UnNews:High Art Now Considered Offensive, Shocking
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
High Art Now Considered Offensive, Shocking
UnFair and UnBalanced
Saturday, April 30, 2016, 03:30:UTC)(
4 August 2008
NEW YORK, New York: A recent political cartoon published in the New York Times has caused outrage among the citizens of New York, and has since been labeled "exceptionally offensive to common sensibility', as well as "shocking to the core."
The cartoon, which contained the words "Not today, Mr. Bush" underneath a sketch of a dog, appears innocent enough at first glance. However, looking at it more closely reveals that the image, fitted with caption, makes little to no sense whatsoever.
"Therein lies the problem," explained lead protester Jeremy Smalls. "No one can understand it. It's common knowledge that anything most people can't understand is instantly terrible, and this just went and raised the bar."
"It's just awful," said local resident Alice McGee, a single mother of two. "My children saw this cartoon in the paper, and then they came to me and asked me to explain it." She teared up, reluctantly concluding, "I just couldn't. And they saw that I couldn't, and now they'll never respect me again. I don't want this sort of filth in our papers anymore."
The artist, Donald Eastcliff, has publicly turned up his nose at these people. "Perhaps they cannot see past the simple barrier of the lines on the paper," he said in response to these protests. "These ignorant consumers need to observe the depth hidden within the art, though their limited intelligence shall probably never allow them such an ability. Quite simply, foolish Americans, there are layers of satire, wit, and comedy buried within this comic that you could not comprehend." When asked to elaborate on the specifics of the satire in the cartoon, he simply responded, "Explanation would ruin it. You must figure it out for yourself."
With the recent developments in this case, the public has also found more and more images to take offense to, particularly classical works of art.
"Mona Lisa is terrible," wrote one anonymous protester on their Livejournal. "Why have we luvved it for so long? Its just sum chick like, kinda smiling. Who cares? I don't get it." Others have backed this radical statement, commenting, "FAMILY GUY ONLY RAEL ART WRTH KEPING."
Despite these momentary setbacks, snooty artists expect to be able to publish their intellectual pieces of art again in a few weeks.