Part 1 — Cherry Picking Feelings
🗣 Feel free to interpret the sentence however you like. You must see what I’m seeing, but I’m not about to give you any solid ground to stand on—so you’ll just have to twist things around to justify my bias instead. — Oh, wait!
Certain Uncertainty
Everyone’s an artist, and so are you. Click on the canvas to create a unique piece of art.
I don’t understand art, and there’s a reason for it. The prominent belief is that art is open to interpretation, but if you call an artwork “shitty,” you’re told you don’t understand it. Artists are not as profound and holy as they present themselves. They need money (and status) too, but they can’t base their passion on greed because art and greed are considered parallels. So, they choose something that can support their work while supposedly challenging societal norms. This method is called — self-serving idealism.
- Self-Serving: Actions or behaviors that are motivated by a desire for personal gain, advantage, or benefit.
- Idealism: An outlook or philosophy that values abstract concepts such as justice, equality, and morality. Idealists often have high aspirations and goals for making the world a better place.
So we can say that a “self-serving idealist” is someone who is driven by self-serving motives. They may claim to be working towards lofty ideals or espousing high-minded principles, but in reality, their actions are primarily focused on advancing their own interests. This gives rise to hypocrisy or dishonesty because the person’s true motivations aren’t aligned with their public image or stated beliefs. There’s nothing wrong in being dishonest and working towards your self-interests if you’re open about it.
I know I’m coming across as a closed-minded conservative (not an oxymoron in this case), but I’d like to meet someone who wouldn’t want their bucket-and-mop artwork installation to be sold for 100 million dollars. Now, if you discuss this fraud with someone who “understands” art, two things might happen: either you’ll bang your forehead against a wall and end up making an artwork (which might be considered smart if you get famous by doing it in front of an audience), or you’ll realize how justifications are thrown around to show the extreme progressive nature of an individual (an artist) who probably created something while jerking off to a turtle documentary.
The twist is that this kind of laziness now falls under the massive umbrella of “artistic expression,” and it’s thoroughly justified despite making zero sense. To take it one step further, if you’re banging your forehead and recording it as well, you might hit the jackpot because that’s a perfect art installation. You set up a kaleidoscope in front of an 85-inch Samsung ultra-full HD monitor and let people watch that video through the kaleidoscope instead of the monitor. It’s fascinating because you’re going through such pain to create something that can be interpreted in a thousand different ways, when in reality, you just had free time and a 4 GB memory card that you needed to fill with some shitty content.
I’ve heard thorough and elaborate explanations about how a splatter of paint represents the chaotic nature of human existence or how a strategically placed pile of dirt is a poignant commentary on the decay of modern society. The pattern is clearly visible — the lousier the work, despite the amount of minutes spent to create it, the more profound meaning it holds. If you dare question its subtle and hidden brilliance, you’re going to be labeled as conventional art appreciator, and it’s considered an insult because they’re calling you boomer for not understanding the nastier smell of the garbage which they collected from various places and thought they did something marvelous whose beauty needs to be experienced through open mind and can not be questioned as art is way too diverse to be questioned. The amount of entitlement these people carry can look like the wave of Tsunami if you stand right in front of them.
Order of Chaos
Visualizing the constant tension between structured grids and spontaneous motion, with shapes that move and transform in order. This animated piece captures the shifting balance between predictability and randomness in real-time.
I wonder, if some of these individuals (and organizations) are just cashing in on the gullibility of people who are desperate to seem enlightened. They create narratives around their work, and suddenly, what looks like an accident or a joke becomes a revered piece of contemporary art. It feels more like a cycle of pretentiousness feeding off itself, and those who refuse to play along are left scratching their heads, wondering if the joke’s on them. I can’t say. Actually I can, as I know this has more to do with business and less with what I’ve written, but I’m not willing to write about it as it’s purely a one-sided rant which excludes a hell lot of information that’s factual rather than perceived.
If art is whatever the artist chooses it to be, everything can be considered an artwork. I’m going to fill a museum with used diapers and call it an artwork. There’s a reason for this choice: I want to show people what happens when too much of the shit accumulates, even if it was caused by someone harmless. Unfortunately, no one is going to visit it, but I’ll get some appreciation for being bold since it takes a hell of a lot of effort to collect that many diapers. I’ll probably get a grant for my “groundbreaking” installation, and critics will write essays about the profound commentary on consumerism and waste. Meanwhile, the janitor who has to clean up after my exhibit will be the real unsung hero of the art world.
