Art Analysts are Stupid

Art analysts have got to be some of the dumbest people on the planet. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all art critics are stupid, many of them are very good at what they do. But I'm not talking about the people who look at a piece of art and think about how much time and effort must have went into making it. I'm talking about the people who think just because a person scribbled a few lines down on a piece of paper and called it art, it's automatically considered a philosophical masterpiece.

Anyway, the reason I'm writing this post is because I'm taking an art class in college this semester, and we had to do art analysis today. I was going along, throwing together the usual BS for an assignment like this, when I see this...

Then I read the summary for it. "Fountain, a work of 1917 shown here in a signed replica of 1964... Fountain was an ordinary porcelain urinal set on its back."

At first I think, ok guy, very clever. You made a urinal and to tell everyone how much work you put into it you're going to call it art. Then I read a little farther... "Marcel Duchamp, whose 'ready-mades' probed the border between art and life in a way that later generations have returned to again and again. A ready-made is a work of art that the artist has not made but designated.

... HE DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE DAMN THING. This guy took a urinal that someone else made, laid it on it's back, scribbled his signature on it, called it art, and it went down in our history books as a very important piece of art history...

No... just... no.