Pete Doherty has his own art exhibition opening on Notting Hill in London, featuring works like the above, which is a sketch Pete did of himself then spattered with blood. So this is how it works if you're a wanker like Doherty - I do a sketch of myself, it's just some piffle; but if I then cut myself open and drip blood onto it, it's a freaking masterpiece.
Hate to break it to you Pete, but no - it's still piffle, but now it has a bunch of blood on it. Unfortunately, 90% of the art world is as wankery and lame as Doherty. Said Robin Barton of the Bankrobber gallery (where Pete's art is being shown):
His use of blood lends itself perfectly to exploring the extraordinary personal and physical intensity that characterises so much of Peter’s life and work as an artist in the broadest sense.
Oh, really? Cause I thought it was just crap + blood. But, I'm not an "art expert" like Robin Barton. Of course, "art experts" like Mr. Barton have an agenda, don't they - they're part of the whole scam of modern art. Once upon a time, art used to be valued for its quality - which I realize is a subjective matter, but still, there used to be such things as aesthetic principles that people would apply in order to differentiate between the valid work and the bullshit. Then, many decades ago, rich people started buying modern art, whose whole underlying purpose was the annihilation of "stodgy" aesthetics. It didn't take the art sellers and gallery owners long to figure out that, since modern art is really wide-open, it would be very easy to portray almost any piece of shit as a masterpiece, hence convincing some idiot with lots of money and no brains that they should buy it and hang it up to impress their equally idiotic and wealthy friends. This became a racket, which certain art critics were more-than-willing to participate in (for a cut of the action). Now, any damn-fool with a paintbrush and an exacto knife can throw together some hunk of sub-art-school nonsense, then cut themselves and bleed on it, and dipshits will pay money for it because the blood gives it all this "meaning" which is really just off-the-rack smart-sounding bullcrap being recited by paid shills posing as experts.
I wonder what Van Gogh would think if he were alive today, and found out he didn't need to bother developing his technique, but could just paint some crap and then bleed on it and people would praise it for how it "explores the extraordinary personal and physical intensity" of his life. Hell, maybe we should splash some blood on some Van Goghs - then they'd really be art.
Dr. Gachet never looked so good.
(source)
