The Problem with Modern Art

You've got what normal people think is good art.

Then you've got what academics (art history degree) think is good art.

Then you've got what artists think is good art.

Those are 3 totally different areas on the venn diagram. Might not even overlap.

There's no arguing with taste. If it floats your boat then that's empirical. But the artists are demonstrably the ones who actually know what they're talking about when we discuss "good art".

> This isn't a problem of talent or creativity. It's a matter of how we define "art." That definition both can and should change, as it has done over centuries. The problem in 2022 is that there is no definition at all.

I disagree. It wasn't a rigorous definition that drove artists to create beautiful works. On the other hand, while modern artists may claim they follow no definition, their works are strikingly similar - void of any aesthetic or emotional appeal.

If there were truly no definition, one would expect the old schools, or their successors, would still be represented in academia, alongside upturned urinals. But who is William-Adolphe Bouguereau's successor? No-one. That entire artistic lineage was killed.