| Interesting. The unfortunate reality is that a lot of so-called artists have absolutely nothing to say. All they do is "challenge", "undermine" and "subvert" shit, mostly out of subliminal boredom. Since this hoax was aimed to challenge, undermine and subvert "modern art", it is therefore indistinguishable from "modern art" except by the fact that the author was aware of what he was doing and had a more sensible motivation. It's hilarious how critics try to twist this the other way around, saying "ob, but his parody ended up being modern art after all". There is no "after all". That's the whole fucking point. That's how good parodies work. A parody on Kung-Fu movies is, by definition, a Kung-Fu movie. No one outside of art circles sees this as some kind of "reversal". (Post)Modern art is a parody that went on for too long, where authors collectively forgot they're doing a parody, started taking themselves seriously, and tuned into pretentious, arrogant twats, who mock others for "not getting it". You know what comes after post-modern art? The next big "movement"? Internet memes. Mark my words, in 30 years there will be dipshits writing academic papers oh the hidden meanings and symbolism of Grympycat and Pepe the Frog. And there will be other dipshits trying to replicate "meme style", using MS Paint and showing off the resulting garbage in meaningless expositions. |
Well 90% of everything is crap. That said, I don't think the mark of quality is whether the artist have "something to say". What does that even mean? Most of art throughout history rehashes the same themes. The differentiator is not what they say but how they say it.
Consider that at one point blues and jazz was not considered "real music" by critics, and the same for rock'n'roll. Now people are studying these genres and writing academic papers. Does that mean they are all easily fooled dipshits?