	▲	soulofmischief 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I agree. All I see here is someone following in the footsteps of pioneers such as Andy Warhol. His own pink banana was very polarizing in his time.

▲

bigstrat2003 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I love art. Contemporary art is a bunch of ugly wankery by pretentious people who are bored of actual beauty and can only amuse themselves by creating ugly stuff, then claiming "you just don't get it". The world would be a significantly better place without contemporary art in it.

▲

4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Scrapemist 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Contemporary art is the mirror of our time.

▲

10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

karmakurtisaani 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This could have been written at any point after the 1850s or so.

	▲	nine_k an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Indeed. Once galleries became significant buyers of art, scandalous art became an attractive thing to produce: it commanded outsized attention. The dynamics are similar in Twitter today, too.
	▲	refactor_master 30 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		1850? I wager we could go all the way back if we tried. > (…) the Italian artist and writer Giorgio Vasari,who used it as early as 1530, calling Gothic art a "monstrous and barbarous" "disorder". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_art

▲

wredcoll an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If there is any change I could make to the human personality at large it would be the reflexive opinion that anything you don't understand, or even dislike, is automatically morally wrong.

▲

cindyllm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

greenavocado 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

colechristensen an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The leadership of nations requires you to put pressure on the thoughts and minds of your people, left to their own devices those minds will simply be shaped by someone else.

The morality in it comes from your motivation and methods. Secretly giving piles of money to the weirdos you successfully identify as being the leaders of artistic movements to amplify those movements can't be all that bad.

The question of the day is if you were the CIA trying to do the same thing today, who and what would you fund?

	▲	left-struck an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I would fund things which make people less susceptible to manipulation and more equipped to think for themselves. Because I believe in democracy not as a political tool but as a fundamental right. I don’t wish to use democracy to gain more power. But maybe that’s why I’ll never be in that position, to make that choice.
	▲	derektank 30 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I wouldn’t because the CIA is explicitly barred by Congress (Title 50 U.S.C. § 3093) from conducting influence operations intended to affect American public opinion since the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991.