The Modern Age Fine Arts have the aid of designed environs and some technologies right now.
You mean Modernists.
If you compare it to old style music you can see that the MOdern Age Music has now videos (help of technology), and lots of those costumes like the hot pussycat dolls (help of designed environs).
1. This isn't Modernism.
2. Yet I still fail to see your point.
You see, if all those external factors are present most of the audience no longer focuses on the music, but the artist and the background.
Which would be a twisted overindulgence of the new technology.
NOT a movement.
Its not.
There really is no way around this.
Compare the Pussycats to U2's ZooTV tour.
Technology and Image is art when used to move for the music.
Promoting the image of the artist with no mind to the music. Isn't art. Its just promotion. Cheap pandering.
That is a part of what the New Age of FIne Arts is. And as I have mentioned before, in the New Age of Fine Arts the artist seems more important than the work.
So did you make "New Age Fine Arts" up?
And yes, a lot of people do tend to get confused because it is something new.
Its not a confusing concept your pitching us, just one that defies logic. its like your trying to fit a square shaped block in a triangle shaped hole, and obviously were not sure what your doing.
Art can be disgusting and perverted also…have you been to a museum before? Take a look at those weird sculptures they make.
I am currently using an avatar from 1976 movie Taxi Driver.
The exact image is where anti-hero Travis Bickle, a disturbed cabbie, snaps and goes on a bloody shooting spree in an underaged New York whorehouse.
This is disgusting and perverted.
But its the perfect cap on a character study of a very real sort of rut we can find ourselves in, or stuck in. Remember Columbine?
Can you see the difference between that and ….. Friday the 13th Part 4?
Can you?
Allow me to further inform you the relationships of my posts in the wiki post.
