Thursday, November 26, 2015

Pro-Wrestling is not fake!

One of the biggest misconceptions is that Pro-Wrestling is "fake" on the same level as fictional films. Pro-Wrestling is indeed very real. How real is it? We will analyze the many theatrical performances of pro-wrestling.

It is commonly thought that Pro-wrestlers follow a carefully written script for everything (matches, promos, and other extreme stunts). The winner of a match is pre-determined. While that might be true, it's not always the case. Take a look at this example of a script involving a match.

Did you notice something? The winner is chosen but there are no specific and pre-determined directions as to HOW that victory is to be achieved. There's simply no time for every wrestler on the roster to get it perfect during practice. They only have around a week before the match starts. What's their last resort? Improvising. If only it was that easy for people to simply follow everything written down on paper and get paid. It doesn't work that way. How are they going to win the match while the crowd watches? WWE says "Figure it out!" Referees and other wrestlers might whisper directions, but they are no substitute for skill. Pro-Wrestlers must have an advanced understanding of the dynamics of signatures moves, the paces of matches, and creativity in performance. It is by this understanding that they can be amazing entertainers loved by millions. Those who know nothing of Pro-Wrestling will be walking out of the company's doors.

Even if wrestlers are creative, it still means that the violence is fake right? Nope. While the goal is to keep each wrestler safe when executing moves, real injuries occur. Pro-Wrestling doesn't have the luxury of the same safety procedures as Hollywood does. Your performing live in front of millions, not behind the scenes of a film set.You can't use stuntmen while everyone's watching. This is where talent comes in. Pro-Wrestlers must execute every signature move almost perfectly. If they don't, an injury to a vital area can be fatal.

Here's a few examples of real life injuries that happened in the history of Pro-Wrestling:

Undertaker vs. Mankind:

One of my favorite matches. It shocked WWE after Undertaker threw Mankind off hell in a cell. According to news reports via Wiki, the Undertaker had a broken foot. Mankind suffered the following injuries:

* A dislocated shoulder

* A concussion

* A dislocated jaw

* A hole in his bottom lip

* Loss of Consciousness

Hulk Hogan chokes Richard Belzer: 

Richard Belzer, a stand-up comedian, was mocking wrestler and calling it fake. Richard Belzer taunted Hulk Hogan into performing a real wrestling move. Hulk Hogan put him in a front-face lock, blocking his windpipe as his arms went limp. Hulk Hogan let him go as the back of Belzer's head hit the stage hard, causing it to bleed.

Owen Hart breaks Stone Cold's neck: 

As Stone Cold faced Owen Hart, he got his neck broken during a finishing move. He suffered temporary paralysis and Owen Hart had to stop the match.

Wrestling moves: 

Punches and kicks do hurt no matter how they are delivered. The moves done in Pro-Wrestling require athleticism and power. They are choreographed but dangerous. That's why many of them are banned from pro-wrestling. There's a good reason why you should never try this at home.

The ankle lock - These are used in combat sports like MMA and submission wrestling. When applied with excessive force, these can tear muscle, tendons, and break bone.

Tombstone Piledriver - This is dangerous because of the compression from the neck to the head. This can cause paralysis as the body weight and force is transferred to the head on impact.

You must remember that the ring-mat is covered with a wooden plank. Though wrestlers are slammed on it, there's not much protection to ensure a soft landing.


While the use of weapons is limited, the injuries caused are still dangerous.

Chairs - Regardless of what anyone says, chair shots do hurt

Ladders - These can tear a wrestler's face wide open.

Ringbell - Using the back of it can split a wrestler's head open.

Thumbtacks - These are painful as they puncture the skin and must be removed afterwards.

Barbed wire - Real barbed wire is used with a fake one. When it's time for a wrestler to be cut, real barbed wire is used.


