So over the hill 90s actress just has this bizarre painting in her living room?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721068&forum_id=2...id.#48908013)

That painting represents the confusion, uncertainty, pain, and excitement as girls grow up, enter puberty, develop sexually, and leave a sheltered existence for a possibly hostile world. The artist juxtaposes the mundane (talking on the telephone, a sleepover) with scenes charged with tension and sensuality. The only color is bright red -- a girl's provocative menstruation that also evokes a crime scene and a witch burning at the stake, and an arm gripping the face on the left of the picture -- add to the sense of voyeurism and threatened violence, the unsettling feeling that these girls are unaware that they are not in control.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721068&forum_id=2...id.#48908065)

If you look at when art really took off in the 50s and 60s, it all came down to curators who were essentially promoters who partied with rich people. Some of the stories of how Jackson Pollack and Rothko got famous boil down to some Jew who bought up these paintings and befriended a lot of rich people and convinced them it was genius.

It's all based on seduction of the upper class and helping them find meaning through consumption. And the industry has remained robust. That doesn't mean any of this art is good it just means rich people value it.

If you look at private markets where the only customers are other rich people very weird things happen. If you went on the street and tried to sell modern art to regular people it wouldn't be worth anything to them. But because all the bidders here are billionaires the floor remains very high.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721068&forum_id=2...id.#48908321)

I’m understanding female sexuality, as understood by women, largely from Edna st. Vincent Millay, to be clear.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5721068&forum_id=2...id.#48908179)