24 November, 2012

Art? Nope, Anti-Art: Finger Painting by a Jew Sells for $75 Million

Posted by Socrates in jewed art, jewed culture, Jewish genetics, Socrates, White philosophy, White thought, White-culture-as-superior at 11:18 pm | Permanent Link

Rabbi: “Oh, how can people say that Whites see the world through rose-colored glasses and Jews see the world through poop-colored glasses? How? How?”


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 12/31/20 Online Book 77% similar
  3. 09/09/20 An Outstanding Idea: Tell Us Your Story 62% similar
  4. 03/27/16 The Bogus Term “African-American” 61% similar
  5. 05/15/09 White African-American Sues School 60% similar
  6. 11/19/16 Interesting 60% similar
  7. 8 Responses to “Art? Nope, Anti-Art: Finger Painting by a Jew Sells for $75 Million”

    1. bjt Says:

      the general conception,of modern art is
      one of the most severe changes of mankind would have begun; the backward development of the human brain. — Adolf Hitler, My Struggle.
      The general conception of modern art is one
      of the most sevre changes of Mankind: The
      backword development of the Human brain.

    2. DMS Says:

      From the article’s reader comments:

      “..many of Rothko’s works have faded to shades of grey (not the book) because he used substandard (read cheap) paint. Most of the paintings must be stored in dim light because of the fading problems.”

    3. George Lenz Says:

      I guess animals that many Americans have become may appreciate such bestial cacophony of colors, although it is more likely how one jew, who stole money from non-jews, supports another jew, good for nothing else.

    4. CW-2 Says:

      Talentless phoneys in the modern ‘art’ world constantly pose the question “what is art?”, however they refuse to listen when we shout back “not that garbage!”
      When we look at modern art we see into the jew’s sad and pathetic inner self, it provides a clear window into his sterile and joyless soul. They, along with their fellow Semites, have no understanding or appreciation of representational art, indeed their religions expressly forbid it.

    5. Antagonistes Says:

      The poor man was stuck in his “window-painting” period:


      This is much more interesting:


    6. Tim McGreen Says:

      This Rothko “painting” is obviously a joke, so whoever bought this trash obviously did so with the sole intention of flipping it later on for a profit. It’s certainly not something that can be displayed and admired, like a Velasquez, a Titian or a Monet. Like Andy Warhol supposedly once said, art is whatever you can get away with.

    7. Leviticus Jackson Says:

      Some old billionaire should buy up all these “works of art” and have a big bonfire before he kicks off. Invite network TV and the press but they would probably ignore the whole event or deny it even happened and say that what were burned were fakes.

    8. Mel Brooks Says:

      Ha ha.. I can’t hear of anything having to do with “moddin awwt” without recalling the time when a (former) New York smarty-pants galpal of mine talked my brother and I into watching the insufferable film “Pollock”. As she cooed and blubbered rhapsodically over the flick, all I could think of was , yeah he was an artist, alright-he was a complete asshole. When the damned thing was over, Miss Ma’am proceeded to tell me off for refusing to interrupt my bro’s snore n’ snort-filled slumber ( I envied him it, and reveled in her annoyance) and proceeded to tell her what I thought of the entire N.Y. art scene, its hucksters and suckers, and the antagonism of the Smart Set towards traditional, i.e., non-Eweish art. Needless to say, my remarks went over like a lead reuben sandwich.

      I plied her with a lovingly prepared manhattan , and offered her my copy of “The Painted Word”. Unsurprisingly enough, she wouldn’t even consider reading it.

      I miss her sometimes, but I remain an unrepentant California philistine. You right-coasters have your own kind of weird, ya’ know?