Culture

Modern Art: The Crowning Jewel Of Weimerica

Submitted by Trey Knickerbocker

**

A drug addled, rumored and likely bisexual, multiracial, third world, graffiti vandal from Brooklyn just had painting sell for over 100 million dollars that a three-year-old could have made in art class.

“A Basquiat Sells for ‘Mind-Blowing’ $110.5 Million at Auction”

Who is Basquiat and why should I care, you ask? He has been credited by many as reviving American art in the late 20th century; however, nothing could be further from the truth.

Basquiat was mentored and legitimized by Andy Warhol, another degenerate who is famous for painting a Campbell’s soup can. Basquiat, along with a friend, originally became famous by spray painting (tagging) random nonsense all over NYC buildings that the leftists went orgasmic over.

The two men called themselves SAMO. Franklin Sirmans wrote of them,

“SAMO (for “same old”) marked the witty sayings of a precocious and worldly teenage mind that, even at that early juncture, saw the world in shades of gray, fearlessly juxtaposing corporate commodity structures with the social milieu he wished to enter: the predominantly white art world.  ”

An example of one of their tags was, “”BIG-MAC” CERTIFICATE”

You. Cannot. Get. Any. Deeper! Or maybe we all just smell the bullshit radiating from the absurdity.

Basquiat died of a heroin overdose in 1988, and many rich and famous people attended his funeral and mourned the death of this avant-garde titan of art.

Back to Basquiat’s painting in question. One could easily determine from that amount of money spent on this painting that it must certainly be something so awe-inspiring and revolutionary from someone beyond the pale that it is difficult to find the adjectives to describe them. The short answer is no. Look at it. The very supposition is as fraudulent as a Nigerian investment deal.

While in college, I took a mandatory Art History course. In all honesty, I loved the class, that is, until we reached the Modern Art section. There, I was supposed to pretend that a hack like Jackson Pollack, who threw paint at a canvas, was just another great artist that could easily be described with the exact same accolades as Donatello, Rembrandt, or Joseph Turner. I absolutely refused then, and refuse now, to even entertain that brand of insanity.

Let’s be honest. Modern Art is total garbage. It is completely based in degeneracy and is very Semitic. It is meant to be ugly and meaningless to illicit a visceral reaction or indoctrinate rather than be an expression of beauty and accomplishment. Modern art does not strive towards greatness like White art historically has. White art has always been an expression of our conquering spirit, hatred of hypocrisy, bravery, and complexity. Now, a turd with an embedded birthday candle encased in glass is touted as the most daring and provocative conception ever created. If you compare art like that to Michelangelo’s, who often took years and used several apprentices toiling day and night to create truly inspirational masterpieces, it is laughable and ridiculous. Those ancient men made sure every detail was extraordinarily precise to the point of near perfection.

In fact, Modern art is not really art at all. It is just another commodity that can be bought and sold like a stock. It is easily created and transported, much like Bitcoin. Oligarchs take their ill-gotten gains, and use them to buy these hideous creations. The perception of their value is their only real value. The oligarchs’ rationale on buying this art is summed up well by the following:

“There are…ways, and means to avoid this “maximum uncertainty on the issue of value. Dealers especially are extremely inventive when it comes to rendering this price plausible. One popular method is to refer to the production costs, making the price appear justified in objective terms. For modern painting, a ‘coefficient’ has been invented for this purpose, taking age, size, artist’s reputation and other factors into account in order to calculate the price in such a way as to avoid the question of value” Graw, I.  (2009). High Price: Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture. Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2009.

The recent destruction of various Confederate statues around the U.S. is just another extension of this Modern art culture that has been dropped on us like an anvil from a skyscraper. This Modern art form is in large part due to the direct import of foreign peoples and ideas to our homelands. They are destroying the symbols of us, and eventually, they will be literally coming for us. We are being marginalized and subjugated at an astonishing pace, so we must act quickly.

