"Thank you. Good Evening. I am here today to discuss the concept of cannibalism. -- No, not that kind of cannibalism… (audience laughs). Thank you. More seriously, however, the principles governing the categorization and definition of 21st-century art utterly fail in helping us to understand and appreciate the complex relationships existing among the flood of contemporary work today. Primarily, the western obsession with individualism and materialism has bred a cosmos of self-possessed art that covets the unique and ridicules the mundane. Today, artists would rather 'do their own thing' than 'follow' any new or developing artistic trend. It is becoming increasingly rare for any one particular stylistic or philosophical movement to attract any more than an infinitesimal proportion of the greater artistic community. Rather, we observe infinitely fractalizing artistic styles -- with each unique style conveying many diverse artistic influences. Thus, classically defined artistic movements, such as cubism or surrealism, fail to effectively define, classify, and unify any significant quantity of 21st-century art. Nonetheless, by the same manner in which 'impressionism' represents a fairly large, well-defined body of artwork based on similarities in subject matter, medium, and style, so, too, does the concept of 'artistic cannibalism' encompass and describe a vast volume of artwork, past and present."

 "What exactly, then, is artistic cannibalism? We currently understand Cannibalism as representing any work of art which categorically exists strictly within it's own unique definition -- art that has visually or otherwise conceptually integrated explicit artistic elements from across the myriad of different, well-defined styles, mediums, and philosophies. Or, conversely, art that falls outside of existing, traditional classification systems. (Comment from audience) Hmm. Yes, that is true, and further, we must understand that any given artistic perspective merely evolving or transmuting into another style or vehicle -- regardless of even extreme differences -- is not cannibalism. Self-evolving art may be classified under auto-cannibalism or even post-cannibalism, but certainly not cannibalism. (Question from audience) Yes, thank you -- nice question. The relationship between 'auto' and 'unique' cannibalism is inversely proportional (waits for laughter, audience remains silent) -- just kidding.
Seriously, though, auto-cannibalism, as contrasted with unique cannibalism, represents any artwork developed from within the parameters defined by a previously existing work or idea -- that is, art that eats itself. On the other hand, unique cannibalism represents any work that is sufficiently and exclusively cannibalistic, within any given set of artistic work or definition. Thus, serial art, for example, may be defined as being collectively cannibalistic, but individually they are not uniquely cannibalistic."

 "Obviously, art generally defined as romantic, prehistoric, surrealistic, expressionistic, or as any other well-defined style, serves as material for cannibalization, and cannot, therefore, be cannibalist. Abstract artwork, however, may indeed fall into cannibalistic territory, and vice versa. The concept of abstract art is a much broader in definition than, say, cubism or fauvism. Thus, while cubism is not cannibalism, abstract art may be, due to its vast inclusiveness. Modern art is pre-cannibalistic in nature, and may indeed be classified as pre-cannibalist. The exploration of simplification, color fields, and emphasis on expressionistic vehicle, serves as exhaustive prelude to the convoluted cannibalist paradigm. Within modernist art exists exploration of fundamental artistic principles, expressions, and philosophies. This stripped-down, skeletal flux of artistic exploration represents an extreme artistic style. Now, as the contemporary art-pendulum vigorously swings in reaction to the generally recognized modern art phenomenon, the cannibalistic movement materializes in both consequence and necessity. Now, contemporary art is cannibalistic simply because the world is cannibalistic (laughter)."

 "Further, we find that the established archetypes of a theoretical cannibalistic architecture help us chew through today's endless web of fractalizing artistic styles. Cannibalistic art represents the dissolution of adherence to strict stylistic categories, definitive movements, and artistic principles. To follow this trend, we must adopt new paradigm from which to pursue and interpret the world of art. What we are saying, in essence, by calling a piece of work 'cannibalistic', is that such work clearly embodies a multicultural development, as defined through its cannibalized components, which encompasses any and all possible artistic styles, ideas, or themes. It is this very widespread cannibalization and regurgitation of art that has, through a fundamental process of homogenization, provided the conceptual framework needed to define the Cannibalist Movement."

 "Allow me to close by reiterating that if you have some art that doesn't exactly fit into any other artistic category, it is probably cannibalistic art (laughs). And, finally, let me just say that, it is my personal opinion that, as the world's many artists continue to consume, filter*, and explore ideas from an infinitely vast and diverse pool -- an endless pool, if you will -- of artistic inspiration, the scope of cannibalism matures into an actualized, legitimate artistic movement -- hastening the pendulum's evolutionary swing toward new and unexplored artistic frontiers. Thank you. Good Night (extensive applause)."