Some claim that fake blood is used, but this isn't necessarily true. Pro-Wrestlers actually do bleed sometimes from impact of blows or from "blading." This is where a pro-wrestler takes a blade out and quickly makes an incision on their forehead. Chair-shots, punches, kicks, and other weapons further open the wound and causing more blood.

In conclusion, many features of pro-wrestling are not fake. This is a misconception that is unfortunately causing a degradation of the pro-wrestling business (as i will explain later). Educate your friends and family of the real dangers of Pro-Wrestling.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

The problem with modern horror films

Ever since the greatest horror film classics, horror has become a disaster. With all of the CGI and other highly advanced technology we should expect people to be terrified. Unfortunately, this isn't the reaction horror movies give us anymore. When i asked several people their thoughts on said horror movie, the responses are typically "It wasn't scary" as if they were supposed to jump. It doesn't make me shake in fear, it just makes me laugh at how absurd the horror genre has got.

Growing up as a kid, i remember watching my first horror film - Child's Play. I was terrified because Chucky was a child's nightmare come to life. The scenes were intense and the fear built up dramatically. I was afraid of the unknown and unexplainable mysticism of the doll. I've also seen movies such as "Nightmare on Elms Street", "Scream", "Exorcist", etc. I was shocked at the intensity and suspense. The villains of the story were original and shocking. The plot was original and progressive. There's character development and thought provoking moments.

Here are several tactics that got old fast:

1) Jump scares - Countless times, i've seen the same predictable killer's face appear on cam after the victim slowly looks out the window. Countless times, i've seen a chick make stupid mistakes as she runs screaming away from a killer. She's all battered and bloody as she trips over a log. When i watch a cliche horror film, i predict the many "made ya look!" moments. It's the same old tactics. Jump scares are not thrilling anymore because so many films have used them. I don't jump anymore, i just zone out.

2) Gore - When i watched "Saw", i wasn't really scared - i was disgusted. Many horror films use gore as a means to scare the audience to thinking it's horrifying when it's not. As i recall, one YouTube user said "If a killer butchered my friend, i'd be angry!" Don't get me wrong, i like gore but when there's no tension building up - it becomes torture porn. The reaction that the creators want to give the audience goes out the window when all they promote is senseless violence.

3) Vamps, killers, ghosts, demons, etc. - After watching "Night of the living dead", zombie films became a joke. What separated that movie from most is that you could see the dehumanized faces of those who were once dead. Not to mention that the tension built up while leaving a bit of mystery on who the zombies are. The earliest film "Dracula" was very disturbing and iconic. After that, vampires became a laughing stock. Demons are also old as we suddenly see them turn violent and levitate. People are just rehashing the same themes. I'm not saying that they should stop producing them, simply to change their approach.

Modern day horror film fans have forgotten what horror was all about. What i've learned from watching many horror films and comparing them is that it's not about the things i've listed. I used to think that if i didn't jump or tremble in fear, the movie wasn't scary. I later realized the problem wasn't the movie, it was my definition of scary. Watching films like "The Babadook" and "The Omen" made me reconsider what real horror is. The art form was intended to implant a disturbing thought into your mind about human nature.

Sadly, people dislike thinking. They don't want to think about character development, plot twists, foreshadowing, etc. They want instant gratification now. They just want to see egotistical and ignorant teens get killed. They want to see the same ideas with the same characteristics. No one's saying we ought to stop producing those types, only that we focus on the structure of the art. 

Saturday, November 14, 2015


With MMA fighting in direct competition with pro-wrestling, businesses like the WWE have fallen in popularity. This is due to the "realness" of UFC fighting and the decline of creativity in the pro-wrestling business. I think the UFC is not in any way superior or more advanced to pro-wrestling. There are many misconceptions of how pro-wrestling works and how UFC works in which i will attempt to resolve. I will argue why pro-wrestling is much more entertaining than MMA fighting.

