[Paul Atreides]

You’ve offered nothing but bogus dichotomies and mischaracterizations. By your thinking, lovers of 19th century landscapes DO NOT love “modern art.”

No. I did not state what anyone can and cannot like. You really need to get off of your high horse and get your underwear out of the bunch they are in before you blow an artery. I am saying that to take a monumental work, such as Bierstadt's, and compare it to something along the lines of a Pollack or Picasso is crazy. Bierstadt wins hands down. However, HAVING STUDIED MODERN ART, I know from reading that modernists have rejected the use of such techniques as chiaroscuro found in such works as the Odalisque, by Ingres. They also have a rejection of the realism of past artwork as not being real art.

And, by extension, “modernists” (whatever the hell that means) despise art that predates modernism. Tell me what exactly is modern art?

Modern art is the movement that rejects the former notions of realism and capturing the subject, as seen by the human eye. As it became increasingly more politicized, and bogus, it developed into the absurd notion that it did not matter what came out in the medium, by the artist, it was what the artist was feeling at the time that made the work "art". For instance, I could take a paintbrush, make a bunch of zigzag marks on the canvas, state that I was doing it as a protest against the views of the Catholic Church, and it would be labeled art.

You mischaracterize it as something monolithic and provide caricatured examples and then knock down your straw man argument.

Modern art is monolithic. Do you seriously think that anyone who painted like Bierstadt or the Hudson River school would receive an art grant, or favorable mention by any "art critic"?

You actually think that I like Yoko Ono or a slashed canvas simply because I haven’t categorically rejected “modern art”?

I didn't state what you liked. I used those two as examples. You really are going off the deep end over a simple criticism. Many people don't like the things I enjoy, but I'm not having a stroke over it. Grow up and develop a thicker skin.

[macamadamia]

You don’t seem to read your own words very carefully. Accusing me of doing what you, yourself, are doing is the oldest debating trick in the book. You’ve assigned “phoniness” to those who like Picasso; I’d say that’s pretty arrogant. You don’t want to talk to modernists (who goes around labeling themselves modernist?) because they thumb their noses at 19th century landscapes; who is the one who needs a “thicker skin”?? And your definition of modern art “modern art is the movement that rejects the former notions of realism and capturing the subject, as seen by the human eye” is frankly nonsense. “Capturing the subject as seen by the human eye” applies arguably to artists as far back as the Renaissance. The rest of your definition is just fatuous. As to your assertion that grants and critical praise are not given to artists who paint in the Hudson River School, I’d say you must not go to many galleries. Hell, look on the magazine racks. There are magazines that feature and sell artwork of this type. Your claims to the contrary make you sound like a sore loser.