Maggie's Farm

Throughout history, most art has always been lousy. Nothing new about that. It's the filter of time that renders past art as "great". Nobody remembers the bad stuff. "The black gash of shame."

Also, keep in mind that art now recognized as great has often been ignored or worse in its own time, even by an artist "who perceives the coloration of things with such intensity, with such a metallic, gem-like quality".

LP: Calling lousy art, "collectible" or "investment worthy" or "valuable" is what we're questioning here.

Dad to Teen: Turn down that music! How can you listen to that noise?!

Well, it's sometimes hard to tell in the moment. Van Gogh didn't sell because people didn't consider it "decorative". Lin's Vietnam Veterans Memorial is modern art, and many people reviled it at the time as a "black gash", but it has become one of America's most beloved memorials. Klimt's The Kiss is highly decorative, as well as very modern, while Munch's The Scream and Picasso's Guernica are not something you would normally hang in your parlor, but each has had a huge social effect.

Since Warhol at least, art often has a pop aspect to it, striving for attention in a mass media age. Most art will be forgotten, but we can't always tell what will have a cultural impact, much less a lasting cultural impact. That is not to say you shouldn't have opinions about art—that's rather the point of art, after all—but dismissing modern art may be as faulty as assuming that just because something is current that it will have lasting value.