Are you tired of your current career? Is getting up and going to work every day getting old? Is the daily grind grinding your dreams of pay without working into sawdust? Wouldn’t it be great to get paid for drinking white wine, working one night a week attending art shows and pontificating about what someone else has poured their heart and soul into? Sounds too good to be true? Au contraire, mon frere. There is a job that allows you to do all these things and get paid for it. Consider becoming an art critic. Right now, you are probably asking yourself, “How can I be an art critic?” Let us reverse that question, how can you not become an art critic? The hours are great, you get to torture struggling artists with critical reviews, and you get to wear a beret.

 To be an art critic you just need to master certain phrases. You don’t have to make sense. Frankly, it helps your professional standing if you write gibberish. You just have to sound classy. Remember to hold your pinkies up while you are banging away at the old word processor. There are certain stock phrases in the Acme Art Criticism for Dummies book that will guarantee to make you sound knowledgeable even if you don’t know anything about art. 

For example, let us use Acme’s art criticism phrases to review Donald Trump’s hair as if his hair was a painting in an art gallery. Shall we begin? The afterimage of the Donald’s hair reflects the collective struggle of follicles yearning to breathe free and the communal failure of comb-overs throughout the collective Zeitgeist. (For extra credit, throw in the word Zeitgeist as often as possible.) His hair reflects his positions on illegal immigration that are devastating in their simplicity resulting in an objective removed from reality into an oeuvre of a visual mediation on the need for a really big wall on the Mexican border.

 Consider the impermanent durational aspect of the Donald’s coif being caught in the wind. This danger necessitates the wearing of a red hat to keep his strands from unstranding. It reminds us of the imperfect evidence of man’s duality of baldness and hattedness. The visceral connection between his hair and his supporters illuminates the solid and foundational levels of simplistic political answers to complex political problems. The amount of actual hair on the Donald’s head raises the dialectic between the presence and absence of hairness. The ephemeral nature of hair, here today and gone tomorrow, is fraught with the eternal indexical reference between light and shadow, reason and imagination. As George Costanza would say, Donald’s hair is not a toupee if his supporters believe it is real. 

The other Republican candidates privately question the Paleolithic versus industrial nature of the Donald’s hair. Their criticisms are fraught with a mimetic sense of anguish as the Donald pulls away from them in the polls on his way to the presidential nomination. The mutual, albeit transient, dislike of all things Donald by his current Republican opponents will integrate and redistribute into a fusion of support for Donald once he is the nominee against the Hillary. 

The ontology of subjectivity of whether the Donald’s hair is real or not has produced a carnal bond between the Donald and his quotidian supporters across the political spectrum. They have cleaved to the Donald’s hair as a barnacle is umbilically linked to the bottom of a fishing boat. Trumpites will not be separated from the icon of the Donald’s hair that has entrapped them in a crisp iconicity which ignores any wild nonfactual statement that the Donald makes about anything. On the Democratic side, the same liberation from the need for truth from statements made by Hillary resonates and transforms her supporters. Truth like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Neither Donald’s hair nor Hillary’s email server matter a whit to their supporters. 

See how easy it is to write art reviews? Use the Acme Art Word Salad generator. Soon you will be swilling down white wine, chomping shrimp and be well on your way to becoming a famous art critic.