by Josiah Nott (2010)
Modern art is not really art at all, but Jewish self-promotion and degeneracy.
So, though Jews are not heavily represented in true art, they are in fact very much over-represented in so-called modern art — in fact, they were and are the dominant force in it.
Because painting, sculpture, and music are more difficult to counterfeit than philosophy, it was necessary to transform and support Jewish modern “art” with philosophy in order to make the naive goyim accept it as genuine.
True art is difficult to counterfeit and even more difficult to genuinely create. But twentieth century Jews never had any interest in such an endeavor in the first place. Instead, by using their strongest attribute — their talent for the creation of false and insidious philosophical theories — Jewish “art critics” and “art theorists” managed to persuade the educated public in the Western world that utter foolishness and frivolousness, simple childish nonsense, and outright ugliness are in fact “art.” All of this was achieved through pseudo-philosophical “art critique.”
(In my view, Jewish philosophy really ought not to be called philosophy at all. Philo=love andsophia=wisdom. Could anyone reasonably claim that the creator of “deconstruction,” the Algerian-French Jew Jacques Derrida, for instance, loves wisdom? Derrida would be the first to insist that he does not even believe in truth. And how can there be wisdom without truth? No, Jewish philosophy ought more properly to be called sophistry, which is how Plato and Aristotle characterized the specious and intentionally dishonest and misleading methods of their philosophic opponents, who, in order to persuade the unsuspecting and win in debate, would twist words to make the weaker argument appear the stronger one. Sound familiar?)
The following paragraph from Sol LeWitt’s Paragraphs on Conceptual Art perfectly illustrates the way that Jewish “art theory” has taken over, trivialized, and destroyed the arts.
I will refer to the kind of art in which I am involved as conceptual art. In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. This kind of art is not theoretical or illustrative of theories; it is intuitive, it is involved with all types of mental processes and it is purposeless. It is usually free from the dependence on the skill of the artist as a craftsman. It is the objective of the artist who is concerned with conceptual art to make his work mentally interesting to the spectator, and therefore usually he would want it to become emotionally dry. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the conceptual artist is out to bore the viewer. It is only the expectation of an emotional kick, to which one conditioned to expressionist art is accustomed, that would deter the viewer from perceiving this art.
I highly recommend Tom Wolfe’s book on modern art, The Painted Word, and his follow-up book on modern architecture, From Bauhaus to Our House, as excellent exposés of the characters who made and promoted modern art and architecture. Though Wolfe does not use the word “Jew” [Tom Wolfe, a White man, is married to a Jew – Ed.] even a quick perusal of the book (especially The Painted Word) will reveal who was behind the cultural con-job that was and is “modern art.”
The expression “painted word” is a reference to the fact that “modern art” is entirely based on “art theory,” hence it is effectively “painted theory.” (Aesthetician Arthur Danto has even claimed that “art is dead” precisely because “art” has transformed into “philosophy” or “art theory.”) The Jewish “theory” behind “modern art” is intended to “explain” the art, so as to make naive Gentiles think that such “art” has great value. Without such “theory” normal people would immediately recognize that such degenerate and primitivistic trash is not art at all.
The Painted Word features a number of photographs of the main players in the 20th century art world and, not surprisingly, they are almost all Jewish. (“Art critic,” i.e., charlatan, Harold Rosenberg looks like the devil himself!) This includes the “artists” and their promoters, such as con man Clement Greenberg, the Jew who promoted the art of the alcoholic degenerate Jackson Pollock. [Pollock, who we must reluctantly admit was a White man, was married to Jewish abstract expressionist painter Lee Krasner – Ed.] Greenberg would buy Pollock’s paintings at cut-rate prices, write glowing articles about Pollock’s brilliance as an artist, wait for the demand for Pollock’s paintings to skyrocket, and then sell the paintings at exorbitant prices. A fine swindle, that.
Flipping through the rest of the book reveals pictures of the “artists” and art promoters Barnett Newman, Leo Steinberg, Robert Rauschenberg [Rauschenberg was also a homosexual – Ed.], among others. Overall, the book provides an excellent look at the way a series of destructive, culturally subverting Jewish “theories” transformed what was the noble and beautiful tradition of Western art into yet another grotesque Jewish deformation and mockery. Jewish opposition to truth in philosophy and the social sciences is paralleled by Jewish opposition to beauty in the arts.
Why do these self-promoting charlatans always call the gang of degenerate “artists” they advocate a “movement”? I suppose it’s because they know that they will have to close ranks to defend the “art” they would like to foist upon us in order to deflect the natural and understandable reaction against it, i.e., in order to humiliate us into acceptance and acquiescence by claiming, from atop the ivory tower, that all those who don’t “understand” the new “art” are philistines and cretins. And most people, and especially upper-middle class Whites, care a great deal about being seen to have the “correct” views on culture. Thus they are cowed by our Jewish cultural elites into accepting, or at least paying lip-service to, what they know deep-down cannot possibly be true art.
A similar process is surely at work with respect to the mainstream Gentile acceptance of all the absurd and pernicious theories and “philosophies” advocated by intellectual Jews throughout the twentieth century. Most people are utterly incapable of resisting, let alone challenging, what they have been repeatedly told by those in authority — however absurd and patently false what they are told might be. If the proverbial average Joe were to have come up with something as totally bizarre and counter-intuitive as “Deconstructionism,” for instance, he would have been laughed at and ignored. But if a Jewish intellectual at a major university advocates such a theory, all pay him respect.
I’ve come to believe that there is no view or “theory” so absurd or perverse that it would not be believed by at least some Gentiles if a major Jewish academic created and promoted it. Jews, of course, know all this, which is why the colonization of the centers of Western intellectual life and power was necessary for their subversive and destructive theories to be accepted by large numbers of Gentiles.
Source: National Vanguard