Heimatkitsch doesn't look so horrendous. By modern art I am fine with the disturbing, or the works of someone like say Giger. I mean the sort of corporate kitsch aesthetic. I am not demanding romanticism or Soviet realism or any such thing, like even cubism can be interesting and I don't mind Jackson Pollock, but the problem is a lot of these things and it works for poetry and such too is the complete lack of any kind of structure or technique at all is used by the worst sports of talentless hacks to cloak their utter lack of talent as "post ironic" or such stupid shit. I would count Ginsburg as the poetry equivalent. It is not the abandonment of such things for sake of better expression or insight, but rather that rule "you can break the rules when you know and have mastered them" sort of thing where these people do it because they literally cannot rhyme or paint or do anything creative and are largely in it for the pretensions and lifestyle. I single out Warhol as being the worst example of this, and high fashion functions similarly. It has become just another vehicle and tool of talentless scum, the exact same sort of scum who would think to find some artist or writer who died in poverty, take their works, copywrite it, and viciously persecute anyone who used those works. They are the art world equivalent of ebaumsworld. They are the Eric Baumann of aesthetics and I hate such people with a passion. You can make art that is designed to irritate, to provoke, and to disturb, but you still have to be good at it, and it has to be your own. It is like someone taking a photo of someone else's photo, then using their New York connections to make fucktons of money off it with no credit to the original photographer. This is, in essence, the thievery and uselessness that was Warhol.
The glorification of brand names and corporatism is ultimately besides the point, although this is also something I take issue with in the destruction of art. I find it all the more irritating that the US really used to have it's own artistic and literary traditions, not this empty corporate garbage and formulaic tripe at best. American pop music and then hiphop suffered the same thing. The bigger issue is that it becomes totally divorced from merit and so again, it just becomes another iteration of like selling a piece of toast Justin Bieber bit into. That is exactly what this "art" has been turned into, and deliberately so as to achieve certain objectives:
•to turn "art" into a crass commodity
•to strip art of its inherent meaning and basically render it into something closer to fiat currency for millionaires and billionaires, or at the very least rendering it down into a piece of equity, a function which could be taken by a wooden doorstop which is exactly why they try to destroy the idea of what is art and say "anything is art" and fill art schools with this complete nonsense, because the objective is not art but a financial instrument
•to make art thus easily controllable by that certain clique who don't want anything actually thought provoking, or worse, uncontrollably politically provocative to ever be produced by anybody, or
°at very minimum to ensure that no such person of talent is ever able to create, become widely known, and thus acclaimed for their own merits as opposed to who they know or which gatekeeper they appeased
•to thus make art also entirely predictable, because it is not only meant to not
be provocative politically but more importantly to secure it from wild price fluctuations as a form of equity or financial instrument
•to institute such gatekeepers in the literary, musical, film, art and other creative fields to attain those ends
This is something designed specifically to prevent things like Guernica
, not to create them. It is deliberately designed to for instance thoroughly prevent the negative depiction of US imperialism anywhere, which is something they failed to do during the Vietnam war. Instead of anti-war songs we get Eminem singing "I'm a soulja" and shit like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewRjZoRtu0Y
to listen to on the radio at your bydlo job. It ensures that for instance all the original edginess of vidya has been bled out to the point where something like XCOM2 is super edgy, and meanwhile you will never find anything truly critical of say Middle Eastern policy or playing some Iraqi shooting at US soldiers to defend his country or whatever. Even some of the most maximum edgy films of the 90s like Fight Club got this treatment (which is sad they took out the line "I want to have your abortion") because these things are ultimately owned and controlled by the same complex.
Art should provoke and at times disturb. That isnt the problem. The problem is the complete opposite is happening, where performers don't even sing their own songs but instead lip sync on tour, where everything is manufactured and predictable, and where everything is meant to be as lukewarm and inoffensive as possible. Again, Andy Warhol's infamous Campbell's soup is a great example of this. It is a whole movement of elevator music, of the kind of inoffensive crap they play in the supermarket, extended to the visual arts, with the sole exception of carefully calculated amounts of the sexually risque so as to generate hype and a marketing buzz to sell more units.
Like you will notice hiphop that used to be a super edgy socially provocative thing got gradually turned into some horse manure solely about gettin bitches, selling hoes, muh dik muh gun sell drugs etc. And even then it gets even more watered down and that is the slop shovelled to everybody.
Meanwhile you will notice despite being wildly popular this guy gets no marketing and isn't signed by anybodyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u3JSEqNtlg