Let’s Assume, For Arguments Sake, That Most Of The New Rich Are Idiots

Adam Lovejoy writes from Monte Carlo: Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that most of the new rich are idiots and have no taste, no class and no understanding of anything, having amassed their fortunes either through dodgy deals or because they found themselves in the right place at the right time – and grabbed their chance. Let’s even put a figure on it, assuming that 90 per cent of the new rich are very stupid, but still consider themselves to be suave, refined and with a good eye for art and culture generally, while the remaining 10 per cent are thick as well – but at least know it and keep a low profile.

I’d like to concentrate on the 90 per cent. These are the people, who dictate their so-called taste to artists, designers, architects, sculptors and other sorts of creative folk. And, as a result of this influence that is backed by serious money, we see all that apocalyptic horror unravel before our eyes.

Have you ever been to a house of a new rich mogul? Have you seen the hideous architecture and the vulgar internal design? That’s all of his own choosing, by the way. No one had imposed it on him. That’s the new rich exercising their sense of style at its best, including the gold plated door handles and pretty much gold plated everything else, including the toilet seats and baths. Not to mention the ridiculous choice of clashing colours and modernist furniture that is basically not even suitable for use.

And then there’s the modern art thing that the new rich like to buy and show off to their new rich friends. If not for these brain dead wealthy individuals modern and post-modern art would be dead and buried by now, starved of money and proper appreciation. So it’s thanks to the new rich dimwits that we have a strong consistent demand for rubbish art works that include actual rubbish stuck to a canvas, or pickled animals, or bits of smashed furniture, or  my personal favourite, cigarette stubs stuck to plastic ashtrays that sell for millions.

And this sort of s..t comes on the market in a steady stream every year and, what’s even more remarkable, finds its way into ‘private collections’ of the brain dead new rich, who actually believe that it’s a great investment for the future. And that vicious cycle keeps modern art going, even though it creates absolutely nothing of any value or substance. (One day possessing modern art will be considered a criminal offence.)

And that is how the new rich, who have no understanding of anything apart from making dodgy money – by the way, making money is a craft not an art and you don’t need brains for it – promote and support mediocrity in arts and all the rest of the creative environments.

Mediocrity, you see, is very well organised and it’s very tribal. Mediocrities are united, rushing to support each other immediately. They are cunning and clever when it comes to side-lining anyone who is seen as a danger to them, i.e. talented people. Because talented people raise the general standard of quality to the heights which mediocrities can’t reach – because they are mediocrities. And the new, who are mediocrities as well, but with loads of money, finance the war against talent.

So here’s how it works: mediocre artists, writers, sculptors, actors, film directors, journalists, TV hosts, musicians, comedians, unite in their war against talent, while sucking up to the new rich who provide them with money. They stop any talented person in his or her tracks, applauded by the new rich cretins. They prevent talent from developing, they bar it from getting known to the public and they convince the new rich that it’s all a waste of time. Mediocrities do everything to keep standards of quality as low as possible. And they rely on the new rich to keep them going and buying more of the trash that they make.

They say the end of the world would herald the total triumph of mediocrity. If so, the end has probably already happened – and we just missed it.

– End –

2 Comments

1. joejmz says:

   July 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm

   Of course that’s all based on your first statement which is utterly false.
2. Margaret A. Martin says:

   July 13, 2012 at 8:38 pm

   Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the author has some serious wealth envy.