driven snow, said, "But, Mommy, the Emperor is naked."
Much of modern art can be construed as such, though an onlooker can only wish it was invisible. Instead it is ugly, worthless, subsidized by the government, but ever so trendy. :?
It all reminds me of the Emperor's new clothes, so silky and fine indeed, that only the tailor himself knew that the clothing didn't exist. The Emperor thought he was clothed exquisitely, and all of his constituents gasped in awe and amazement at the wonderful new suit. Finally a little child, with honesty as pure as new-driven snow, said, "But, Mommy, the Emperor is naked."
Much of modern art can be construed as such, though an onlooker can only wish it was invisible. Instead it is ugly, worthless, subsidized by the government, but ever so trendy. :?