Contemporary "Art"

I just don't get Contemporary Art. Once again, I am posting about a subject my knowledge of which is painfully limited. I have never seriously studied art, or even been particularly interested in it, further than the intense enjoyment and awe I felt visiting the Louvre and co.

But I just don't get Contemporary Art.

Recently I was in Sydney and I visited the Museum of Contemporary Art. Now, I don't want to condemn that establishment, or what I am sure is a multitude of capable, artistic contemporary artists, but I would love to know who gets to decide what goes into their exhibitions.

Now don't get me wrong. Some of the pieces in there were incredible. Beautiful. Art. But can someone please explain to me how a glass cabinet with a sharpener and a few pencil shavings inside constitutes art? Or how a slideshow projected onto the wall in which the screen colour changes between bright rainbow colours, while a white word in the middle of the screen changes between "love", "hope", "dangerous", "lying", "nice", "good" and "evil". They aren't even the same parts of speech! At the risk of sounding like Pauline Hanson: "Please Explain!". It thoroughly angers me that these "artists" are being paid unheard of amounts of money to put a baseball, a mug and a legal pad on a table, stick a plaque with their name next to it, and call it art!

Ok, I'll stop ranting about things I don't know anything about now. Maybe.

But seriously. These "artists" need to go to the Louvre and look at what real art is, and then jump off a bridge. Preferably the Sydney Harbour one.

- Sandy

p.s. I'm allowed to judge their pitiful attempts because I am really Leonardo Da Vinci's descendant, who is making much, much better art under a pseudonym.