[Udik]

> It is not, in any way, calling for the artist to be canceled.

Not explicitly, no. But it seems to me to follow the well known pattern of "hey, look, I've found something damning buried among X's old stuff".

Yes, art can be racist, it's just not the metre you use to judge it.

[yarcob]

> look, I've found something damning buried among X's old stuff

Since this is specifically an auction of "old stuff" looking through it makes sense. And while the author is very critical of the work, the most significant criticism isn't that it's not PC. The article mostly complains that most of the art is shallow and won't age well.

[Udik]

Please re-read:

"We’ve passed through a racial uprising and a reckoning with sexism, and the cultural project of the moment is… innovating new ways to worship decade-old, BroBible-level brain farts? During a time of immiseration, investors are competing to throw tens of millions of dollars… at this?

These are the questions that go through my head. But that’s probably just “fancy-dancy elite art homo” thinking, right?"

[yarcob]

How is this "cancelling" the artist?

It's just mocking people for paying millions for bad art.

People make fun of other people paying too much for art all the time.

[Udik]

And what does the politics fashionable at the moment ("We’ve passed through a racial uprising and a reckoning with sexism") has to do with art?

[Jonnax]

Are you actually being serious?

You think that art should not be political? You must have missed centuries of art as propoganda then.

What does the "fashionability" of politics mean? That people have political opinions that you dislike?

Especially when one of Beeple's pieces being critiqued is a drawing of a naked Hilary Clinton with a penis.

Do you want it both ways where there can be political artwork but people aren't allowed to criticise it?