[TheRealNGenius]

First I heard of Beeple was like a year ago, on Corridor Crew: https://youtu.be/_ul9jrCXhR4

So when I read about some NFT crypto art selling for 69 million, I was genuinely surprised that it was at least someone I had heard about before. It’s not exactly my cup of tea, but I respect Beeple’s dedication to his art.

When I read this article, it felt less a critique of the merits of Beeple’s art, and more like a hit piece on their character. Cherry-picked are examples of past artwork likely to offend somebody, somewhere. In my opinion, art critique isn’t that hard, I even wrote about it here, https://wndr.xyz/posts/9fjM1tOJO7MWX4fYw3AU2Q==/what-s-art-a....

This however is not an analysis of the artwork, but a meta-analysis of the subjects of Beeple’s art. If this qualifies someone a National Art Critic, then it probably is “fancy-dancy elite art homo” thinking. But hey, it got people to click and read their article I guess.

[dash2]

What? No, it's a critique of the art. It points out that the images are unfunny satire, or earnest political right-on-itude, or just trying out photoshop filters.

Honestly, they could have just posted the images and that would have been condemnation enough. I mean, good for him for making money, but let's not pretend this is interesting art for anyone over fifteen.

[forgotmypw17]

I appreciate the art critic posting this, because I wouldn,t have seen the images otherwise. I find them both hilarious and thought-provoking, as I do the writer's snobbish dry analysis.

[nailer]

> No, it's a critique of the art. It points out that the images are unfunny satire, or earnest political right-on-itude, or just trying out photoshop filters.

Humor is a matter of personal taste. Art isn't craft.

[dash2]

Sure! People who forward Facebook posts for their biting political wit will love this stuff, and who am I to disagree?

[nailer]

The artwork doesn't remotely strike me as the kind of thing one would typically see on Facebook. More 4chan, Tumblr, etc.