[brodo]

First of all, modern art is art of the modern age which started after the middle ages. If you are not into depictions of Jesus, saints or medieval nobles you like modern art. Contemporary art is what you are complaining about. In that space, the works that are successful do not look like the ones from 100 years ago. That’s just how the world works. You can still do an oil painting of a sunset and put in into a golden frame. It will not be put into a contemporary art gallery though, because chances are that someone 200 years ago did it better and you can just go to the next museum (or just a different part of the same museum) and view it there. A Beatles cover band also does not make it to the top of the charts. But there is a community of people who like contemporary landscape paintings done in a traditional style. They are just not the main stream. Same as you can go to a concert of a Beatles cover band. It’s not that contemporary art is bad. Most people just don’t spend the time to find the stuff they like.

[goosedragons]

Modern art doesn't start until the 19th century. Picasso is also considered a "modern" artist despite being quite different from oil paintings of sunsets. Colloquially people can also use "modern art" to refer to art made today because the word "modern" means essentially present day. It's only people in the "know" that are going to distinguish between Modern Art and Contemporary Art vs. modern art.

[alxlaz]

> Most people just don’t spend the time to find the stuff they like.

Which is particularly surprising considering that there appear to be like twenty contemporary artists whose paintings are neither random paint splatters, nor monocolor canvases, so you don't even have to spend that much time looking!

[mantas]

It feels like extravagant(?) contemporary art is not mainstream either. Just a niche that happens to be preferred by critics/specialists/etc. While most people seem to prefer classic stuff from older times.