I wondered that, myself. The group did not view a Pollack, as far as I could tell.
(For now, the tours focus on representational art, on the theory that it's an easier touchstone for narratives and memories. There are no Pollocks, for example.)
Modern art includes Pollock's abstract stuff. I showed a typical work of Pollock in case someone isn't familiar with him.
Richard E. Smalley, 62, Dies; Chemistry Nobel Winner
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list. Anyone can post any unrelated link as they see fit.
So because some modern art is not to your liking, all modern art is bad?
Btw, Pollack is not abstract; he is non-representational. Picasso is abstract. "Abstract" means that the art represents something, but it has been distorted or transformed in such a way that it is not realistic. Abstract art has its roots in ancient Christianity: the grotesque disproportions of some iconography is because the proportions have an abstracted meaning, rather than attempts at accurately depicting real human beings.
Art that depicts no real subject at all is called "non-representational. Non-representational art is not necessarily supposed to be "deep," but often consists of merely noticing or demonstrating the effects of color, placement, randomization, chaos, etc.
You're not SUPPOSED to look at a Jackson Pollack and say, "why that looks exactly like how I always pictured the Madona and Child," or "what a brilliantly emotional illustration at the shortcomings of the capitalist system!" You're supposed to look at his works the way you would the vapor trail coming off a jet airplane, or the still-motion capture of a splash of water in a pond. In fact, that sort of turbulence is exactly what Jackson Pollack expressed. The difference between viewing a Rembrant and a Pollack is like the difference between listening to Shakespeare and listening to rain on a tin roof.
That said, there are a lot of poseurs and a many in the art community afflicted with "The Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. Pollack and Picasso are difficult to understand, and are often appreciated by the types who put Steven Hawkins' books on their coffee tables but who couldn't tell you one of the three laws of thermodynamics. Or they mistake venting their rage and hatred as art. Their crime is so great not only because of their venom against all things decent, but because they also defame true art.
For an excellent explanation of modern art, from a perspective of some who loves Christ, try Sister Wendy. She is non-judgmental, but she also doesn't mind saying, "I really don't get this." But she can really help a conservative understand modern art.