Skip to content

Art or Fart

August 29, 2011

I went to the big ol’ art gallery yesterday.

Walking around that place, I’m looking at priceless works of art. “Oooh, nipples over here. Some more nipples over there.” Apparently boobies equals art.

That led me to the realization that in five hundreds years, future generations are going to view our pornography as high art. One day, university students are going to sit back and debate who was most influential on post-modern expressionism, Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt. (Even though we all know its Bob Guccione.) Can you imagine that? In five hundred years, there is going to be a spread of Jenna Jameson framed and hanging in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

And that was all just from walking around the first floor of the museum. Once I got to the fourth and fifth floor, I saw a whole series of paintings and such featuring three poodles having sex with each other. Apparently, the dogs playing poker is just a pretense those dogs tell their wives so they can go have a menage a trois.

Just the night before, As Good As It Gets was on television. Remember that movie where Jack plays a guy with obsessive compulsive disorder? Pretty cool, right? There’s one scene where Greg Kinnear is talking to Helen Hunt about how he used to paint his mother in the nude and then his father found out. He defended his actions to his father by saying “She’s not naked, its art.” No, she’s naked.

Why do women have to be naked for it to be art?

This was this one painting, I forget who its by or what its called, but in the background is a woman wearing a shirt, but one of her tits has popped out of the shirt. Was that really necessary? No it wasn’t. It was just a cheap opportunity to show titties. Hey, its art. Nipples galore!

At the museum, there was a special exhibit of abstract expressionism on loan from the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Have you ever seen this stuff? Jackson Pollack was the only name I recognized in there but I did remember some of the pieces from when I visited the MoMA last year. There was this one series of pieces, canvases painted with a single shade of maroon, then one red line running vertically down the maroon field. Why is this art?

I will tell you why its art. A bunch of people who’ve spent too many years in school avoiding having to work a real job, sat down and decided that it is art then convinced some rich people who have too much money that because its art, its worth a fuckload of money. So then the rich people buy the red line on a maroon field and hang it in their house until they get bored with it. Once bored with it, the rich people donate it to a museum and are granted a tax credit for their altruistic intentions.

At least the “art” with the naked ladies has naked ladies in it. This is just a red line. A painting of a naked lady serves one function that I can think of. It involves me touching myself but at least that’s something. Personally, I prefer Larry Flynt to Pablo Picasso but that’s me. You need to see a woman’s nose protruding from above her left eye to get a hard on, be my guest. But that little red line, I can’t imagine what kind of demented mind uses that to get off.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. August 29, 2011 11:25 am

    I always feel like a mindless simpleton when it comes to modern art. I really don’t get a lot of it, even though I’ve been trained in it.

    Its all just some bullshit guys use to get laid. I’m certain of it.

  2. Riot Kitty permalink
    August 30, 2011 12:08 am

    Why do women have to be naked for it to be art?
    *THANK YOU!*

    “They don’t have to be naked, but it sure helps.” hehehe

    I’ve never understood why. It just makes me feel kinda pervy looking at art featuring naked women.

  3. August 30, 2011 1:09 pm

    So you’re saying that we should rename the AGO to “The Nipples Centre”?

    Or possibly The Nipple Gallery of Ontario.

  4. September 2, 2011 12:44 am

    Boobs are beautiful, heh. All guys know that!

    Sometimes I think artists are just trying to be titillating so people don’t notice how really untalented they are. Which is the category I think “modern art” belongs in. Have you seen that mosquito thing in Daley Plaza?

    Or the bean?

    Oy vey.

    All of these artists are no more talented than Larry Flynt. And the only thing Flynt did was point the camera at the coochie. I’m not sure if that even requires a talent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: