The style and presentation method of the article is great.

I hate this style of "art", though. If modern art should exist at all, it should be only at the fringes of the art world, as an occasional novelty, rather than the main attraction.

For some reason, I feel unusually, viscerally, strongly about this topic. My first instinct was to just declare that this art is absolute fucking garbage (which feels like an indisputable fact to me, not just an opinion). But I thought I should try to analyze why I feel that way.

I have a fine-arts education and passion. I spent several years attending art schools, and working at art schools and galleries. I've been exposed to plenty of modern art and the artists who make it. But I absolutely loathe it. And, in surveys, the public agrees: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2016/...

I think art should have to pass a test: If you saw it in an alleyway, would you think it was art or trash? Or: Could a child have made it by accidentally smearing paint on a canvas?

Art should generally display technical skill and years of practice. Viewers should think "I would never be able to make something as precise and beautiful as this", not "I could make five of these in an hour."

If not technically demanding, art should at least be somehow clever, expressive, or interesting... And in a self-evident manner that doesn't require a backstory on a placard.

The talent required for modern art is not in creating it, but in describing it. I consider modern artists (and critics) frauds, whose main skill is writing snooty descriptions of garbage, convincing people that it's valuable, like the tailor in "the emperor has no clothes".

Finding something that no one has ever called art, and being the first to call it art, is not making art; it's just calling shit art.

I understand modern artists are trying to be creative and unique, to push the limits of what can be called art, and maybe to show us beauty in where we haven't looked before... But most of their experiments fail.

Modern art tries so hard to be original that it forgets to be appealing to viewers. Many traits can make a work of art appealing; originality is only one of them (other traits include technical skill, composition, realism, and subject matter.) Modern art sacrifices (or purposely sabotages) all other possibly-appealing traits in pursuit of originality, forgetting that appeal--not originality--is the ultimate goal. This generally results in an ugly piece of junk that anyone COULD have made, but no one else DID make yet... And that's if the artist is lucky.

Art is capable of being naturally appealing to viewers. This documentary lays out a case for beauty in art, and how the intentional ugliness of modern art is demoralizing: https://vimeo.com/128428182

Not incidentally, it's by a conservative-leaning host; apparently, opinions of modern art are closely tied to opinions on politics:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20856316/p...

I'm high in openness, and usually lean left, but not in this regard, somehow.

A big part of the reason "realistic", "traditional", or "classical" artwork is traditional or classic is that those styles are naturally appealing; that's why they survived so long. I think modern artists tend to consciously and intentionally reject anything related to traditional values. Of course classical art can be boring, has all been done before, was replaced by photography, etc., but it's still intrinsically appealing in a way modern art isn't.

I guess a big part of why I dislike modern art is its success. If the music world was the same as the art world, Brian Eno would be the most popular musician of all time. It just feels wrong. I like Brian Eno and other minimalist/expressionist/experimental music, but only because it's so different compared to the norm. It shouldn't be the norm.