Anyone who visits an exhibition of the so-called “modern” or “contemporary art” would feel disgusted if not outraged by the blatant and insolent display of obscenities that pretend to be considered works of art. Let’s remember the definition of “art”:  Skill acquired through the study and practice of a technique with the purpose of creating works of high aesthetic value. Considering this we may say that in these exhibitions the missing element is “art.”

Unfortunately, this is not just a fad; it is the consequence of a severe disease that afflicted Western civilisation in the early years of the 20th century as Oswald Spengler had eloquently demonstrated in his monumental work “The Decline of the West”. Our civilisation had passed its prime, and it was beginning to show signs of decay. In several parts of Europe, particularly in France, new subversive art theories were beginning to spread. Early in the XXth century, Paris was home to a considerable number of mediocre wanna-be artists who dreamt of destroying the European artistic tradition for the sake of their own peculiar concept of art where “expression” was paramount. According to these “artists”, the faithful representation of people or objects was irrelevant, what mattered was “the emotional response” of the artist to the model.

Moreover, the form did not matter, the colour was all-important since it represented the artist’s emotional estate. One of the leaders of this new school of thought was Henri Matisse who said: The primary function of the colour is to express. I laid out my colours without a preconceived idea. Therefore the colour had lost its purpose, everything depended on the whim of the so-called artist. Gaugin put it clearly when he said: If the trees look yellow to the artist, then they should be painted yellow. The result could not be other than deformed images coloured arbitrarily.

The tormented, mournful, obscene and sick nature of modern “art” is evident in all its manifestations, be it expressionism, surrealism or dadaism. The abolition of beauty, the destruction of the form and the chaotic use of colour are common characteristics to them all. We are not talking about some isolated examples that could be dismissed as extravagant and ludicrous but of a whole movement which is under the sign of ugliness. During the 1890’s these tendencies had begun to expand, and by 1920 they had triumphed.

Only in Germany, there was a reaction against modernism; as the art historian Henry Grosshans said: “Hitler saw Greek and Roman art as unpolluted by Jewish influences. Modern art was seen as an act of aesthetic violence against the German spirit” (1) Modern “art” was considered, and labelled, Entartete Kunst (degenerate art). In fact, the German government organised, in 1937, an exhibition called “Entartete Kunst” that toured the country; it consisted of 650 paintings by modernist “artists” mostly German. On the other hand, the government organised a yearly art exhibition known as Grosse Deutsche Kunstaustellung (Great German Art Exhibition) that was held between 1937 and 1944. It included all the genres and had a special section dedicated to sculpture. The works put an emphasis on the human body conceived according to the classical tradition, beautiful and athletic.

With the destruction of Germany in 1945, the triumph of the degenerate tendencies was complete. The academies of fine arts stopped teaching anatomy, and figure drawing, the techniques of the Old Masters were forgotten and figurative, classical art was frowned upon if not ridiculed. Art history books were rewritten, and many great artists disappeared to be replaced by tricksters. Hundreds of traditional paintings and sculptures were consigned to oblivion in the storehouses of great museums or sold at ridiculous prices to make room for the new “masterpieces”

Despite the healthy reaction in favour of traditional art and the progress made in the field of historical research over the last thirty years, modern “art” keeps its preeminence regarding exhibitions and publicity, although it must be said that it does it at a very high price; the vast structure of advertising and marketing that promotes it needs massive amounts of money and subsidies and yet they fail to seduce a public that is indifferent if not hostile. It is a fact that the exhibitions of these so-called artists do not interest the masses, who, by the way, flock by the thousands to see traditional art exhibitions breaking the records of the public.

The degenerate art or anti-art such as we know it today is a great mediatic, economic and cultural fraud, the product of ideological rhetoric based on the false argument that says that “art is what the artist defines as such” (in the tradition of pseudo artists as Duchamp, Botero and Pollock). According to this statement, any object can be considered a work of art, something that is an insult to human intelligence. Thanks to this fallacy is possible to place in the art market works which do not have real value, whose level of quality is equal to zero and that cannot stand either theoretically or aesthetically. By stating that anyone can be an artist and that any mediocre manifestation could be a work of art, the anti-art tries to legitimise itself with a series of formal theories. In the end, its only fundament is the economic value it can generate.

The anti-art takes advantage of its intelligibility to prevent criticism. If anything can be a work of art and if it is necessary for an “expert” to explain to us what is about, criticism is impossible since there are no rules to judge the work. If someone shows disgust or rejection towards a modern painting or sculpture, he will be told that happens because “he does not understand it” That is the system’s defence mechanism: to call the critic ignorant and it usually works because most people do not dare to criticize modern “art” to avoid being labelled ignorant.

The phenomenon called “contemporary art” presents two sides, one is purely formal or aesthetic, and the other is financial, both are perverse. While the former debases the spirits, the latter secures its growth and development. The enormous amounts of money paid for these grotesque creations allowed the money laundering of fortunes and, at the same time, subsidised exhibitions and paid for new books and catalogues. To give the reader an idea of how much money we are talking about here are some examples: In May 2018 a painting by Modigliani reached the record price of U$S 157.200.000. In May 2012 Munch’s famous painting The Scream was sold for U$S 119.900.000. In 2013 the millionaire Steven Cohen paid U$S 120.000.000 for Picasso’s The Dream.

The producers of the degenerate art form a real mafia which is made of art galleries, museums, universities, critics and auction houses. Governments at the national and provincial levels also support these obscenities by subsidising artists and exhibitions, poisoning the masses. Art must elevate the sentiments of the people, awakening in them the appreciation and admiration for the beauty of classical forms.

The so-called modern or contemporary art is no more than the manifestation of a society corrupted by the pretentious Marxist intellectuals who control the media and the academia in our decadent society. Modern art is a cult of ugliness, to everything that is repulsive and degrading. To fight it is the duty of every good citizen and every lover of beauty and dignity.

(1) Henry Gosshans “Hitler and the artists” (1983) p. 86