His art is not worth a penny.
Period.
Meta
-
Recent Posts
- Saint-Tropez — [VIDEO]
- HTLM 5 & Content — [VIDEO]
- Spies — [VIDEO]
- Apple does differently. — [VIDEO]
- Steve Wozniak on his achievements at Apple (and on Steve Jobs) — [VIDEO]
- Valve = the anti Apple — [INTERNAL DOCUMENT]
- Why Starbucks mistreats its customers — [VIDEO]
- The rise of the 1% is good for the economy. — [VIDEO]
- Numenta’s Grok prediction engine — [LINK]
- Pirated movies are more usable. — [INFOGRAPHIC]
- FaceBook’s Roadshow — [VIDEO]
- Congrats to François Hollande — [VIDEO]
- Steve Jobs, the inventor — [VIDEO]
- Proposal for a better iPad keyboard — [VIDEO]
- Bain Capital’s Edward Conard on investing and risk taking — [LINK + VIDEO]
- Peter Thiel on the ‘oral test’ in the hiring process — [VIDEO]
- David Pennock and Duncan Watts are hired by MicroSoft’s NYC Lab. — [LINK]
- Money, Power & Wall Street — [VIDEO]
- Apple’s taxes — [LINKS + VIDEO]
- Kansas City — [VIDEO]
One is tempted to say that certain artists are, objectively, nonsense. As a thought experiment, let’s pretend that we don’t get Piet Mondrian at all. Now consider his artistic development, relative to himself:
Mondrian, 1921:
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79002
Mondrian, 1943:
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78682
In 1943 there are more squares and there are squares inside the lines.
That is the culmination of 20 years.
This is not to make any of the typical folksy criticisms of abstract art, but when looked at through this self-relative lens, are we seriously asked to countenance that this is what a great artist has to show for 20 years? Vampire squid.
Excellent remark, mister Jason.