Seizure's art episode was so eye opening on clint. Like, I thought he was just kinda artsy fartsy but he's just as delusional as josh about his art, Papa Nips simply has a bit more proficiency with his tools, but no artistic eye or really any kind of humility. Just like Jord
Josh actually seems to possess some kind of art talent because he's too autistic to be artsy fartsy. Yes, the music sucks and he can't photoshop for shit but he's also not trained in arts of any kind, at all, except for the guitar. Meanwhile Big Daddy Clunt has some schooling in photo editing and photography and he can't photo edit worth shit, making his edited photos look uncanny and weird.
Josh is so much like his dad, or rather Clint is almost as equally autistic as his bogboy. Clint just isn't as mentally disabled as his son.
The takeaway I got from seizures snakebones about clint's art is this. Clint is a wannabe artist but is a total failure, I know, I know, real groundbreaking stuff. But hear me out, the reason
why is different than what a lot of people think. The problem with Clint's art, that makes it so shit, and as a result makes him a shitty artist has very little to do with his art itself. Clint isn't all that technically skilled. But that's fine, art isn't about technical skill all the time. If "good' art was only the art that was made with technical skill art would become homogenous and formulaic even more than it already can be at times. You'd have nobody pushing boundaries or experimenting. Art is subjective, there are plenty of impressive artists that aren't nearly as technically skilled as some others. "Good" art is just art that speaks to people on some level and gives them an emotional response or resonates. An artist can make the worst slop you've ever seen but if it resonates with just one person, it's not a failure in my eyes. So his art sucking doesn't have anything to do with skill level, or even his ideas or anything like that.
No, Clint's greatest sin and what makes him fail as an artist is his inability to let his art speak for itself. Go to his website and look at his art, each accompanied by a huge essay explaining his intent, the meaning, and his reasoning for why he did what he did when creating. That means two things either a) he isn't confident enough with his own abilities and is insecure that he's unable to get across his intent through his art if he doesn't explain it to people or (what I think is the main culprit) b) he can't stand the idea that anybody interprets his art in any way other than how he wants them to. He can't create art and let it exist and let people seek their own meaning in it, he has to control how they view it.
It defeats the entire purpose of art. You create something and put it out into the world let it stand on its own. People have different lived experiences, people have different mindsets and beliefs, and people will have different interpretations of the meaning and the "search for truth". People might view your art and interpret a totally different meaning than what you had in mind when you created it but that doesn't mean it's invalid. But Clint can't let that happen. He can't let anybody find their own meaning he has to tell them what they're supposed to think, what they're supposed to feel, and why they should be impressed. Can you imagine if the Mona Lisa, one of the most timeless and famous pieces of art precisely because of the different ways people interpret the meaning of such a simple painting? Can you imagine if da Vinci just had it accompanied with a written essay about what it "means"? Can you imagine Van Gogh's 'Starry Night' being accompanied by a lengthy essay from Gogh about its significance and an explanation of what it exactly is supposed to symbolize?
Clint's art fucking sucks and he sucks as an artist, not because his art is bad or cringe or lame or sloppy or unskilled. But because he makes sure that nobody can engage with it, and if your audience isn't allowed to engage with your art, then it might as well not exist at all.