Modern Art is Rubbish

A few days ago I wandered round an art gallery. I quite like art. I like looking at interesting things that interesting people have made for interesting reasons. Sadly, the art on display was ‘modern’ art.

Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of artists in this modern period who create very exciting things that are enjoyable to look at and think about and quite a lot of them don’t really look much like the thing they represent. I understand the idea of abstraction in art, but wandering around that gallery, it really struck me that there is a lot of utter wank about that shouldn’t be displayed in a skip outside a house that is being pulled down because it was the site of a spate of horrific killings let alone a gallery.

I’m not particularly sharp when it comes to the history of art but from I can remember from school, the last 100 odd years has seen artists move away from accurate depictions of people, landscapes, bowls of fruit, etc and in a direction that questions the definition of art and seeks to explore whether or not it is possible to create visual representations of not visual concepts such as emotions, thoughts and socio-political ideas and ideals. This is all fair and good but you’d have thought that after all this time, the artists would’ve come even a tiny bit close to fulfilling at least one of these aims, but apparently they haven’t because art galleries are chock full of the same derivative, pseudo-intellectual posturings that only serve the purpose of convincing the artists themselves that they’re so much cleverer than everyone else because they’ve worked out how to spray paint a lump of wood green, hammer a couple of rusty bent nails into it and give it some sort of pretentious bullshit name like ‘love after midnight enema on Tuscan beach sky fairy’ or ‘wood and nails part 407.1b’

In the blurb accompanying one such artists work, he bragged about how he’d discovered holes and subsequently found a variety of materials to drill holes into and then mount on to Walls in galleries. Now excuse me for sounding a little like a philistine but I do find it difficult to take seriously the work of someone who happily states that in his early 30’s he discovered ‘holes’ as if they didn’t exist before he found out about them- as if he was some intrepid explorer in some undiscovered nook of he world who just happened to stumble upon the concept of something having a bit missing from the middle of it. He then proceeds to create about a hundred different variations on the same theme and then expects everyone else (who probably discovered the concept of holes whilst being pushed out of their mothers one on the day they were born) to be so very impressed by it.

I get that maybe he thinks that he’s being insightful and maybe a bit of wood spray painted green that’s been drilled a bit might, after a period of introspection, cause someone who looks at it to gain some useful insight into their own life but why be so brain-fuckingly full of yourself to proclaim that you discovered holes. I’m sure there are less ostentatious was of saying the same thing so why express yourself like the worst type of egotistical twat?

The other thing that bugged me about his work is that he honestly believed that he had stumbled upon the aesthetics of decay and entropy- the idea that imperfect used or damaged items can have a real sense of beauty that shiny fresh new things don’t. He might think he’s being original but zen Buddhism and in fact the Japanese in general (a whole nation of people, not just moron with too much free time on his hands) have been waxing lyrical about the concept of wabi sabi- the art of impermanence- for at least a couple of hundred years and they apply it to poetry, interior design, garden design, pottery, paintings, sculpture and loads of other artistic endeavours not just bits of badly painted wood with holes in.

Modern artists think they are so radical and anti-mainstream because they make their art out of any old crap lying around and it’s abstract and doesn’t look like the thing it’s supposed to represent but every day gallery is full of it so it’s really just the norm nowadays. Really, the people who go against the grain and are producing things that stand out are the old couple sitting on the hill painting the landscape with watercolours not caring one iota what everyone else thinks of their work. They paint for themselves and create what they see how they want to see it and don’t care if it never gets displayed in a gallery. In a time when people nail baked bean tin labels to driftwood, someone who tries to capture reality as how it strikes our eyeballs is the rebel who kicks against the pricks. Ironically, any of the old classic masters would nowadays be considered anti-mainstream and uncool and much more on a par with what Duchamp tried to do with his fountain. And because they spent so long trying to perfect the art of actually painting something so it looked identical to reality, they were better technically as artists too.

Fuck all modern artists! Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello and the other ninja turtle artists are the people we should be looking too if we want to learn something from art. Art needs a new renaissance or at the very least should try to work out a way of pulling its head out of its own stinking hole so it can have a look around and see what the world is like.

