Fashionable Hypocrisy: The Convolution of 21st Century Art

Jimmi Hendrix once said that he doesn't fuck with politics because politics are "the art of words". That's what I don't understand about these cultural elitists in the art world. What makes an educated art historian's opinion on what is tight, any more credible than the average stoner who likes pretty colors and big flashing arrows pointing to a piece's thematic elements? Here's an answer given in one of the media's favorite mediums: Stereotypical discourse and generalization.

Cultural Elitist: This piece is marvelous because it conveys the abstraction of thought of the Post-Expressionist Period!
Stoner: This piece is dope because the colors are sick, and that decrepit elephant is trippy!
Cultural Elitist: (Feeling his educational background in jeopardy of irrelevance)Do you even know why you like this piece? Do you even know the artist's name?
Righteous Stoner : Kick back man, I think its a sick piece of art because I think it looks dope, just because I don't know the subconscious reasoning behind why I like it doesn't make me wrong. At the end of the day you're just another consumer Professor!

What gives the scholarly opinion of art relevance is terminology. Words and phrases describe artistic periods, methods, movements, and themes in order to provide definition to art. Businessmen, politicians, and ignorant isolationists of all types don't typically participate in art. On the other hand, beatniks, hipsters, and starving artists don't typically participate in political discussion either. This is the hypocrisy between the mainstream and grub street transients. Political figures stress their pragmatism and cut-and-dry policies free of abstraction, yet contradict the notion entirely in campaigning and political posturing. McCain takes a swipe in an ad, at a comment Obama makes. Completely taken out of context and applied to another issue, the McCain campaign has created its own meaning out of the piece (Obama's comment). Conversely, our cultural elitist condescends the uneducated patron for his lack of mastery on artistic verbiage to describe his interest in a piece. The meaning the two draw may be the same, yet their contentions are over WORDS. What is good art? Quite a political discussion!

It's pretty pathetic how things come full circle socially. Society has globalized, but at the end of it all, we're still a bunch of nomadic tribes finding our niche. The Internet has made the export of art INFINITE in possibilities, yet here we are with the same ancient, dichotomous pursuit of the distinction between right and wrong, dope and wack. Institutionalizing art has exacerbated this divide, between those who seek truth, and those who seek why it is the truth. Simply put, organizing modern art into prerequisite categories has confined the art world to its terminology. The average Gap wearing, Pepsi drinking, modern American kid is not interested in art for the most part. However, his ignorance to art is not necessarily a product of his consumer behavior, his preferred interests. The pretentious Art History academics are equally to blame. These are the cultural elitists who have isolated themselves to a bourgeoisie guild of cynics and posthumous-dwelling groupies who reject the uninformed. Maybe it is for the fear of modern society precipitated by modern art itself, but the lack of dynamic progress in the today's art is puzzling, given the unlimited recources for exposure with the advent of the Internet. Recognizable art rises from obscurity, not from academic perspective on recognizable art. WE HAVE GOT TO BRIDGE THE GAP MY PEOPLE. That's what Grub Street is about, providing exposure to good art EVERYWHERE. No background checks, no credentials neccesary, if your art is dynamic, we want to bring it to the surface. Pack this one in your lunch box for art school: Fuck a high education, we keep our ear to the street.

-Ill Gates