"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag carrying a cross." – Lewis

Repubs want to dismantle every bit of enlightened legislation since Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt.

In answer to someone on YouTube:

I don’t define art. (impossible) I say that artwork which should be classed as fine art has technical and attractive properties which i carefully discuss in my book. As to emotions they all differ among different people. The technical key to fine painting is whether offers an illusion of three dimensions. Where paint looks like little more than un-transformed paint, I maintain as far as fine art is concerned it’s a failure. Or to put it another way, If it looks like it was done by a ten year old the artist has the problem, not the viewer.

 I finished a small pamphlet which will be offered free on Amazon. I don’t advise you to read it as it might mess with your emotions.

I make no excuses for my opinions of  Modern Art (in caps) or what should really be called Official Modern Art. So I  leave you with this defining statement. “Until the three stooges of Modern Art, Cezanne, Picasso and Matisse are re-evaluated, so called Modern Art will become ever more stupid looking and unattractive.”

Picasso is a third rate illustrator who painted big. He is among the three most praised artists who are responsible for the worst of what so-called Modern Art evolved into.

My book on Amazon Kindle

Although my book "Modern Art a Portrait of Mediocrity" strongly concentrates on the negative, I do not in any way want to convey an impression that all modern artwork is bad or in a state of decline. Art isn’t dead, what has declined is the sensibility of those who are considered our most important authorities on great art. In fact, there probably has been as much fine artwork produced during the times covered here than in other periods. My book explain the reasons why most of this work is not as yet considered “fine art.”

Rothko phoney

more
Phoney Abstract expressionism.
A few dealers said about 40% of that stuff were forgeries. Forgery is the best critic to show what a bunch crap a lot of Official Modern Art is.
https://news.artnet.com/market/knoedler-forgery-trial-fake-rothko-418661?utm_campaign=artnetnews&utm_source=020316daily&utm_medium=email

“Haven't you said in the past that all Rothkos look alike?," an attorney asked art historian Stephen Polcari about the work of painter Mark Rothko, to muffled chuckles from the audience in the courtroom Tuesday afternoon. "Well yes," Polcari replied. "He's famous for having a signature style."
Polcari was testifying in the United States District Court in Manhattan in the fraud trial involving Knoedler & Co. The attorney was for the plaintiffs in the case, Domenico De Sole and his wife Eleanore, who have sued Knoedler & Company and its former director and president Ann Freedman for selling them a fake work of art purportedly by Mark Rothko.
   "So, as for that signature style," the attorney continued, "from one to another, you can't tell?" Polcari nodded his head.
   Related: Mark Rothko's Son Denies Authenticating Paintings at Knoedler Fraud Trial
Polcari, an Abstract Expressionist scholar who claimed during his testimony to be "strong on Rothko," looked a bit sheepish. And beyond admitting that in many cases he can't tell two Rothko paintings apart, or which way to hang them, he maintained that this is part of Rothko's appeal.
    Polcari was on the stand because he was paid $3,000 by Knoedler & Co. to produce ten research essays exploring the provenance and historical significance of the works acquired by the gallery from the Spanish dealer Glafira Rosales and later proven to be fake. He holds a PhD in art history from the University of California, has taught at several major universities, and published the acclaimed 1991 book Abstract Expressionism and the Modern Experience.
cut
    Polcari's reports, which were later used to help prove the legitimacy of the works to the De Soles and other buyers, not only assumed that the works he was writing about were authentic (based, essentially, on their presence at the well-regarded blue-chip gallery), but also praised their beauty, and suggested that they may have originally been purchased directly from the artists by the late Ab Ex artist Alfonso Ossorio, who assembled a collection of work by his contemporaries. This was later proven inaccurate in a report by the International Foundation of Art Research (IFAR), and also through Polcari's own subsequent research.
    Related: Domenico De Sole's Background Questioned on Day Four of Knoedler Trial

Polcari admitted during his testimony Tuesday that he initially got the idea regarding their history with Ossorio from something Freedman said to him.

Strangely, even following his own conclusions regarding Ossorio, Polcari was still quick to call the IFAR report "amateurish" and "irrelevant" based on their use of information from Ossorio's partner, Ted Dragon, who rightfully claimed to never have seen the works in their collection or elsewhere. He maintains that his reports were correct based on the fact that he was not asked to opine on the works' authenticity, per se, but rather their importance in the context of the artists' bodies of work.
"They were right," Polcari concedes. "But you can be right for the wrong reasons."
"You do understand that all of the works were fake?," the plaintiffs' attorney asked, to which Polcari responded that yes, he did acknowledge their illegitimacy.
"So you were wrong—every single time?"
"WELL THEY WERE VERY GOOD WORKS," POLCARI RESPONDED, CLEARLY A BIT INCENSED. "THEY JUST HAPPENED TO BE DONE BY OTHER ARTISTS."
Cut

Phoney Abstract expressionism.
 A few dealers said about 40% of that stuff were forgeries. Forgery is the best critic to show what a bunch crap a lot of Official Modern Art is.
Quote from:   https://news.artnet.com/art-world/christopher-rothko-david-anfam-knoedler-fraud-trial-417995?utm_campaign=artnetnews&utm_source=020216daily&utm_medium=email
“When Christopher Rothko, Mark Rothko's son, took the stand Monday at the United States District Court in Manhattan to testify in the fraud trial concerning Knoedler & Co., he was presented with a document that claimed he had “recognized" a painting as a work by his father. It was a document that the gallery had used to convince potential buyers of the work's authenticity. Rothko dismissed the document, saying that he never authenticates works of art.
Rothko, along with art historian David Anfam (who authored the Mark Rothko catalogue raisonné) and plaintiff Eleanore De Sole, were the three witnesses who took the stand Monday in the trial in the lawsuit brought by Domenico De Sole and his wife Eleanore against Knoedler & Company and its former director and president Ann Freedman for selling them a fake work of art purportedly by Mark Rothko....
...The suit is the only one to come to trial in an array of fraud lawsuits brought over a trove of artworks by Abstract Expressionists that the gallery sold after buying them from the Spanish dealer Glafira Rosales. They had supposedly come from the son of a secretive Swiss collector. The gallery has settled out of court with other defrauded buyers.”
Read about forgery in my book,   Modern Art a Portrait of Mediocrity