It is undeniable that those of us in the AltRight movement need to slay the dragon called Modern art. Modern art is one of the most vital tools of the invaders. These outsiders wish nothing more than to destroy us and our future. Therefore, we must create our own art for our own people- an expression of us. No longer can we allow non-Whites to define our spirit, music, cinema, literature, or who we are.

Here is our future if we do not act:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”- George Orwell

We MUST control the present, and that begins with the destruction of Modern art!

Comment

79 comments

  1. Derek R. Audette 25 May, 2017 at 15:03 Reply

    Hmmm… Fascists being disdainful of “degenerate art”. The more things change… huh?

  2. Mike Summerfield 22 May, 2017 at 09:58 Reply

    I have seen this kind of crap in a gallery in Seattle when I lived there 20 years ago. All the self important rich idiots drinking wine, saying; “I can see this” or “I can see that” while staring at some splotches of paint that don’t look any different than the rear end of a house painter’s truck. As an artist, I am disgusted that people consider this crap art. While a truly exceptional artist is starving and cant make ends meet they give up art for some miserable job….

    • Yehudah Finkelstein 22 May, 2017 at 09:38 Reply

      Yup. I recall Rooney trashing Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love the week Cobain. Gen Xers were triggered when Rooney said Cobain wasted his life using heroin, and that his suicide meant he should not be celebrated publically.

  3. Moishe-the-Beagle 22 May, 2017 at 02:35 Reply

    This site should open an art/literature section. Or it could just be the existing ‘culture’ section with the addition of paintings, poems, etc. Would need to have rigorous standards, obviously.

    • White Mothership 22 May, 2017 at 02:45 Reply

      Yes, that is a good suggestion. However, I doubt there is much that embodies the values that we hold that are made today, however. The art world is so degenerate these days that I doubt anything would be lost if they all were forced to work at mcdonalds instead.

      One solution today could be to to write some pieces on some older important works.

  4. SLCain 21 May, 2017 at 16:23 Reply

    If it were to be known tomorrow that Beethoven’s 5th symphony or Chopin’s Raindrop Prelude were not written by them, but by some unknown imposter, would they lose their value? Would musicians stop playing those pieces, or people stop listening to them? No. Would people pay as much for a painting by Rembrandt, if it turned out that Rembrandt hadn’t painted it? Probably not, but they would still pay something; it would still have some value.

    If, on the other hand, it turned out that this graffito by a dead junkie were not a “Basquiat”, but was instead painted by someone else, what would happen to it’s “value”? It would probably plummet to zero.

    So-called “Serious Art” has been crap for so long that it is a cliche. I would prize just about any pastel print I picked up at a swap-meet, any painting of dogs playing poker, any velvet Elvis or hand-carved dashboard Jesus, more highly than the entire inventory of the New York MOMA.

    • Dymitry 21 May, 2017 at 16:37 Reply

      “Would people pay as much for a painting by Rembrandt, if it turned out
      that Rembrandt hadn’t painted it? Probably not, but they would still
      pay something; it would still have some value.”

      Historical art prices are indeed somewhat less affected by name than modern art prices. Gerard de Lairesse or Caesar von Everdingen paintings sell for much less than Rembrandts, but are still well out of the range of most people.

  5. Dymitry 21 May, 2017 at 16:19 Reply

    “It is completely based in degeneracy and is very Semitic.”

    Or more accurately, it is most compatible with a secular yiddish mindset, although it originates from corrupted European Romantic ideas.

    “Modern art does not strive towards greatness like White art historically has. White art has always been an expression of our conquering spirit, hatred of hypocrisy, bravery, and complexity. Now, a turd with an embedded birthday candle encased in glass is touted as the most daring and provocative conception ever created. If you compare art like that to Michelangelo’s, who often took years and used several apprentices toiling day and night to create truly inspirational masterpieces, it is laughable and ridiculous. Those ancient men made sure every detail was extraordinarily precise to the point of near perfection.”

    Correct, but traditional civilisations whose art lacked European standards of realism would also condemn modern art, because it exists only for purposes that prevent them from seeing it as art.

    “Modern art is one of the most vital tools of the invaders. These outsiders wish nothing more than to destroy us and our future. Therefore, we must create our own art for our own people- an expression of us.”

    While true, modern art is also somewhat of a niche interest; modern architecture and music are even more vital tools because people are almost constantly exposed to them.

  6. James Cash 21 May, 2017 at 16:10 Reply

    Just watched “With Open Gates”, the video at the end if this article…I always knew the immigration (invading really) was a major issue but watching that video did something to me no article ever has before. How emotionally powerful. Never before have I felt such conviction for our cause. Please share the video with who ever you can.

  7. Marathon-Youth 21 May, 2017 at 15:08 Reply

    I got to really share this since I just got bumped out of a liberal website because a commenter trolled me and singled me out using slurs. I should have simply flagged “him” but I engaged with equal hostility and “he” must have flagged me. I was bumped out of a liberal website even though both of us engaged in hostile and ugly words.
    That led me to this conclusion:

    There is one overriding reason why I openly oppose minority rights. Minorities regardless if they are black, Muslim, Jew, Gay, Latino, will not hesitate to abuse the majority given a moment’s chance.

    From black gangs to even the disinterested black store clerk they will do to you everything they do not want done to them, especially if they have some kind of power and are angry when things do. . not …go … their way.

    In that sense these minorities screaming for equality and “human rights” abuse them and not hesitate to do to us what they do not want done to them. they are NOT made into better people with more rights.

    example: blacks should be better people since segregation ended. They are not. They are far more violent and hateful than blacks even in the early 70’s just after the “Civil Rights Act”

    Blacks (and Jews) are the most affluent and influential communities in the world. There should not be any problems for them that their elite cannot solve. not even Ghettos. There is no reason for hatred of whites or bigotry against whites after what they have achieved and what society has given them yet they fail in the very things they want to change in the majority whites.

    • Johnny Fash 21 May, 2017 at 15:15 Reply

      More Europeans were brought to Africa in the barbary slave trade, than blacks were brought to America and you don’t see us whining. That’s why they should NOT have removed any confederate statues to make them happy. Next they’ll be going after Mt. Rushmore. Their chronic complainers and they recongnize us as pushovers. Eventually we just have to treat them like the children that they are, put our foot down and tell them NO.

      • Marathon-Youth 21 May, 2017 at 15:50 Reply

        I know they are. They become worse not better. The stripping of 3 monuments in New Orleans should have got more heated action. I guess many whites are beaten to believe the myth of the War.

        But also laws were passed to stop further monuments being removed. That is partly why they rushed in order to beat that deadline.

        Another state passed a law limiting any monument that is over 40 years old from ever being removed regardless what it is.

        • Johnny Fash 21 May, 2017 at 16:47 Reply

          That’s good to hear. Those statues getting removed triggered me like crazy and I’m neither American or a Southerner.

  8. Gubbler Chechenova 21 May, 2017 at 14:35 Reply

    It’s been discussed that the CIA and Deep State promoted Abstract Art as ideological weapon during the Cold War.

    When will people discuss the fact that Homomania is now the #1 ideological weapon of Jew-run US globalism in the Sold War.

  9. Gubbler Chechenova 21 May, 2017 at 14:09 Reply

    Basquiat was not modern art.That was crappy Pop Art.

    Now, it might as well be called Investment Art. It’s for laundering money of oligarchs.

    Modern Art gave us greats like Dali.

    Btw, Jonathan Bowden’s art was hardly better than Basquiat’s.

    And let’s forget the sheer degeneracy of Black Metal, which is ugly noise.

  10. Hipster Racist 21 May, 2017 at 13:57 Reply

    The theory goes that the art world is essentially an elaborate money laundering scam. I’ve been to plenty of art shows with this sort of thing. Universally, people gulp down the free liquor and tell snide jokes about the “art.”

