Pop culture should not make its way into fine art unless its representation can somehow be subjective, ironic––or––if the art is so good that the art itself replaces the meaning of the pop culture object. Fine art has many definitions but it’s basically just art that gets into galleries. Pop culture objectification is tough to swing as fine art; it tends to be what I call disposable art. Meaning art that will get thrown out one day. Paintings of Hollywood celebrities and portraits of superheroes, when well made, do not belong in galleries, but belong in theme parks, and they should be sketches. That’s merchant art. It’s economical, and it’s a way to make a living. Merchant art is always disposable––destined to end up in a landfill; only fine art has the potential to become immortal. If you get your art into galleries, congratulations––you are 1 step closer to immortality. Not all art can become immortal, but Joker paintings will get you nowhere. The distinction is that fine art induces wonder; it ignites convictions; the brain wishes to solve its meaning: an impossible task; it is profound; it can stain the minds of the masses; it can define its time in history in our ideas as we reflect upon the past, and yet also be timeless; it can summate the essence of human culture; it can be worth millions of dollars for these reasons. The cold hard truth for those who dare to dream––. Your millionth Heath Ledger Joker painting: beneath your talents. As a rule, pop culture should not overpower the art in your art, according to common sense. The Joker ruins art and he’s absolutely everywhere. I’ve seen some really good artists who make a living off of disposable art. Some of these artists have all the tools and are really good, but people who buy disposable art don’t know what art is and that’s a fact. These makers do not produce fine art in my opinion. Your framed Joker painting does not impress me.