November 21, 2008

Giant chicken skeleton artwork succeeds in repelling unenlightened public


Billionaire homebuilder Eli Broad and the other geniuses behind the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art have finally achieved such sophistication in their artistic tastes that, according to a report this week in the LA Times, their museum is going broke.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

21 comments:

Jaroslaw said...

This summer I went to MoMa NY. I paid my ten bucks or whatever. In retrospect, I should have gone back to the cashier and demanded a refund.

dearieme said...

It's a good title for a museum - all they have to do is change which period the art is contemporary with. Announce that it is to be contemporary with the great Dutch and Flemish artists, or the Impressionsists, and it'll be packed.

John Craig said...

Does anyone remember the phrase "bullshit artist"? It used to refer to someone who was full of it, but it would seem to apply even more appropriately to whomever created this monstrosity.

Anonymous said...

Quick, get them a bailout! If we can give GM $25 billion, surely we can spare a few million for these guys.

Anonymous said...

One of the more interesting aspects to the entire modern art phenomenon (which, I guess, is no longer quite so modern) is that unlike so many of the other scams which the Chosen have pulled off at the expense of the gullible and naive goyim, with this particular scam they seemed to have fooled mostly themselves. It is the Chosen billionaires who seem to spend the most money on this kind of crap. The business of modern art has been a game of musical chairs thus far, maybe the financial crisis will bring it all to a halt.

Anonymous said...

As a person who really goes out to L.A.'s various cultural institutions, I can see why. The Getty has great views and that really lovely garden. The Norton Simon has Impressionists and is right at the edge of old town Pasadena. The LACMA is free if you bring the kids and is right next to the tar pits, which kick ass. And there's more artistry and grace in an Inuit kayak or dinosaur skeleton at the Natural History Museum than anything on display at the MOCA.

rightsaidfred said...

>>>>...MOCA had been draining its reserves to pay operating expenses. In the meantime, the museum's staff has grown...So far there have been no staff cuts

It's Art, Steve. Losing money gives cred.

aggrieved white person said...

Steve, it's obvious that when you write "other geniuses" you're being vicious. Once again you're pandering to the anti-intellectual, Sarah Palin crowd.

Anonymous said...

Money quote from LA Times: An irony of MOCA's plight is that, thanks to the appetite of wealthy international collectors, the market value of its prime pieces has soared. Corporations and individuals routinely sell sculptures and paintings in an economic pinch, but a museum that did so would be violating its reason for existing, which is keeping art in the public domain. The codes of ethics of both the American Assn. of Museums and the Assn. of Art Museum Directors, although not legally binding, specify that the only acceptable reason for selling artworks from a public collection is to raise money for buying other, presumably more desirable, pieces.

Isn't that like a pyramid scheme?

Was Ponzi a artiste conceptuale?

Anonymous said...

Steve, how do you manage to find these darnest of titles, dude? Awesome :D

Ab-friggin'-solutely hilarious! :D


JD

Caledonian said...

I'm sure that if they look hard enough, they can get a grant from some government program to help support the arts.

Because, of course, art isn't something that is able to support itself by catering to a market; nor should it be. Artists who seek commercial success always produce unsophisticated trash. Would the great paintings and sculptures of the Renaissance have been created if their creators were motivated by filthy lucre, and the art dictated to by commercialism? I think not.

These people are carrying on the finest traditions of artistic expression in the Western world. Just ask them - they'll tell you so.

CJ said...

Hey, good news. I've seen a lot of very bad outdoor "modern art" but that thing in the picture is in an ugly league of its own.

To go OT a bit -- or maybe not -- there's a great interview with Tom Wolfe here where he talks about topics of interest to Steve and his readers. If you haven't read it already, it's good stuff.

Anonymous said...

unlike so many of the other scams which the Chosen have pulled off at the expense of the gullible and naive goyim, with this particular scam they seemed to have fooled mostly themselves.

If you look closer, you'll probably find that most of these "scams" fool both Jews and non-Jews.

tommy said...

It's a Rauschenbergian masterpiece!

Anonymous said...

True, but nobody will write hit pieces on Mr. Broad and drag his reputation through the mud unlike the patrons of Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael, etc. The only good thing the Marxists can see good in the Medici is that there was a little spark of the humanist in a couple of them.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/medici/medici/snapshots.html

Anonymous said...

aggrieved white person: The Sarah Palin crowd doesn't read this blog.

ben tillman said...

"Money quote from LA Times: An irony of MOCA's plight is that, thanks to the appetite of wealthy international collectors, the market value of its prime pieces has soared."

Do the mass media ever say anything that isn't totally retarded? The "prime pieces" have no market value because they're not on the market.

Mr. Anon said...

Anonymous posted...

"Corporations and individuals routinely sell sculptures and paintings in an economic pinch, but a museum that did so would be violating its reason for existing, which is keeping art in the public domain. The codes of ethics of both the American Assn. of Museums and the Assn. of Art Museum Directors, although not legally binding,....."

Not legally binding, well there you go. This would be an excellent opportunity for an LBO. Sell some bonds backed by the anticipated revenues of some of the art to be sold (Serious Contemporary Art Backed Securities, or SCABS), buy the museum, and maximize the value of it's holdings by parting it out. The investors get rich, the buyers get to hang their technicolor-yawn paintings in their 20 room high-rise co-ops, and boyfriends and husbands of southern California will never again be dragged against their will to waste a perfectly good afternoon seeing MOCA.

anony-mouse said...

I'm surprised that people here are bothered by Eli Broad & friends wasting their money.

And why isn't Steve wondering who actually physically built that monstrosity?

Steve Sailer said...

"And why isn't Steve wondering who actually physically built that monstrosity?"

I have been wondering, but I haven't found anything about it on the web. It's evidently not very popular. I last saw it in 2006. I didn't recognize the name of the artist so I don't remember who it is, but I did recognize Eli Broad's name as the donor, so that's who I remember.

Maybe Mrs. Broad just wanted to get it out of the house.

Anonymous said...

And why isn't Steve wondering who actually physically built that monstrosity?

A blind bloke - with some welding gear and a pile of scrap?