    It’s like hipsters girls wearing hideous clothes from thrift shops and telling each other how awful they look. Or how Hollywood movie take a super gorgeous women and put her in thick glasses to represent the “ugly wallflower girl.” It’s a complex form of status signaling. It’s kind of like the “pig parties” where a frat invites ugly girls on purpose as a cruel prank.

    If they can sucker some rich moron into buying hysterically overpriced “art” all the better; a sucker and his money is soon parted.

  11. MBlanc46 21 May, 2017 at 13:37 Reply

    All art is a commodity to be bought and sold, like stock. Modern art is no different to renaissance art or nineteenth-century art in that regard. Such difference is that today the buyers tend to be institutions such as museums, foundations, and corporations rather than individuals.

  12. Marathon-Youth 21 May, 2017 at 11:44 Reply

    Whatever one can tell about Jews they are lousy at art.

    the great period of European art (outside of Greece, Rome, Minoan civil, Byzantine Empire ) is between the 7th to 8th century to the 19th century.

    During this time Christian artists gave expression to Christianity, Ancient Rome, Greece, to Judaism. Even though Judaism forbid imagery Christian artists during the Renaissance gave that faith her “face”.

    The face of God the Father in the Sistine Chapel is the face of Jupiter to Zeus. Other notable examples include Genesis (Creation of Adam) to the statue of “David” of Florence, “Moses” in the Ufizzi to a long list of paintings and sculptures. If not for the Renaissance Judaism would have no iconic art. none. Christian artists using Greco Roman traditions also did the same for ancient Rome as in the “Birth of Venus” to thousands of art.

    Jews were central to banks, the Universities of art, and high culture… but produced little if anything of great value. The only time Jews played prominent role in art is in Modern art.

    PS: that also includes the composers such a Beethoven and Strauss , Opera and ballet.

  13. Albionic American 21 May, 2017 at 10:44 Reply

    The philosopher William Barrett in one of his books argues that the current art in Western culture reflects the prevailing beliefs about man’s nature. Given white people’s accomplishments in the past few centuries, you’d think our art would make us look a lot better than what we see coming from our so-called “artists.”

    Of course, when Jews have hijacked the role of producing our culture’s ideas, and when they really don’t like us, then the art we do see in response to the artificial Zeitgeist they have imposed on us starts to make sense.

    • Krafty Wurker 21 May, 2017 at 11:47 Reply

      I had a Jewish woman tell me that she was “a non-representational artist”. I told her, yeah that’s how my stuff mostly turns out too, even if I didn’t intend it to be that way. LOL.

    • Yehudah Finkelstein 21 May, 2017 at 12:36 Reply

      Jews suck at producing thoughts and ideas.

      One decent philosopher in their whole history, Spinoza, who was an incomprehensible bore and utilized Typical Talmudic logic to deconstruct the Western philosophical canon. And every 20th century Jew philosopher like Derrida or Arendt all just blatantly plagiarize Heidegger.Their main modern contribution, the Frankfurt School, is more deconstruction of Western norms rather than building up and creating something great.

      Terrible classical composers like Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer who lacked any creative genius and produced bland, insipid music. In modern times, Jews were behind the moron music known as Jazz.

      I can’t even think of any good Jew figures in literature or Art.

      • Dymitry 21 May, 2017 at 16:24 Reply

        The only thing jazz “musicians” have is manual dexterity, which turbofolk or underground metal bands also have.

        It would take too long to properly explain just how irrational jazz is, but it is worth noting that the illusion of improvisational geeeenius is created by reducing coherence, namely:

        1. Using chords that have so many notes artificially added to them that they include the majority of the scale in one chord. Not occasionally towards the end of phrases like in some classical music, but constantly. The chords themselves will sound worse, but random notes are less likely to sound like obvious mistakes because they will not clash as strongly.

        2. Using fast scale runs, which obscures the notes outside of the chord being played over, in favor of trill/mordent type ornamentation, which draws extra attention if used on a wrong note.

