If they were all we had, people would be crying out for Matisse, Kandinsky, Mondrian and the rest of the moderns. Much of modern painting is vile or ugly or vapid. But just as there are other ways of decorating a room than heavy Victorian upholstery and other ways of building houses than Victorian gothic, so there are other ways of painting than ponderous Victorian realism. We would be much poorer without the impressionists, who took painting out into the open air, or Matisse, who brought the spirit of the Mediterranean into his work.
The writers on the ARC web site don't particularly seem to like Impressionism, but nonetheless seem to deem it worthy of respect, in start contrast to much of the "modern art" which they rightly regard with utter scorn.
I do think that they are overly critical of a lot of twentieth-century art; while some of it is truly worthy of scorn (e.g. rigging a room to randomly switch lights on and off) some of it is nonetheless interesting. WIth the era of photography and mass-produced prints, there is generally much less focus on the technical aspects of production and more on subject matter and composition.
At right, btw, is a picture of a Department 56 Snow Village (plus a few miscellaneous items) layout I set up. As a photographic composition it's pretty good, though by no means perfect. The flagpole in the center is a little harsh, but a rule of thirds composition doesn't really work without blocking either the moviegoers or the trolley. Still, I think it beats the pants off some Turner Prize winners.
I agree. I love Southwestern art myself.