John Harris of The Guardian Tells Us of The End of Art

There's something so precious about those Guardian reporters; there's nothing particularly useful about them but they sure are precious.

John Harris writes "in mourning Bowie we mourn the end of an era when art could truly subvert" in The Guardian this morning.

Journos love titles with a grand scope but this goes to a new dimension in journalistic arrogance.

Art is over.  Well, ain't this a bitch, huh!

Harris looks like he's about thirty to thirty-five so any commentary he may have on art's power to subvert is specious and irrelevant because there simply hasn't been any art in his lifetime.  His only awareness of it is unlikely to go back much past 2000 before which time he was likely too young to appreciate it, not that there's any evidence to show he appreciates it now.

Harris concludes since he hasn't seen it art's power to subvert must be dead.  Well, he's right something is dead but it isn't art.  The Guardian isn't showing much sign of life but art will recover as soon as stiffs like he stop writing about it.

Art is, nearly by definition, subversive and, when there's nothing subversive about it, the problem isn't art is dead but rather you have some fucking lousy art.  In the premier example of that, we have Taylor Swift who couldn't even subvert a troop of Campfire Girls.

Miley Cyrus gets a credit for trying to be subversive but mostly her act is 'just in case you were not at Woodstock fifty years ago' and her boob obsession isn't so much about showing them but rather exposing them to sunlight in the hope they will grow.

And then there's Adele, the perfect embodiment of subversion, huh!

(Ed:  where are the male artists?)

Check the title, matey mate.  This started with The Guardian where males are not needed anymore.  There are some males in music but the only one getting any publicity is Justin Bieber so, in that context, The Guardian is right.  Today they even had a 'superstar physicist' on display.  (The Guardian:  Dark matter and dinosaurs: meet Lisa Randall, America’s superstar scientist)

(Ed:  a woman?)

Of course.

Mostly the problem is the total failure of millennial bimbos relative to the sixties which delivered boatloads of subversive women with Bette Midler, Janis Joplin, Grace Slick and one after the other.  Of these women, I remember zero who had any boob obsession but instead delivered kick-ass music which will be blazing for many years from now.

The Guardian fancies itself a rag for intellectuals and from that we conclude intellectualism is dead.  Art isn't dead but rational thinking has gone the way of Dodo birds, eight-track tapes, and any hope of a GOP Presidency.

Subversive art isn't even close to dead, it's only absent from the minds of mainstream hacks at The Guardian.  There are two requirements for subversive art:  the first is you have to find it and the second is you have to ignore the specious crap from the mainstream sources such as The Guardian which tells you it doesn't exist.