        3. Using irrational rhythms, because clashing notes are more obvious where they synchronise most strongly with a regular rhythm.

        It is also comical just how defensive jazz fans are if you expose this. Some of the worst are classical musicians who also listen to jazz, which seems to be most of them now for some reason.

        • White Mothership 22 May, 2017 at 02:56 Reply

          Do you have any link to something like a traditionalist critique of jazz or somebody writing about the irrational and degenerate nature of jazz? I used to like jazz a lot and still somewhat do, though I rarely listen to it these days.

          Obviously i must purge myself of this judeo-african degeneracy.

        • Ken 22 May, 2017 at 05:05 Reply

          As a life long student of music, I could not agree more. It is pseudo-intellectual garbage that appeals only to people with sick minds or vacuous minds.

      • Stefano 22 May, 2017 at 13:08 Reply

        There can always be that one Jewish born exception…
        Murray N.Rothbard was a clear genius ,also perfectly logical and comprehensible ,no doubt about it.
        And, tendentially ,he was a white nationalist too,supporting the Dixiecrats,David Duke,Franco,the Afrikaneer state,Pat Buchanan …
        He is the one who actually wrote the famous racist parts of the Ron Paul Newsletter which made so much noise during the 2011-12 republican primaries.

        I would call him:
        The One Jewish Exception.

        • Smash Islamophobia 23 May, 2017 at 00:02 Reply

          Well, there’s Benjamin Freedman, Bobby Fischer, and a few more. I still think that one of Rothbard’s greatest contributions was his answer to the perennial “Communism is great in theory, but has problems in practice” claim.

          ” If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.

          Suppose, for example, that it has come to be adopted as a universal ethical goal that all men be able to fly by flapping their arms. Let us assume that “pro-flappers” have been generally conceded the beauty and goodness of their goal, but have been criticized as “impractical.” But the result is unending social misery as society tries continually to move in the direction of arm-flying, and the preachers of arm-flapping make everyone’s lives miserable for being either lax or sinful enough not to live up to the common ideal. The proper critique here is to challenge the “ideal” goal itself; to point out that the goal itself is impossible in view of the physical nature of man and the universe; and, therefore, to free mankind from its enslavement to an inherently impossible and, hence, evil goal. But this liberation could never occur so long as the anti-armfliers continued to be solely in the realm of the “practical” and to concede ethics and “idealism” to the high priests of arm-flying. The challenge must take place at the core – at the presumed ethical superiority of a nonsensical goal. The same, I hold, is true of the egalitarian ideal, except that its social consequences are far more pernicious than an endless quest for man’s flying unaided. For the condition of equality would wreak far more damage upon mankind.”

  14. James Cash 21 May, 2017 at 10:40 Reply

    I just heard about this painting on NPR this morning. They were gushing over this nonsense, applying a lot of descriptive terms to make it sound so deep and intentional. Then they kept using the term “people of color”. This goes deeper than just modern art. It’s a reflection of a culture that praises and rewards mediocrity (that’s to kind a word) in the name of inclusion. Can you say “affirmative action”?

    • GermanEngineered 21 May, 2017 at 13:25 Reply

      There are a lot of interesting articles and excerpts from various books about the art of hiding money. See what I did there? An asset, such as artwork, is a way to mask actual personal holdings to lower taxable dollars.

  15. Johnny Fash 21 May, 2017 at 08:08 Reply

    I actually really like a lot of the early Surrealist, Dada and especially Futurist painters of the Post-World War I era. But their innovations did definently open the gates up for a lot of imposters who adopted the style but who lack the substance. Art embodies the culture of the people who created it. We live in late stage Kali Yuga, so it would make sense that the Art of out time lacks substance or cohesiveness. When the Futurists broke from realism their was meaning and intent behind it.

    I don’t feel this same sense of meaning and purpose in Basquiats works or any other post World War II modern art. I think it’s a case of style over substance. Fix the culture and you’ll get better art.