"Pro Wrestling is fake, UFC is real" - Many people believe that everything in the pro wrestling world is fake and that wrestlers do not get hurt. Nothing is further from the Truth. Pro-wrestling is scripted but in no way fake. Pro-wrestlers put their bodies and health on the line for entertainment. They engage in rough-play but injuries are still real. An example of this is when Undertaker throws Mankind of a cell and gives him a dislocated shoulder along with a concussion. Chair shots, submissions, punches, etc. are all painful despite being scripted. Pro-wrestling tries to limit the amount of pain but this isn't always possible.

While the martial arts in UFC are authentic, that's exactly the problem. WWE invented it's own brand of fighting dubbed "Pro-Wrestling" while UFC relies on martial arts, thus misrepresenting it by making it into a sport. In traditional martial arts, people train for survival whereas UFC fighters train for competition. In traditional martial arts, the purpose is to improve your health and well-being. The UFC fighter's goal is to be a dominant champion. A traditional martial artist doesn't have to be a bodybuilder while a UFC fighter is typically muscular. A UFC body-builder has the luxury of substituting techniques for muscular strength in submissions. This cannot be done in the discipline of traditional martial arts. According to UFC rules, there are many things that are forbidden - Head butts, Eye-gouging, biting, hair pulling, groin or elbow strikes, blows to the back of the head or spine, throat
strikes, kicking the kidney with the heel, the list goes on. Indeed, UFC fighters train with martial arts but is it authentic to it's original form when so many attacks are forbidden? Not at all.

According to an article titled "9 Ways Fights are 'Fixed in MMA'", the author explains that experienced fighters are set up with inferior ones. The UFC company doesn't mention the difference between a record of wins and fighting experience. Take undefeated UFC champion Ronda Rousey. She is a very aggressive fighter trained in Judo and attacks to level an opponent. While it seems as if she's won by extraordinary experience, this was only because the women's division was not as developed as the men's. The author suggests that UFC relies on what is called "padding records." The UFC company picks similar fighters in physical characteristics and records, but not in experience. Looking back at Ronda's fights, i can clearly see that these fighters weren't even close to her level. I'm not expert in martial arts, but even from a standard common sense approach - You don't rush in against a very aggressive opponent. A smart martial artist would learn when to keep his or her distance. This is what Ronda's opponents did not do. The company does this to make Ronda popular. How skilled is Ronda Rousey in reality? We don't know yet.

* UFC keeps beef professional, WWE doesn't - I'm pretty sure you've seen UFC challengers keep it professional while somehow trying to entertain us with the intensity. Take a look at this video on how UFC promotes its fights as the fighters stare each other down. Notice how Ronda Rousey flips the bird at Miesha Tates just before she is separated. We all know they're trying to make the fighters look tough so why disguise it with the professionalism? We know the fighters would fight right then and there given the chance, so who are they trying to fool? Nonetheless UFC does not let them do so. With all the conferences and interviews, UFC lacks the anticipation that WWE has.

Now watch this intense promo of a match between pro-wrestlers. There's no one standing behind them to make sure things don't get out of hand. On the contrary, it's the feuds that are promoted by the business to fuel the hype of the crowd. There's almost no rules. It's just pure intensity and creative characters with their own unique voice. It's a mistaken notion that pro-wrestlers just jump around and fight. They must also have great skills on the mic and in dialogue. You will see pro-wrestlers attack each other backstage to show their frustration and dislike for one another. You will see pro-wrestlers make daring claims in a solid and strong aggressive voice. WWE creates an environment where you can feel the competitive recklessness and ferocious hunger of wrestlers to succeed. It's as if the rules in society don't apply in the WWE and that's what makes people anticipate the matches. UFC lacks all of those things period.    

* Pro-Wrestling is strategic like UFC - As i've stated earlier, Pro-wrestling is indeed scripted. You can find an example of a pro-wrestling script in the link below. Notice that the script only mentions who the winner, but it does not say how that victory will be accomplished. This is where the pro-wrestlers creativity and knowledge must kick in to get the job done. Pro-wrestling is thus no easy task. Pro-wrestlers still train like athletes because they are athletes. Some claim that pro-wrestlers have time to practice every choreographed move before the match - they don't. Smackdown for example runs on a weekly basis so the superstars must improvise on the spot. If a pro-wrestler lacks creativity and the ability to entertain, he or she won't be as popular. As a result, they won't appeal to fans or the company.

