It is clear, and millions of people have been using it in the way the TFA uses it, just as historians of art has used other definitions.

What it is not is obvious to derive from first principles ("says modern, so much mean current") or stuck to a single definition ("but historians call any art after the middle ages Modern").

But it is still trivial to pick the context in either use, and trivial for someone to read at least 1 paragraph about the "CIA psy-op" claim, whether it's true or not, and figure what it means by modern art there (it doesn't mean Van Gogh or Monet). People just want to comment without bothering.

On HN we could have an argument about the definition of "is".

Clinton was just ahead of the curve.

I know.

But I was trying to reach the person who left the parent comment.

And hitting them with a phrasing that is directly poststructuralist seemed to be the wrong approach since they appear to operate in a structuralist framing.