would you, could you as an art critic?

arts writer fund

an archeologist is required to help me dig up what i remember about my college art history classes.
the slideshows were beautiful, i remember that... but the accompanying lectures were monotonous enough to make ben stein cringe, curl up into a ball and cry for it to stop!

i'm sure there've been changes in the curriculums since the protozoic age, when i was the knee-deepest
in flunking the hell out my college education... surely, contemporary art now has a prominent focus in the classical arena setting. i mean, andy warhol mighta got some discussion clock time back in '85 (maybe as a footnote) but there was no serious focus on contemporary art in my art history classes. serious art talk pretty much ended with cubism. picasso was as close to "contemporary relevance" as most courses got. i dont remember any mention at all on frida... and basquiat's legacy was in extreme infancy.

there can be inspiration and appreciation while talking about (insert dead european renaissance painter here) but its not been until brother kehinde wiley recently came along to apply those traditional approaches to his contemporary themes. most painters striving to achieve the level of mastery displayed by 'the masters' either mimic or mock those long-gone mentors... there's been much 'adoption' of classic approaches but very little 'adaption'.

and with all things in life, when changes in approach/technique/vision are required it usually begins from the pristine critic asking his jaundiced question.

and apparently, there is a scholarship for that!

is this a natural fit for me? i was already born a cynic... can i hone that into a career making critical conclusions on the state of contemporary art? shit... i'm damn near spent just getting this blog finished!

it's 2010... im an old ass man... maybe its time i take vitamins. supplements to complement my contemporary pessimism.