    • Krafty Wurker 21 May, 2017 at 08:55 Reply

      Good comment. I don’t think it’s possible to “fix” a culture. But, I think it is possible to offer alternatives to a culture, or in the case of Basquiat, a New York City sub-culture. If Basquiat can do it—you can do it.

      • Johnny Fash 21 May, 2017 at 09:03 Reply

        We already are doing it. The Alt-Right is essentially a subculture of young people who celebrate traditional culture. Once our ideas become dominant the normies will fall into line.

        • Krafty Wurker 21 May, 2017 at 09:28 Reply

          From what I can see, the AltRight isn’t a stale sub-cultural movement or a children’s crusade.

          Don’t forget. There was an Italian Renaissance, followed by a Northern Renaissance. In the Southern Europe it produced Leonardo’s & Michelangelo’s in Northern Europe it produced Durer’s & Rembrandt’s.

          • Johnny Fash 21 May, 2017 at 10:00

            Well put. There is certainly more urgency to our movement than that of the hippies or punks. We’re not an entertainment thing.

    • Yehudah Finkelstein 21 May, 2017 at 09:12 Reply

      Agree. Artists like Otto Dix were the last great Western artists. After WWII, Western art list the pot.

        • Krafty Wurker 21 May, 2017 at 10:15 Reply

          It’s interesting that Dix was aware of the dark & depressing nature of much of his work. Have you ever looked at any of Kathe Kollwitz’s art, which is very similar to Dix.

          • Johnny Fash 21 May, 2017 at 11:18

            I just did a google image search. I’ve definently seen some of these before.

            Dix’s post-war paintings captured the decadence and debauchery of Weimar, Germany excellently. He didn’t do the kind of paintings I would display on my wall, but his work does accurately capture the feel of the era. Hitler included him in his “Degenerate Art” exhibit.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein 21 May, 2017 at 12:16

            Its interesting you mention Kali Yuga and Dadaism. Evola started out as a Dadaist painter.

          • Johnny Fash 21 May, 2017 at 13:06

            Yup. Evola has been a huge influence on me. He, more than anyone else, got me over my individualist anarchist/libertarian phase I was in from 14-27. His approach to Dada was to represent the decadence and grotesqueness of modernity, whereas Dadaists like Marcel Duchamp kind of reveled in it. Cool interview with Evola on Dada.

  16. Dutchman 21 May, 2017 at 07:40 Reply

    Beauty and Truth go together. It’s no coincidence that those who hate Truth will be attracted to ugly and degenerate art.

    • Hipster Racist 21 May, 2017 at 14:00 Reply

      https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Painted_Word

      In particular, Wolfe criticized three prominent art critics whom he dubbed the kings of “Cultureburg”: Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg and Leo Steinberg. Wolfe argued that these three men were dominating the world of art with their theories and that, unlike the world of literature in which anyone can buy a book, the art world was controlled by an insular circle of rich collectors, museums and critics with outsized influence.

      “Art Theory pure and simple, words on a page, literature undefiled by vision… late twentieth-century Modern Art was about to fulfill its destiny, which was: to become nothing less than Literature pure and simple”.

      Let see, people with no visual talent but very good at complex verbal diarrhea? Clearly, a Scottish thing.

      • Dutchman 22 May, 2017 at 02:02 Reply

        Well jews aren’t known for liking the truth so it isn’t surprising that they try to destroy beauty.

      • Smash Islamophobia 22 May, 2017 at 23:56 Reply

        A brilliant essay. Classic. Of course, he mostly stays away from the tax-avoidance/ money laundering aspect. but as you said, the point was basically that the actual paintings were almost irrelevant– that the “art” in modern art was the in the write ups justifying the latest piece of trash. Yet one more thing that seemed very foreign and pointless to me when I first came across it, but is blindingly obvious in the context of the JQ.

        Wolfe has actually gotten away with quite a bit over the years. Is it because his wife is jewish? His novels have all had some kind of politically incorrect theme. Remember “The Bonfire of the Vanities,” and the search for the Great White Defendant?