Why Is Modern Art So Ugly? Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud
You’ve probably wondered: What the hell is going on with modern “art”. It’s so expensive, so it must mean it’s good, right? But, let’s face it: you think it’s crap, yet you are too afraid to say it out or fear of being shamed. The implied emotional blackmail goes like this: “You don’t get art. You’re uneducated. You’re uncultivated. You have no understanding.”
Nobody likes to be the odd one out. So you censor yourself, and so you too pretend that the emperor is wearing clothes.
It’s infuriating that you have to pretend to marvel at excrement on canvas, or trash glued together. Art is not only about evoking emotions; it has to be beautiful too, otherwise, sewage and gore would be “art”. Art is objectively beautiful, just like it used to be.
You look at classic art, and can’t help but wonder what the hell went wrong with contemporary manifestations of insanity called "modern art”. Modern “art” makes prehistoric cave paintings look like masterpieces by comparison. It’s almost like modern “artists” make an effort to purposefully make their “work” ugly, and compete to produce the nastiest horror show, while laughing at gullible us all the way to the bank.
All the collective experience and historical education around art should have improved art, not devolve it. So, what the hell is going on?
Well, here it goes…
Modern “art” is a money laundering scheme. It is supposed to be ugly, because the uglier it is, the cheaper it is, and so, the lower the laundering commission to the pretend-artist (facilitator). Making large transactions for a supposed “product” with almost zero manufacturing cost is the perfect crime to conceal the true source of funds. And nobody can say otherwise. No internal revenue “service” can say what the worth of an art piece truly is. It’s “subjective”, it’s “art”, it’s “idiosyncratic”, right?
Modern “art” is not real art. This is an objective statement, because art is objectively beautiful. Ugly modern “art” is meant to troll us, and to serve as a money laundering vehicle for scammers.
There are 3 kinds of people who claim that modern “art” is actual art:
Those engaged in the money laundering scheme (the parties involved in illegal transactions, and the middlemen “artists”, promoters, critics, academics etc.).
Those promoting demoralization as a geopolitical subversion tactic (see Yuri Bezmenov).
The useful idiots pretending to think that modern “art” is art in an “emperor’s clothes” collective lie situation. They know it is ugly, yet they pretend to “get it” out of fear of being shamed that they don’t. They also pat themselves on the back as they delude themselves they are superior to the rest of us who aren’t as “refined'“ as they imagine they are. And when you call out their hypocrisy, they viciously attack you, because you expose their pretentiousness. The fact that they react so viscerally to your skeptical objections of modern “art” proves that they are insecure in their conviction in it.
How I know that modern “art” is money laundering? I’ve seen it first hand in the financial field, in which it’s a common secret. Yes, you have to take my word for it, but you take people’s word for almost everything you read all the time. You can’t personally verify most of the information to which you are exposed. The question is not whether you believe me or not, but whether it makes sense. Which makes more sense; that people actually find modern “art” beautiful, or that it is a scam? Just look at a modern “art” piece, and make up your own mind.
Don’t take those who pretend to like modern “art” seriously. They are either scammers or imbeciles, or both.
Some more tragicomical examples of nonsense excrement posing as “art”:
Yes, modern “art” is fugly… objectively.