Pro-wrestling despite relying on a script, still has some form of strategy. Take for example the competition for the WWE title between Jeff Hardy and Triple H. Jeff Hardy is known for being a fly high risk taker who is willing to sacrifice his body for a victory. He's artistically acrobatic, agile, quick, and smart. He knows that Triple H is stronger and more offensive so Jeff Hardy devised a strategy. He put Triple H in a submission, continually tried pinning him, and flipping him over to counter-attack. This has gained Triple H's respect for using your opponent's weaknesses to your advantage.

* Pro-Wrestling is creative, UFC isn't - UFC almost always has the same types of matches. Almost all of the fighters look and fight the same. While it's entertaining to watch two fighters battle in a cage, it gets boring after a while. Some may argue "It's an unfair comparison because this is UFC.." however i beg to differ. This is entertainment. The goal is to please the crowd in the best ways possible. In Sword-fighting competitions for example, fighters are set up to fight in groups and use many other weapons. While UFC might have many MMA techniques, many fighters do not last very long and often do not get to employ all of their moves. It easily turns into a submission or knock out.

As i've stated earlier, Pro-Wrestling isn't just about fighting. It's about theatrical performance, character and storyline development, creativity in gimmicks, fashion, as well as ring maneuvers. It's as if your watching a movie in person. There's a wide variety of matches than the standard ones - Hell in a Cell, Punjabi Prison match, Royal Rumbles, tag team matches, Elimination chamber match, and so on. Each has it's own set of rules thus each pro-wrestler must adapt to the environment.

One would think that realistic fights equal more entertainment but this isn't always true. It's about how the fights are marketed and this is what makes WWE more entertaining than UFC.

* WWE has a more engaging audience than UFC - I've seen UFC audiences seated the whole time many times before. Go to a WWE show and it's like a concert as you hear the crowd roar. You see their reactions of sadness, anger, happiness, excitement, disgust, and so forth. You can see how devoted the fans are to their favorite superstars by the signs they hold up and the clothes they wear. Some pro-wrestling companies may allow fans to engage in some of the action. In the WWE world, the fans have a very close relationship with the superstars. While UFC managers try to please the crowd, the fans are no more than spectators. If their favorite UFC fighter loses, that's the end of it. This does not work in the WWE world. Ideally, the company works for the fans' best interests. If enough fans want something changed, the company will comply with their demands. It is the fans of pro-wrestling that direct the matches and develop story-lines. The fans are apart of the pro-wrestling business.  

In conclusion, if people understood how UFC and WWE rather than promote false myths, we ought to see the clear differences. Once we do, we can decide for ourselves the Truth. When taking many things into consideration, i am convinced WWE surpasses UFC in entertainment value and ought to gain the same amount of popularity as UFC if not more.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Why the Great Khali was indestructible

When the Great Khali entered Smackdown in 2006, i was scared. His height and intimidating yet mysterious presence was known as he devastated the Undertaker. His roar was monstrous and his eyes inhuman. His physical appearance and size were jaw-dropping. I've seen him completely pulverize wrestlers in the ring almost to death. It is even reported that he accidentally killed a pro-wrestling doing a flapjack slam. There was a period when the Great Khali was unstoppable against WWE's best: Kurt Angle, Batista, Rey Mysterio, and others. He was at the top of the food chain, being the most dominant out there. When the Great Khali stepped in WWE, all hell broke loose. During that time, the Great Khali ruled in tyranny and everyone secretly knew it. He didn't need a title, all he needed was fear.

