Rembrandt, Picasso, NFT

As usual Sailer manages to ask an off-the-field but provocative question.

Why were the women in Old Master paintings usually ugly?

The most important fact is that the Great Masters were serving the rich. The rich can afford beauty but they DON’T LIKE BEAUTY.

This is an older version of the NFT quandary that I was discussing last year.

= = = = = START REPRINT:

NFTs aren’t kitsch. NFTs are intentionally horrible. Some of them are 6-pixel approximations of bad drawings. It’s a classic and VERY OLD Sucker Filter.

The hollowness isn’t in the artist, it’s in the buyer. People who want to spend billions for “art” are not looking for art at all. They’re only looking for prestige and status and brands.

This particular Filter was invented 100 years ago by the Dadaists and Abstracters. Picasso and Pollock knew how to paint, and produced some beautiful work before they figured out the Filter. They started producing horrible anti-art to guarantee that only the richest fools would buy their shit.

NFT follows the same idea as Pollock. If you want to insure that your buyers are idiots who will spend megabucks for PRESTIGE, you don’t want to dilute the idiot class by offering beauty. You want to restrict the market to money-mad prestige seekers with no morals or esthetic sense.

= = = = = END REPRINT.

Demons hate beauty and order and life. Demons destroy beauty and order and life. Demons create wars and riots and offshoring and Wall Street and “epidemics” and lockdowns and muzzles, in order to RUIN AND OBLITERATE EVERY FUCKING THING so the demon can be the sole occupant of the universe.

Later: Another data point. Headline: Cybrtrk important to Tesla’s investors. The ugliest and cruelest vehicle since Ben Hur was designed specifically to attract Elon’s fellow demons. He knows his relatives.

%d bloggers like this: