For what I think would be my first high effort tweet, let's talk about modern/abstract/avantgarde art:

Many (most of you) will say "grr modern art bad". And from the perspective that art should be accessible, it is.

1/???

But from the elitist "the chewing gum is not for the peasant" perspective and mentality prevalent in artistic and intellectual circles, it is good. Extremely exclusive, yet allows the opportunity to sell it for hilarious prices to new money nitwits who just want to be cool.

2/?

Now, the question arises, of WHY is modern art so exclusive and incomprehensible, then? Now, anyone who has dabbled in the field themselves will understand why, but the laymen won't.

But there's an example most of them (and people in general) are familiar with: memes.

3/?

Some claim they're a form of art on their own (and they're right).

Anyone who has spent enough time on the internet will notice that there are multiple "kinds" of memes, and each one is associated with a certain time period.

4/?

"Post card" type images containing a humorous quip, raunchy tabloid comics, advice animals, rage comics, surreal memes, YTP and so on and so forth.

You'll notice that the earlier forms are very "realistic", and the further down you go, the more extreme they get.

5/?

As more and more layers of abstraction, irony and surrealism are added, the more context you need to comprehend the end result.

Your grandma chuckles at the low-res image of a coffee mug with fancy letters saying "GOOD MORNING" next to it. For you, that no longer cuts it.

6/?

This effect goes on and on, and you get the meme equivalent of whatever is the latest mainstream art movement is:

21st century humor.

Practically nobody finds this funny among the "normies". It requires knowledge and experience of practically every "meme period" prior.

7/?

Chances are that if your grandma, or almost anyone you know irl sees you laughing at those memes, they'll say you should be put in a nuthouse (and you probably should).

Art works exactly the same. Practically every painter starts from realism.

You are an aspiring painter. Let's say you start to practice at age 20. In about a year and a half of constant practice you can make a good portrait of anyone. Total realism, better than a photograph.

Novice you would be proud, but you're bored. You decide to spice it up.

9/?

You add a bit of surrealism or abstraction. While your realistic works grabbed a lot of attention from normies and laymen, now there's slightly less of them, and slightly more pseudointellectuals. "Oooh, I'm a true artist now, not just an artisan." You think to yourself.

10/?

This goes on and on and on until you're making smudges, your audience are a bunch of insufferable elitists and mobsters who pretend to get it but don't, and money laundering art dealers. But the normies, apart from those who were along you for every step of your way?

11/?

They don't like your stuff anymore, they even insult and belittle you. Those ingrates, they don't understand how much you've been thr-

Exactly. They don't have the context. IF the fame and attention hadn't gotten to your head, you'd understand, you'd remember how you used to be.

But too late, you're a fully elitist prick, in the worst way possible, just like your new artsy fartsy friends. You start barking how they're a bunch of dumb animals or whatever insulting comparison you can think of. Wah wah cry cry sob sob.

This backfires. The plebs now fully hate you, they vandalize your works, or even attack you personally.

Why? Because you were dumb and abrasive, and as one of my favorite bloggers says, stupidity must be punished.

What's my take on this?

Being quite an edgy fuck myself (5 picoseconds of looking at my tweets is enough to confirm), I do understand these things and such people.

There must be a balance. Always remember who you are and that nobody is born an artist. Throw "der normie" a bone. Be nice. Be open.

But that doesn't mean that you should stop experimenting and developing things further. Syncretize. Start over from realism and take things in new directions. Support novice artists who provide most of the content desired by the normies. Don't become alienated from everyone.

Now digital art is a bit different. Instead of going into further abstraction, it just becomes more degenerate 90% of the time, no doubt because you can milk it for mad cash, and it's far faster than traditional "meatspace" art. Very close to commercial "art".

Anyways, we're not going to deal with that today. Now we're going into hot take territory.

Call this process "oligarchization". Art effectively becoming an oligarchy. It's actually very political because these "art oligarchs" are the cultural and intellectual elite.

This allows them to wield quite the influence in society, far outside their realm of work. Especially since the government and the bureaucracy consists of people with the "new money nitwit" mentality. The entire wokeness movement functions this way.

Now, a government of artists isn't a bad thing - if they're humble and don't have a superiority complex. But due to the hyper-individualistic nature of our times (helped by the domineering art elite, effectively meaning we're in a feedback loop or a vicious cycle), it's bad.

A literal tumor of intelligentsia forms, with their imbecilic ideas and all discussion is shut down by their screeching of "reeee you don't have the right credentials you're not an expert like we are". Artists, scientists, everyone. They - elite. You - shit.

And if this goes on too far, the normies will rebel and the guillotines get to work.

In especially severe case even the new government will have this problem in it's initial stage until it switches to populism (Revolutionary France, the USSR).

This is going on today. First artists became woketards, then the scientists and almost at the same time, many normies, due to the nature of modern media. Yet the elite hates even their loyal normies, really. And the loyal normies are even more extreme and rabid than the elite!

We all know how this will end. The elite gets overthrown, replaced with the elite 2.0 "extra insane" edition, then the said elite gets replaced too from the inside out with a syncretic populist-elitist candidate - a Napoleon (or in a worse case, Stalin) type figure.

And we all know that those types of leaders were always the most popular and the "important men". World-changers.

Anyways I no longer even know what I'm talking about, thanks for coming to my TED talk, now give yourself schizophrenia, this is a threat.

The end.