Many people believe that a large buff guy is a brainless moron with no fighting techniques at all. While this might be true, they're still fearsome. The Great Khali was born a giant. His enormous size is never to be underestimated. In the old tale of David and Goliath, David in his humility and quickness defeats the giant Goliath. However in the WWE, no one trains to be a David. Many wrestlers train to be a giant and when faced with a bigger giant, they aren't prepared. They lack the superior strength and speed. I've seen smaller wrestlers who are smart and more agile than the Great Khali but end up losing regardless. This is because they're stuck with such a fragile and small body that can do little damage to the monstrous size of the Great Khali.

Take for example his vice grip submission. How do you think Batista would break out of that hold? Hitting him? Trying to pull his arms away? Getting to the ropes? How do you fight a man who's 7 feet tall and weighs 347 pounds being a body builder Batista's size? Once Khali gets a hold, you'll be passing out in minutes and have a limited amount of time before you go to sleep. Once you get in this hold, i see very little counters.

People don't call him "the Great Khali" for nothing. He doesn't need speed or agility because his legs are in themselves dangerous. Often, Khali would kick a pro-wrestler in the face and the moment his foot made contact, the ropes on the ring almost break from the explosive impact of the pro-wrestler's back hitting the floor. It gets worse when he executes the Punjabi plunge. He lifts his opponents up with both hands then slams them as you hear the loudness of the impact. The slams are so devastating that Khali's opponents do not recover from them after one or two times. It's as if they fell from a tall building as they crash into the concrete.

Another one of his fatal moves is the Khali chop. This move is so violent and powerful, it can knock out an opponent if landed to the head. It looks downright painful when delivered straight to the chest.

Of course if your fast enough, you can escape some attacks like Rey Mysterio did. However what's a kick or a punch going to do? He's too tall and too strong to be ground so easily. Had this been a real life situation, you might have a better chance at fighting him. Unfortunately, pro-wrestlers options are limited to sport rules. He can take so many blows from someone like Triple H and even if Khali is knocked off balance, there's no guarantee he will stay there very long. You can only take a few and once you do, your finished.

Because of these moves and the creative ingenious of the old writers of WWE, they've made a monstrous wrestler that is powerful - maybe too powerful. In his earliest time on Smackdown, he's been demolishing our childhood heroes along with our hopes. The crowd must've been struck with fear as he steps over a fallen opponent for a pin. He was on a rampage and i can imagine the writers despite their creative ingenious talent, regretting ever making the monster.

WWE probably struggled to find a middle ground where Khali would not be too powerful or too weak with no success. As WWE fell into the more PG-rated setting, they slowly changed the Great Khali into a soft, family friendly, entertainer. He was reduced to no more than a punching bag for WWE legends such as John Cena. When the WWE gave him this role, the Great Khali stopped being great.

I cannot blame them nonetheless. I feel that the Great Khali might have been too powerful of a heel to keep within any roster. It would take too much work to equalize him with the other pro-wrestlers. Even if this were to happen, it would strip him away of who the Great Khali is. While many people use the word "great" too often, the Great Khali is probably the only person who lives up to his fearsome and ferocious name.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Why Raven was underrated at WWE

Former pro-wrestler Raven was my childhood inspiration. His bizarre gimmicks, make-up, grunge clothing, and theme were all what made him stand out. As a kid, i loved watching him wrestle at TNA Impact. He was the role model i looked up to. Despite his legendary character, i feel he is completely underrated by most in the WWE/WWF world.

To start, he has a very thorough understanding of how the pro-wrestling business operates. He's been a writer and worked behind the scenes. He has valid credentials that set him apart from most other pro-wrestlers.

From a very early age, he was inspired to be a wrestler. He went through a identity crisis until he drew from traumatic childhood experiences. He took the emotional scars and created a dark and psychologically twisted persona rather than see a psychiatrist. Rather than create a completely fabricated personality, he made one forged from his psyche. One that he could easily blend naturally well into.

