reductio ad absurdum

Postmodern confusion exploded by nu-clear realizm.
What the hell is art? There is an awful lot of snobby attitude surrounding art and what constitutes art, versus for example, craft. 3 stripes on a white canvas can be art and sell for millions, but a handcrafted mosaic of the map of a harbor town painstakingly constructed of seashells, stones and bottle glass and displayed at the local church bazaar is given no place in art discussions, regardless of the tremendous creativity, thought, innovation and potential depth of meaning in such a work. The art world is, alas, largely dominated by this kind of thinking. I should say, this lack of thinking, recognition or realization. A movement that stated as its primary tenet the rejection of confining definitions has become the establishment, as confining and exclusionary as what it had hoped to emancipate us from.
And so we propose to emancipate ourselves.
Welcome to the new realizm.
Art is expression. It is possible to refine the technique of that expression through study and practice. It is possible to refine one’s analytical abilities by the same means. These are worthy pursuits. We must not, however, make the mistake of confusing education, expertise, or skill with the creative elements or process of art itself. Nor is it useful to differentiate between sources to define what art is or is not.
The burgeoning movement known as nuclear realizm seeks to explore the principles of creative expression in all its forms. It proposes to adopt an attitude of "colorblindness" regarding source, giving equal consideration to craft or folk art and professionally or commercially produced works in the search for meaning and relevance.
We reject the elitism of the art world and view each piece as itself alone, without reference to the forms, materials or techniques previously defined as "art" or "not art". We give secondary consideration to the meaning of the piece in the context of the artist’s life, their level of education, age, circumstances and intentions, and greater emphasis to the initial or "pure" interpretation of the individual viewer.
We return to reality itself for inspiration, realizing that Reality is multifaceted and multileveled. We seek honesty of expression and clarity of interpretation. We validate all expression and all interpretation as the multiplexity of potential meaning surrounding the nucleus of truth at the motivational center of the work.
It is our hope to establish a new way of approaching art appreciation and study that includes all earnest forms of creative expression. We temporarily dismiss the intellectual/analytical approach in favor of intuitive free association. This allows us to place our seashell mosaic on the wall next to the works of Dali or Kahlo, collages by gradeschoolers, and tarot imagery, as well as all other forms of creative expression, from literature to music, and view them all independently of their contexts. Our interest is not in objective quality, but subjective depth.
Once the initial impression has been allowed to form in the mind of the viewer and the piece has been explored fully in the context of that impression, then the artist’s intentions may be explored to whatever extent is desired.
This is not to say that all art is good, or qualitatively equal. We only state that all creative expression is art and deserves appreciation and consideration based solely on the individual merits of each piece. Not every interpretation is objectively correct in the motivational context of the piece, but is subjectively truthful to the viewer and must be given consideration as such. Thus an uneducated critique has as much validity as a well educated one, and may in fact have more interpretive usefulness, not being weighed down by heavily structured thinking.
This, we hope, will eliminate pointless semantic discourses and return art discussion to its proper range, being content, imagery, meaning and impact. We further hope to make these subjects accessible to those who do not care to engage in the posturing and intellectual status seeking so often found in art circles.
The use of z instead of s in realizm is intended to point to the heart of our purpose, which is realization, meaning both a coming to awareness of something and also making real. The z is a lightning bolt to illuminate the subject in a flash of insight, a shock to wake up the thinking mind, a blast of energy to assist us in exploding the old conventional approach. Also z looks snappy and we don’t like isms.
The best argument in favor of this movement in found right here in these statements. Not so much in their content, though I have endeavored to be clear and persuasive, but in the fact that I have drawn my readers through an essay of utterly fabricated art jargon, having no idea what I am talking about whatsoever, about a movement that was just made up in the last few weeks, consisting so far of two proponents, though growing even as I speak.
I have made this whole thing up, because r thought it would be fun to play silly buggers with the conventions of the art world, and that I absolutely deserve to be considered one of the foremost thinkers on current art, even though I know fuck all about it. I agree.
Intelligent discourse is not only for Phd.s, we can all do it, if we are not too afraid to think and too intimidated to express.
And if you guys bought this, I can sell it to the whole world. Just watch.
Didn't this seem just a little obvious to everyone?