Stupid pandas should all just die.

Without a doubt, one of the most overrated species walking this planet is the panda.

This is in a zoo, imagine how much damage they do to themselves without

The giant panda, or to give its fancy Latin name, Ailuropoda melanoleuca (literally ‘black and White cat-foot), is a world-acknowledged icon of the conservation movement despite the fact that it would seem that the chubby white-faced buggers seemed determined to wipe themselves out of existence. To have these bamboo eating gits as a symbol of organisations dedicated to preserving endangered species is like Fathers 4 Justice conducting their next campaigned dressed as Josef Fritzel.

My reasons:

1) They don’t realise that they’re supposed to eat meat.

Pandas are classified as bears and, more importantly, carnivores. They have the teeth of carnivores, the build of carnivores and the digestive systems if carnivores. So what do they eat?

Bamboo.

They are meat eaters that only eat vegetation.

Why is it a bad thing for a carnivore to eat an almost exclusively vegetarian diet you ask? Well, how about the fact they can’t digest the damn stuff. They have to eat 9 to 14 kg of bamboo everyday just to get enough protein and energy to spend their entire waking day wandering around looking for more bamboo! They have to defecate up to 40 times a day and most of their shit is composed of undigested bamboo.

In essence, pandas are bamboo redistribution machines that can easily starve to death if they live in areas with low bamboo yields.

Because of their low caloric intake, these fluff-balls of vegi-poo don’t really have the energy for social interaction so in the wild they tend to avoid other pandas. This leads to my second problem with them.

2) Their inability to breed.

It’s a well-known fact that pandas very rarely breed in captivity and this has led to serious problems with our plans to stop them dying out. The only way really to get baby pandas is to artificially inseminate them as, once they’re in a zoo, the male panda turns into a six-year-old boy and no longer wants anything to do with the females as ‘girls smell and are pooey’. Not my words, the words of Ling-Ling (prove me wrong).

Before the idea came to scientists that the best way to get baby pandas was to milk daddy and squirt the results up mummy, they tried a whole bunch of ways to get the bears to get jiggy, not limited to but definitely including, giving them Viagra and showing them videos of other pandas mating.

I kid you not.

They showed them panda porn.

This has to be Photoshopped.

(this if course does make me wonder how they got hold of the stuff in the first place seeing as pandas seem to find the whole idea of shagging so unacceptable. I imagine somewhere a zoo keeper slipped a six-pack of beer and a couple of bottles of vodka into the enclosure whilst assuring the occupants that the video was just for his own personal use and was definitely not going to end up on the Internet.)

Evidently, little blue pills and grot tapes don’t do the business so the zoo equivalent of Robert Winston has to step in with some rubber gloves, KY jelly and an industrial sized turkey-baster to sort things out, but pandas aren’t particularly amorous outside their cages either.

When the chubby-funsters reach sexual maturity, the females are only fertile for about two to three days of the year so any willing males looking for some panda-poon (pan-poon if you wish) had better hope they’re close by when she’s offering it up or they’re gonna have to suffer from blue balls for another 12 months (or maybe not. Pandas have, over the years, developed a ‘thumb’ alongside their five fingers. Maybe that’s why they have no interest in breeding in captivity they’re too busy playing with little Ping-Pong whilst watch top quality panda porn [pan-porn] to have any interest in the ladies in the cage).

When they do get down to business, the male will ride the female for any amount of time between thirty seconds and five minutes and I’m pretty sure we’ve just found out why the ladies really have no interest in the guys. The males will however mount her several times to ensure successful fertilisation, presumably whilst complaining about having to do all the work and wondering if grizzlies have to put up with all this crap.

Once he’s done, the male leaves and let’s the fertilised female give birth in her own time and bring up his spawn all on her own. Don’t expect a March of the Pandas film to go down well with the ultra-conservative Christians who applauded the penguin movie for its promotion of family values.

Panda babies are small and vulnerable, in fact some would argue too small for the mother to do a decent job protecting them. Also, if she has twins, one has to be left to die as her crappy bamboo diet is so nutritionally poor, she doesn’t have the fat reserves to feed both of them.