From the time Raven makes his entrance to the time the match ends, he proves himself to be TNA's most ruthless. He's vicious, sadistic, ambitious, cruel, violent, and merciless. He's the ideal image of what more heels or villains ought to aspire. He's arrogant and cares about no one but himself. He has no concept of sportsmanship, morality, honor, or respect. His goal is to severely torture his opponents by the most brutal methods (chairs, ladders, chains, staple guns, shopping carts, you name it.) His signature move: DDT Raven Effect as he explained was meant to drive the opponent's head into the ground. He knows how to pace matches, performing outrageous stunts and creative counters. His attacks aren't just physical, they're also psychological. He loves to make wrestlers think they have the upper hand, only to make a counter. He loves pain in the fullest and will often sacrifice his own body if it means winning the match. He has no remorse or compassion for what he does to his opponents and that's what makes him a monster. It's no surprise that he invented his own "Clockwork Orange: House of Fun" match type. When i realized this, i could clearly see why he was the ideal candidate to compete at TNA's Monster's ball against Abyss, Rhino, Black Reign, and Monty Brown.

As far as his record goes, he has held a fair win and lose streak. He's held several titles during his time at ECW, WWF, WCW, and TNA. He's faced opponents deemed formidable such as Rhino, Monty Brown, AJ Styles, etc. He with Stevie Richards defeated Cactus Jack, Tommy Dreamer, and the Pitbulls at Wrestlepaooza. His feud with the Sandman and Tommy Dreamer were considered some of the greatest in pro-wrestling history. He's attended special events and faced reputable wrestlers like Cactus Jack.

Whether it's at ECW, WCW, or TNA, Raven has been phenomenal on the mic. In almost each promo, he has something to reveal about his dark nature. His dark poetic words, allusions, aggressive displays, and ambitious drive to succeed in the ring are more than memorable. They're thought provoking philosophical ideas on suffering and human experience. He brought a whole new meaning and usage of Edgar Allen Poe's phrase "Quote the Raven Nevermore."

Despite his legacy, i think he was robbed by the WWF/WWE. He deserved so much more than the positions WWF/WWE put him in. I didn't think he was ready to compete against more popular wrestlers like Stone Cold, Undertaker, or the Rock just yet. He just started off fresh into the WWF and didn't have the proper chances to build a solid reputation. His character was degraded, becoming "filler" material rather than being allowed to perform more freely. He was reduced to a mere hardcore champ. rather than given other grand opportunities. It seems as if the audience wanted the villain to get beat up by their favorite and heroic wrestlers. They were ignorant of all his achievements and reputation in his early career. His success partially depended on the time he entered the WWF. Perhaps if he entered the business at a later time, he might've had made it big against the mainstream legends. He would've taken the spot next to the greats of the WWF/WWE.

In summary, Raven is one of the greatest wrestling legends in history. Creative story archs, intense feuds, and the most brutal wrestling stunts make him into an entertainer dabbling with brutality. His ingenious talent should have been widely recognized in the WWE/WWF had he gained the spot for it. Raven though retiring to start his own wrestling school, still impacts wrestling to this day.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Why art is objective to some degree

It's common for people to think that art is completely subjective however i argue that isn't the case. Art has some degree of objectivity to it based on certain principles.

People who understand art, understand that there are various techniques, skills, criteria, philosophies, and concepts involved in artwork. Movies, music, T.V shows, paintings, drawings, and so forth are all examples of art forms requiring technical handiwork. Forms of art such as movies, games, shows, etc. have a certain level of skills involving several things:

1) Story writing - This has a general format of a beginning, middle, and end. There are also conflicts, character, and plot development. There can be a struggle between good and evil. There are also other literary devices such as foreshadowing and changes of direction like plot twists.  

2) Visual arts - This can range from digital painting, CGI, designs, and so forth. This may require knowledge of computer programming and other sophisticated tools to achieve.

3) Story-telling - Voice acting or acting and methods of story-telling through cameras or other means are examples.

