Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...we hear that a lot nowadays, especially with regards to art or beauty in general, along with: "Art isn't supposed to make sense, it's supposed to make you feel something." Yeah... I call bullshit on that. If the sole purpose of art were to be subjectively beautiful, in other words objectively ugly, art would not be considered a cultural staple, rather a form of vulgarity. Likewise, if the goal of art were simply to elicit feelings, then what does that say of a civilization whose art seeks to TAKE something FROM the people rather than adding something to their experience. Let's look at this fairly recent addition to the MOMA in NYC titled: House Poor:

:

This piece of "Art" comes from British conceptual artist Tracey Emin and was added in late 2017 to the Museum of Modern Art as a late follow up to her 1998 piece: "My Bed"

Now let me ask you...is this really art? And if it is, should it really be called that due to the baseless authority of Tracey herself? Can anything be called art, just because the artist says it is? Do you consider either of these two pieces creative? Inspiring? Beautiful? If you answered "yes" to any of the above, especially with regards to the MOMA's new addition "House Poor", please let it be known that "House Poor" doesn't exist. That's a picture of my room when I was moving furniture around. Stil, think the same way? I think not.

The problem with modern art isn't just the lack of creativity, it's the fact that the sole directive of it, is to elicit a response. Again, it seeks to take, rather than give. The majority of the time one feels as though their being mocked and having their intelligence made fun of, given they are told by the philistines of the wondrous and awe-inspiring new clothes worn by their emperor, yet they refuse to admit that their emperor is in fact naked.

Tracey Emin's Bed is not the only monstrosity to come out of the world of conceptual/modern art. Here are a few more:

"Fountain" - Marcel Duchamp - 1917

"Artist's Shit" Piero Manzoni - 1961

"Equivalent VIII" - Carl Andre - 1966

"An Oak Tree" - Michael Craig-Martin - 1973

"Piss Christ" - Andres Serrano - 1987

"Shitty" - Gilbert & George - 1994

"Levitated Mass" A.K.A. The $10 Million Rock - Michael Heizer - 2012

As I said before, art such as this receives so much hype, yet possesses very little substance. A pile of bricks, a Urinal signed "R. Mutt", Christ Submerged in Piss, a glass of water on a glass shelf accompanied by a dialogue explaining why the glass of water is an oak tree. Should art really be this effortless? This uncreative? This meaningless? Or should it be about beauty? I mean that's what the purpose of art has always been about for centuries. Creativity, effort, beauty, skill, the sublime vastness, and intricacy of composition, etc. True, there are some that may think the above works of art are indeed beautiful in their own way, but it does not change the fact that none of the above can measure up to the following pieces:

"La Pieta" - Michelangelo 1498-1499

"Michael" - Guido Reni -1636

"Oath Of The Horatii" - Jacques Louis David - 1786

"The Great Red Dragon And The Woman Clothed With The Sun" - William Blake - 1803-1805

"The Wanderer Above The Sea Of Fog" - Caspar David Friedrich - 1818

"L'Occhio Occidentale" - Nicola Samori - 2013

The detail alone in these pieces is enough to leave one speechless and moreover, there is more to be said about meaning in these as opposed to the modern conceptual pieces mentioned before.

The stupidity in modern art lies within its unimaginative LACK of creativity and its nihilistic attitudes towards the world. In comparison to the objective standards of beauty set by the classical art world, modern art seeks a more relativist point of view with regards to beauty. Art without beauty is like a $20 NY Strip Steak from Brooklyn without the flavor. Objective standards of beauty provide to art, what is most meaningful about it, and without meaning, art serves no point whatsoever. Beauty and overall creativity are above all else values, and in the absence of values, such as seen within modern art, there is nothing separating our views of the world from that of the savage animal kingdom, where the closest thing to creative art is the mundane balls of feces, the likes of which a common dung beetle is capable.

For more on this subject, PragerU made a video addressing this topic: