The only post-19th-century art I can stand is Norman Rockwell. (Though some accuse him of being a mere "craftsman," I say give me craft over today's "art.")
I love Picasso's early work, as well as a number of the early cubists. Then Dada came along with the stated intention of destroying "art." They succeeded, but found that the corpse could not be resuscitated. The only other 20th century artists I admire are Chagall and Dali.
I've always had a theory that you have to know and understand the rules before you can decide why they must be broken. Otherwise you're just shocking to produce a reaction at best.
Now there's an "art" critic I can admire!
Maybe 20th century art would be more interesting to Mr. Austin and his ilk if he and they were only a little more cultured or perhaps better educated. That is my honest impression after landing here accidentally. Everyone's heart seems to be in the right place; but the intellectual posturing is embarasssing, the kind forgivable only in the very young. Perhaps it does indeed reflect a process of maturing. I hope so. I wish you all good luck. Goodbye.
That's almost funny, wrenfoo.
In an old Travis McGee novel the protagonist is speaking with a conceptual artist (oil on canvas mostly) who might be charitably described as getting by on pomo pretension, befuddlement and the gullibility of 'collectors' with too much money suffering poor advice. So McGee hands her a piece of paper and a pencil and says something to the effect of, "Draw that lamp." Which she, of course, cannot do. A delicious moment...
"Wrenfroo"? I'm supposed to take seriously the comments of someone calling themselves "wrenfroo"? What the hell is that, the name of Eeyore and Roo's bastard child?
For those who (like myself) share Charles' artistic tastes, I recommend a reading of Tom Wolfe's enjoyable little book, "The Painted Word." The money quote is as follows: "Modern Art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text" (of Modern Art Theory).
May I humbly offer Bev Doolittle?
For people like 'wrenfroo' all art should be 'art', utterly devoid of any meaning save that which the viewer brings to it--unless it be hard and fast offensive 'political' 'art'--aimed right at the hearts of all those who most likely want art that can move the soul without a dissertation on phallocentric ideas as represented in a pseudo-menstrual deconstructionist paradigm(in oil).
There is still plenty of real talent out there, being ignored by galleries falling over themselves looking for the next 'Piss Christ'.
Look in tiny venues and online galleries