Would the Mona Lisa still be valuable if we discovered that Leonardo da Vinci was racist?

Trick question! Racism and art are social constructs, their value controlled by the same elite establishment.

We tend to think that people get canceled after a racism is unearthed, but it’s really the other way around. The Powers That Be identify someone who needs to be canceled, and find a way to smear them as racist. Or anti-semitic, extremist, or domestic terrorist. These are just catch-all terms to describe someone who has fallen out of favor with the establishment.

(By which I mean, rich people.)

It doesn’t take elaborate propaganda to create a consensus; if you say it enough times it becomes true. Contemporary art is objectively shit — an affront to the eyes — its only purpose to provide a vessel for money laundering. We’re convinced of its artistic value because rich people fund fancy museums to pump their bags. Did you know that the Museum of Contemporary Art is funded by the Soros family?

“Art is anything you can get away with” –Andy Warhol

Things move faster in Silicon Valley. Which brings me to NFTs, or non-fungible tokens attached to a media asset. Like a title of ownership, but on the blockchain. The only reason anyone ascribes value to NFTs is because Silicon Valley VCs won’t shut up about them.

And…I mean that in a good way. It truly demonstrates the democratization of finance. It’s no longer billionaires in New York who can conjure up collective hallucinations for tax evasion purposes. Now billionaires in Silicon Valley can do it too. You thought it was a chad move to sell a banana taped to a wall for $150k? Jack Dorsey just sold his first tweet for $2M.

Why did the CryptoKitty market crash? Because that Union Square Ventures guy stopped tweeting about them.

See Also:
Why NFTs are the Future (part 2)