I saw the stuff they were getting the guy to do that they liked, and it was all pretty awful. i'd say it's more like the expensive formal education is a sieve to keep people out: you have the qualification, therefore you're an "artist" now. Basically, it's like the
least value the thing you made has for society, the better they like it. The qualification is just the rubber-stamp so that you have "cred" to get your shitty poop shit shown in a gallery.
Any time I see supposedly amazing contemporary art, and it's just crap. This was the first google hit for "best of contemporary art"
https://www.widewalls.ch/10-emerging-contemporary-artistsSeriously, it is just crap, and any concept behind any of this stuff is void of actual intellect. Contemporary art and postmodern literature studies are the two most content-free fields you could study
see how often papers written literally at random get accepted by postmodern lit. journals. e.g. the Sokal Affair. About 2/3rds of all writing in postmodern lit. and 2/3rds of contemporary art are just elaborate phonies, which is exemplified by the fact that the experts can basically
never tell the fakes from the real deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affairThe Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax, was a scholarly publishing sting perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/"The conceptual penis as a social construct"
"The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial."
That’s how we began. We used this preposterous sentence to open a “paper” consisting of 3,000 words of utter nonsense posing as academic scholarship. Then a peer-reviewed academic journal in the social sciences accepted and published it.
...
Assuming the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” we wrote an absurd paper loosely composed in the style of post-structuralist discursive gender theory. The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions. We made no attempt to find out what “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” actually means. We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.
As much as the postmodern lit. people are morons who are easily fooled by fake papers written by people who don't even know the field
whatsoever, they are in fact about 20 times more intellectual than the people who make the type of "art" shown in modern galleries.
e.g. case in point, just like the sokal affair and the "conceptual penis affair" art history is
rife with untrained phonies slipping "art" into the gallery circuit, and they always get away with it. Maybe "art school training" is as great as it's stated to be, however real art critics don't seem to be able to tell the "real" from the fake:
http://hoaxes.org/archive/display/category/artPaintings by a previously unknown avant-garde French artist named Pierre Brassau, exhibited at an art show in Sweden, won praise from critics, one of whom described Brassau's work as having "the delicacy of a ballet dancer." What the critics didn't know was that Brassau was actually a chimpanzee named Peter from Sweden's Boras zoo. A journalist had come up with the idea of exhibiting Peter's work as a way of putting critics to the test — would they be able to tell the difference between modern art and chimpanzee art?
Critics couldn't tell a trained artist from a chimpanzee.
Author
Topic: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O (Read 14547458 times)