Climate activists vandalize a Jackson Pollock but no one notices
(babylonbee.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
I remember when I was 12, and on the “government-sponsored” mandatory field trip to the national capital (I assume other countries have the same).
We went to the National Gallery (of Australia), and were toured around. I specifically remember being shown Pollock’s “Blue Poles”, which was, I believe, the most expensive artwork purchased by an Australian government, at the time (1972-75, was when they bought it), and is given pride of place in a gallery which, frankly, is full of utter shit…
The cost, paid by the taxpayer at the time, was something obscene. Maybe $50 mill (or maybe that was its value when I saw it. Dunno)..?
And I just remember distinctly thinking how patently absurd that was, and how, yeah, maybe the urinal artist guy who we were learning about around the same time had a point…
It’s just… Almost objectively a bit shit. But it is worth tens of millions. Because Pollock…
Ah, “modern” art…
Postmodernists and elitists adore modern art because it supports all of their high-minded delusions. It's entirely subjective, and can be given meaning only by the person looking at it. As opposed to a landscape or a portrait, which has a meaning in and of itself because it portrays something real and intrinsically relatable. That's why ordinary people like traditional art; because it tells a story.
But the megalomaniacal elitists love the subjectivity of modern art because it is inherently nihilistic. It works the way they think the universe works: a formless, meaningless existence which can only be given meaning by them. And it makes them feel superior, to think that they're the only ones smart enough to understand that. It's never occurred to them that most people have actually thought about it and rejected it.