“The juxtaposition of secular and religious architecture is clearly intentional.” The director of the Royal Academy of Arts makes his position clear. He and the other board members are analysing a contemporary photograph. “This is clearly an example of Pre-Warhollian Art.”
“But the emphasis is on the air conditioning unit mounted on the church wall. The irony clearly plants it within the Post-Modern school of thought.” Suggests a notable art critic.
“But, it’s clearly the emphasis on the air conditioner that makes this an expression of Utilitarian ideals.” Proposes a third member of the board.
“Don’t you remember the writings of Kant?” Protests a fourth. “The heavy use of image editing software puts this clearly in the realms of expressionism. I challenge you to find such a scene in reality.”
“If we’re discussing realism, then wouldn’t that make this a surrealist piece?” Poses a fifth collaborator.
“But we must ask what was the intent? If it was to gain followers on social media, then it is a Collaborativist piece if I ever saw one.” Adds a sixth.
“But Collaborativism is a subset of POST-Warhollianism.” Argues the director. “This is clearly PRE-Warhollianism.”
“I won’t move from my assertion that it is Expressionism, cut and dry.”
“But it’s surreal. No debate.”
“Utility, through and through!”
“But, gentlemen!” Exclaims a seventh member. “Have you forgotten the writings of Dr. Seuss? Or the films of Sandler? Don’t forget the illustrations of Groening and MacFarlane. It’s an example therefore of Post-Millenial-Pop-Aestheticism.”
The members mumble in agreeable tones. After a brief period of quiet collaboration the board is in agreement. The Director recites the verdict from his paper notes: “The image is of the style Utilitarian-Pre-Warhollian-Millennialist-Pop-Aesthetic-Surrealism.”
The director crumples his notes. “Let’s begin again shall we?”