Perhaps the Empty Base Symbolized The Lack of Support For Arts Funding in Public Schools

As some of you know, I'm pretty critical of so-called "modern" or "pop" "art" (apologies for the gratuitous use of quotations). Today, I happened to come across two outstanding little snippets about the subject that made me delirious with glee.

First, in what is the perfect story that reveals how the pretentious art establishment looks at what they do, comes this story from England. The gist of the situation is that the Royal Academy received a plinth (which I just learned is the term for a slab on which a sculpture is placed) separately from the sculpture that was intended to rest on it. So they judged the pieces separately - and the base was put on display, while the scuplture itself (of a human head) was rejected. Because the base had, you know, "artisitic merit". It goes to show you can find art anywhere, especially if you're looking hard enough. And some people argue that art critics don't excessively "read into" the meaning of various works of art? No matter what your views on modern art are (and above all I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions about what makes good art), you have to admit this is pretty funny.

And to top off my cynicism about "art", my favorite crude and offensive libertarians at To The People had this to say in a pretty much unrelated post:

Andy Warhol getting shot was the only thing that made his life interesting. It's a Campbell's soup can. I get it. If you have to say something is a commentary on something, it sucks.