Why Is Modern Art So Bad? (Video by Robert Florczak) The Society April 29, 2016 Art, Essays, News of Note, Video 11 Comments See full Epoch Times article on Robert Florczak. Views expressed by individual poets and writers on this website and by commenters do not represent the views of the entire Society. The comments section on regular posts is meant to be a place for civil and fruitful discussion. Pseudonyms are discouraged. The individual poet or writer featured in a post has the ability to remove any or all comments by emailing submissions@ classicalpoets.org with the details and under the subject title “Remove Comment.” Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Related 11 Responses Alan W. Jankowski April 29, 2016 Yeah…I’ve seen this video a couple of years ago…as he notes, the problem is the people who support this sort of thing, and are willing to pay $10 Million for a rock that perpetuates the problem. Btw, if you know anyone looking to buy a rock for $10 Million, please have them give me a call…thanks… Reply Reid McGrath April 29, 2016 Hahaha. Love it, Alan. Reply Benjamen Grinberg April 30, 2016 It’s funny but I was thinking that the only reason I’m not interested in something is because I did not understand it. That’s not the key reason why modern art is awful. But I think it’s the easiest to find. Reply Damian Robin May 1, 2016 I think there’s a case for the rock being brought from the wilderness to the city — if that’s where it has come from. It’s like having petting zoos in cities for children who don’t get out of the city to see cows or rabbits in open country or farms. People could come to the local academic or municipal site to pet the rock. — I haven’t looked at this rock. I have looked at rocks in the wild and seen lots of photos and drawings of rocks. I don’t feel I need a rock to be brought near to me but can see that people on low income who are urbanised and trapped by lack of cash, work, or family commitments, and can’t travel — they would benefit from seeing, touching, and maybe climbing a rock. The best venue would be near their homes. Somewhere they could reach it easily. — However, would it not be better to take people to see rocks? That would be cheaper. And more environmentally sound. That would be more educational. And potentially mind-broadening. And the rock would remain in its natural habitat. And be less traumatised. Reply Alan W. Jankowski May 1, 2016 They should at least bring another rock in to keep it company…this way it won’t feel so lonely…seems only right to me… Reply Damian Robin May 7, 2016 Yes, rocks have feelings, this we all know, It’s just their reactions are terribly slow. Neal May 2, 2016 Words such as “tired and spent” occupy the Softsoap side of M.A.’s analysis. “Exhausted, empty, and heaving” form the Clorox triumvirate. Mostly true. When I hear of such in a fine old building, I think “Well that’s all they have.” Reply Damian Robin May 2, 2016 Hi Neal, can you help me? M.A. = Modern art? Clorox triumvirate = ?? Thanks in anticipation. D Reply james sale May 5, 2016 Robert is so right; there are standards and their absence has led to the crisis we are in. When we worship ugliness, eventually we get round to acting ugly and becoming what we enact. Reply Damian Robin September 14, 2016 http://en.minghui.org/html/articles/2016/9/14/158781.html Reply Damian Robin September 14, 2016 http://www.thebookoflife.org/gongshi/ Reply Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Your email address will not be published.CommentName* Email* Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.