I understand it’s an aggressively biased and somewhat terrible blog post, and I know I have a limited perspective on artworks, but there’s a quote: “If you’re too open-minded, your brain might fall out.” I find it problematic when someone says they’re not biased. Unfortunately, claiming you’re not biased is, in itself, a bias wrapped in the delusion of impartiality. It’s like saying, “I’m so humble, I win awards for it.” You’re not humble at all, I can bet. We all have our prejudices, and pretending otherwise just adds another layer of pretense to the conversation.
To be open-minded and accepting of everything, you’ve got to ditch rationality and common sense, then hop on the one-way road to subjectivity and belief—no U-turns allowed! And since both are pretty much everywhere these days, I think it’s only fair to mock them. After all, to go along with it, you’ve got to be totally on board with whatever’s thrown at you, no questions asked. But to truly understand something, you’ve got to be a bit objective. For instance, if I were to toss pennies at your funeral, it’d be less a gesture of appreciation and more of an insult—unless, of course, it’s part of your tradition.
But despite the apparent foolishness of such an act, I could still try to justify my actions with some creative, subjective reasoning. I might argue: “The weight of those pennies is lighter than the burden of the soul you carried. Sure, pennies seem insignificant, but they represent the small things in life that, when looked at through the rose-tinted glasses of experience, could be seen as a tribute. Meanwhile, your soul carried far more weight—more than any material object—because it embodied the essence of your being. Sounds unreasonable and pathetic, right? Well 🤝
Now, just because something can be justified with a bunch of twisted sentences doesn’t mean it makes any sense, and that’s my whole point. A red dot on a white canvas isn’t surreal—it’s the Japanese flag! And no matter how you dress it up, I’m going to judge you thoroughly, because I’m not so uneducated that I can’t tell the difference between an artwork and a flag, or whatever else you’re claiming it to be. But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that what you’ve “created” is indeed an artwork. What’s with the nonsensical description you’ve slapped onto it? If it helps you sell it for a ridiculous amount of money, more power to you. But let’s be real—your work is neither profound nor ground-breaking, and it’s definitely not thought-provoking. You might think you’re smashing the conventions of traditional art, but let’s be honest—this isn’t about conventional art at all.
It’s wild how people can find profound meaning in what seems like total nonsense. Take a stick figure on a napkin, for instance. If I call it ‘The Struggles of the Human Condition,’ suddenly it’s not just a doodle—it’s a philosophical statement! Or consider a floor covered in paint and coconut oil, dubbed ‘The Chaos of Existence.’ It’s not just a slip-and-slide waiting to happen; it’s a metaphor for the unpredictability of life.
I’m about to shamelessly repeat myself again, but the thing is — the more bizarre the artwork, the more people squint at it and try to find hidden layers. It’s almost like there’s an unspoken rule that the more ridiculous the piece, the deeper the meaning must be. So, if you want to get really deep, just slap a fancy name on a pile of garbage and watch as people dissect and justify it. Art truly is in the eye of the beholder—especially when that eye is desperately searching for something profound. It’s now a full-time duty.
Based on my experience and what I’ve seen, I decided to create something to poke fun at the absurdities of the art world, and I did just that. The goal of the Artograph section is to build something without any real reason and then philosophize the heck out of it to provide a valid justification for its existence—kind of like a million-dollar piece of garbage. I’m not afraid to admit my bias. If my personal reasons are the only thing distinguishing between what’s considered art and what’s not, then I’m all for trying the opposite with what I’ve created. Let’s see if I can turn a complete nonsense into the next big thing in the art world!
I’m not oblivious to fine art, but it always baffles me when people talk about pieces that made them feel deep emotions and left them standing in awe for minutes on end. I’ve been to several galleries and have yet to experience that kind of epiphany. I’ve seen some extremely odd artworks, and they’ve never felt like they were ‘staring back at me.’ To me, they’re just what they are—an attempt at something. It’s frustrating that everyone else seems to perceive a profound depth that I’m apparently blind to. Or maybe I’m just trying too hard to find value in art when the real truth could be that the art itself doesn’t have value—the artist does, or maybe their manager is just doing a fantastic job of lobbying their work.
I remember seeing a Pollock at the museum during art school. After staring at it for a few minutes my instructor said “I dont get it, you’re on your own with this one”
— A YouTube Comment
I think we’re at a point where things are evolving from simple to complex until they become nothing more than uninterpretable static noise. Also, What a dull way to wrap up this post, but I’ll be back with something more substantial — assuming laziness doesn’t get the better of me.
Adios 🐈⬛
📓 Note — This post 🕐 Part 1 is more about my feelings than hard facts. I’m currently diving into the history of art, and once I’ve gathered enough information, I’ll revisit my critiques. The only change will be that I’ll back up my opinions with actual sources and knowledge. I hope that learning the real history doesn’t shift my perspective too much. I’m familiar with this process, so I know what to expect.