Right wing artist is suing to get his crap in the Smithsonian

Nov 2013
10,533
10,004
NY
#61
Interest or not, the Smithsonian gets 65% of its funding from the federal government; ie taxpayers. We are all entitled to our opinion how the Smithsonian operates.
you're also entitled to an opinion as to how the DMV (100% government funded) operates.. but nobopdy gives a dime about your opinion.
Same with the Smithonian.
And any crappy artist thinking he can "sue" himself into a museum, already admits that his work alone, is just not good enough.
 
Likes: StanStill

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
104,794
93,886
Most Insidious
#62
An artist demanding his work be accepted, appreciated and displayed in the Smithsonian?

What an entitled ass.
 

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
12,442
13,745
Work
#63
Although maybe he was just helping to fulfill the prediction of a real artist:



He might have run over by a few minutes, but close enough.
 
Apr 2015
1,293
426
Mid ATL
#64
you're also entitled to an opinion as to how the DMV (100% government funded) operates.. but nobopdy gives a dime about your opinion.
Same with the Smithonian.
And any crappy artist thinking he can "sue" himself into a museum, already admits that his work alone, is just not good enough.
Nobody cares, but the man gets his day in court.
 
Jan 2016
50,039
45,998
Colorado
#65
Crap is crap. You could be 200ft away from this image and see it's crap. It's that much crap.

If it was on a table, it would be a table full of crap.

Most artists shoot for local galleries, not the Smithsonian. However if he makes a big enough stink and waits 200 years after his own passing, he might make it in.

Crap From the Past

Like a craft fair, table full of homemade earrings and bracelets, made of macaroni and shells and burlap yarn, an entire table of shit - behind that sitting in the back - brought just in case today someone buys it - is this dude's painting.

That's my review of this piece.
I gave my very careful and considered review of this work of 'art' in post #5, and have seen no reason to alter my opinion.
 
Jan 2016
50,039
45,998
Colorado
#67
There's nothing snobbish about seeing that the "art" in question is at best a technically competent rendering of some subjects in an idealized fashion. There's no depth or room to ponder the meaning. There's almost no technique.

I would argue that this silly allegorical painting at least demonstrates some painterly skill. If I had to choose, I'd put this in the Smithsonian before I'd put the Trump-eagle billboard.

I wonder if this artist is an in-law of the artist in the OP. Twin sons of different mothers, or something?
 
Likes: Davocrat