That being said, there is a difference to measure bad art from good art. If i suddenly made an amateur movie, the quality would be no where near popular films like "Lord of The Rings." This is because i lack expertise in Screen-writing, story-writing, direction, visual arts, and other things that Peter Jackson has. Directors like J.J Abrams and actors like Jodie Foster have technical skills that require professionalism. Whether or not you enjoy it is subjective but the work's quality is measurable.  

There is a general criteria for judging good and bad art:

1) Originality - Is the artist's work cliche or is it a uniquely distinguishable piece? Elements from culture, values, genres, and so on set parameters on what is "original." For example, i find artists like Marilyn Manson original. This is because his fashion of dress, gimmicks, and artwork deviate from the norm. Cliche ought to be frowned on because it does not progress art nor generate new ideas. New ideas cannot therefore breed new styles of art.

2) Creativity - What artistic expressions create something revolutionary and of value? This can be measured by culture, values, and compared with other works. Creativity depends on how well the artist understands the type of work he is involved in. It's by this that we have a framework to determine whether or not he's being creative.

3) Quality - The quality of resources available to the artist depends on what type of art they are doing. Some art forms like poetry do not require as much resources as game designing. The more tools you use, the higher expectations to judge your work's quality will be.

While there's no way to distinguish objectively between who's a "better" artist, there is a way to judge whether or not a person has reached their uttermost potential. This is the goal of constructive criticism and it's vital for improvement. There is a difference between a valid and an invalid opinion. A well informed critic who has studied various subjects surrounding art is qualified to make an expert opinion vs. someone who says "this is rubbish!"

People dislike constructive criticism because they'd rather believe that their art is perfect. You as an artist can ditch constructive criticism but there will be consequences. You probably won't get the fame or respect that you want. Essentially, you won't grow as an artist. While there may be some contests that are biased, others evaluate your work.

What about mainstream artists like Justin Bieber who achieved fame and fortune? In my opinion, they accomplished that because they had other things to substitute for their art. Connections, record labels, popularity, fashion, beliefs, and many things make them appealing. I dislike artists like Bieber because he's not as passionate about art as he is being a celebrity. His music is generic and nothing special. I'm not arguing that every mainstream artist does this. There are exceptions but they'll most likely be recognized for their ingenious work by artists looking for high quality content.

Claiming that we should appreciate art for it's own sake assumes that all artists do this which isn't always true. Corrupt people have used religion, science, ignorance, and many other things to gain profits. Art unfortunately is a way for corrupt businesses to make money. Very reputable modern artists have made millions from their masterpieces only to become too self absorbed leading to their work's downfall. That's why it's not advisable to buy just any person's work. Consider that the money you invest in low quality work may satisfy a company's greed while the underrated artist with a strong work ethic gets little to compensation. By refusing to buy anyone's work even from your favorite artists, you are disciplining them to strive for their potential. You are truly supporting them by teaching them that it's all or nothing. Many artists who are very passionate about their work go to extreme lengths to complete it. Some even put their health and lives at risk to express their art and entertain you. If everyone followed these principles, we would live in a world where hard work brings success. We would live in a world where everyone can get what they bargained for. Sadly, this isn't the case thanks to money, fame, bias, society, and many other things.

There are different reasons based on different experiences for why people enjoy art. Our emotional reactions can be subjective but art is not compromised of just feelings. I may not be inspired by most of Eminem's lyrics, but i won't deny that he has a developed a complex flow. The intellectual aspect of art still exists and it begins with observation. We can choose to hold fast to the belief that art is subjective but we will never go beyond the simple phrase "I like this just because.." By choosing to act only upon impulse, we will never understand a deeper meaning of art theory. This doesn't mean you should go to an Museum to appreciate art. You can still enjoy whatever forms of art you like. I simply advocate for opening your mind to new perspectives, constructive criticism, and artistic disciplines. The beauty of art is that it invokes subjective sensations from objective craftsmanship.