Replies

Their point seems to be to elevate to legitimacy that which has removed all standards and prior defining characteristics of art. In other words, by defining non-art as art, the logical conclusion is that art is non-art. Modern artists are told that they must create something totally original. Nothing about what they do can ever have been done before in any way shape or form, otherwise they risk being called "derivative".

It's utter arrogance to suggest that these self-absorbed dilettantes have somehow advanced beyond the masters who preceded them. It's a paradox that they stand on the shoulders of giants, and still can't see beyond their own rectums. They can't be "derivative" because they flatout lack the talent. So to compensate, they denigrate the achievments of their betters, discard them as antiquated, and anoint themselves as the arbiters of taste.

And the sad thing is, the so-called Art Establishment plays along with the charade.

Ironically, by forcing "artists" into a rigid eschewal of form, modernism effectively enslaves artists to THAT school of thought. How "original" is it to do the same thing that a thousand other no-talent hacks are doing?

The same thing is happening in the music conservatories. Were it not for movie soundtracks, Academic Music would have been the very death of orchestral music.

The earthly and etherial Joseph Schwantner and the young liturgical Chris Theofinidas are tonal voices in the nihilistic wilderness, with Costa Rica's Migual Ramirez bringing some sanity back to the concert hall with a little bit of latin groove.

.....the so-called Art Establishment plays along with the charade....

Having convinced a world of art investors that the only real value is in the new age art, be it painting or sculpture or even jewelry, the establishment has created a market for gold plated lead.