Those main points again:

Pandas eat the wrong kind of food so they have to feed constantly and consequently never hibernate like other bears.

They don’t like each others company but if they do happen to meet up on the couple of days a year when the female is up for some heavy shagging, the male will climb aboard for a few minutes before buggering off to leave the inadequately prepared female to try to bring up the pup on her own.

And people think pandas are a good symbol to inspire the world to look after endangered species?

I’ll leave the last words to Chris Packham, naturalist and tv presenter from 2009:

‘it’s time to give up on the cute and cuddly [giant panda] because we just can’t afford it and we need to think of a much bigger picture […] Giant pandas cost too much to protect and should be allowed to become extinct.’

Which is a marginally less controversial rephrasing of his earlier comments in 2008:

‘I’d eat the last panda if I could have the money we’ve sent on panda conservation back on the table for me to do more sensible things with’

Well said that man.

Lol

In his Soapbox podcast series, David Mitchell explains that the reason he actual approves of the Internet expression ‘lol‘ is because it serves as a useful way of pointing out in an entirely written medium when something is supposed to be viewed as a joke.

As it is far too often that we see arguments break out online over what turns out to have been a joke, I am fully in agreement that lol has it’s use in the context. The thing that makes me angry about it is when it’s used at the end of statements that aren’t particularly funny or that don’t need clarification as to the intent of the writer.

‘Hope you are havign fun and not on your way to a new tension headache as the song goes lol xxx’

Because avoiding tension headaches is so amazingly funny.

‘I once dated a man much older, I couldn’t hack it and ran off. It was like datign yoru dad lol’

Good clarification there for anyone who believes dating your own dad is a great idea and the poster is recommending it. My favourite I saw the other day though:

‘ha ha! Lol’

As if there was any kind of misunderstanding about whether the author was amused by something.

“Just in case you didn’t realise that my words ‘ha ha’ referred to me laughing at something, I thought I’d clear it up by letting you know that I also laughed out loud at it too.”

But the thing about lol that angers me the most is actually the reverse of somebody typing it after a distinctly unfunny comment: when people literally laugh out loud in real life over stupid un-amusing things.

I know someone who does this and out of all her irritating behaviours, it’s the one that’s most likely going to drive me to violence.

She’ll be sitting there, reading something on her computer when she’ll break out into the most ostentatious laugh imaginable. Even the mouth-breathers at a Peter Kay show don’t wet themselves over the comic excellence of garlic bread (lol, if you too stupid to realise) over whatever she’s just digested from, invariably, the Daily Mail website. It’s the sort of laugh which is just begging you to stop whatever you’re doing and pay attention to her.

After asking her what is so funny, she then leaves an excruciating pause before relaying whatever crap she just read punctuated with another laugh at whatever aspect of it she thought was so mind-meltingly hilarious. The problem is:

Nothing she has ever read out has ever been funny in any way at all!

Not even vaguely amusing. Nothing that should even elicit the smallest of titters let alone the guffaws she so often emits. But she still does it and I resent her for wasting my time with it.

At first I used to let out a small laugh more out of social nicety then anything else but I’ve toned it down to a wry smile over the last month and I think the next step is to just stare at here for a second before returning to whatever I was doing before.

There is a part of me though that wants to laugh back. To open my mouth and scream in the most sarcastic manner possible, maybe even falling out of my chair at the hilarity of it all and literally roll on the floor laughing which would probably be the first time in history that anyone HAS rolled on the floor laughing but let’s not get into that.

But I don’t. I just get mildly annoyed and go back to my book until 2 minutes later she laughs out loud again and I have to go outside to kick a puppy.

I’m not claiming to have a higher understanding of comedy or anything like that, I just really don’t understand why she thinks the things she is laughing at are so funny that everybody else has to be in on the joke. Half the time, even the person who originally wrote the thing she was laughing at didn’t intend it to be funny. She gives out the same ludicrous reaction to the minutes from meetings she’s reading. When she reads it out to me, half the time I haven’t the slightest clue what she’s talking about let alone why it should be so underpant-fillingly amusing.

It’s not funny and I don’t care. There is no reason to lol over it and I think less of you because of it.