Things like Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey getting popular never bother me. So what if they aren’t good quality? There’s something about them that captures the public’s attention. Whether it’s the terribleness of the ideas, the problems with the plot, the lack of writing quality, they still trigger discussion which in turn creates more reader as the book is constantly talked about. Even bad reviews mean that the book reaches larger audiences. Is it necessarily fair to the writers who strive for higher quality? Maybe, but that’s the way this system is structured. 

Reality stars are huge, even though they don’t create great artistry; they create discussion that fascinates us. So does Twilight, so does 50 Shades of Grey, and Damien Hirst, etc. 

People reward fan art more than original art, yet people are okay with that. Hell, shitty fan art gets recognized more than original art. It adds to discussion, it gives people something to air strong opinions on. So, while you can make legitimate complaints, the art piece’s popularity isn’t really one of them. 

fannybaws:

pretty-grimm-ones-too:

johnny-escobar:

The female body is a work of art, and as such, it is respected by both male and female alike. This does not apply to the male body. There is nothing artistic about a penis so let’s keep them off my dash. K? K.

Bollocks. “Nothing artistic about a penis” my ass.

Whaaa? Somebody tell like half the artists in history this news, I don’t think they got the memo.

Put a fig leaf on that fer Christ’s sake!

(via formerlyfannybaws)

toplessnostalgia:

“Good” art is a vain search:
rulers,
guidebooks,
manuals,
tutorials,
fat fucks that know what’s “profitable”.
But those are just erasers,
and at the end of the day
the “art” is a clean, sparkly, white canvas.

Just uglier.

“Good” “art”

Motherfucker, please—
I can’t get high off candy.

(Source: make-me-immune)