That would make it the tasteless trash from a vile era. Artists who knew they would never surpass the old masters, so they instead said, "are the old masters' works even that good?" Followed shortly by shit and menstrual blood smeared canvases
I think you're confusing two completely different periods and approaches to art. That "vile era" also produced Grant Wood and plenty of other iconic American artists, so it's not even clear what you're referring to (unless you just don't like anything contemporary, in which case, good for you?).
When I looked at it I thought it looked dreary and "communist" somehow.. don't know why but I looked the artist up and yep... he was a communist. Is that a thing? Communist art style?
My father pointed out how it's Communist art when I saw it as a kid. It always struck me as odd that it was displayed so prominently, as if to say, "Were Detroit. You know we're about cars. But we're also about ultimately giving the proletariat control over the means of production! Detroit shall rise again!"
At least it made more of an impression on me than impressionist paintings of hay stacks I guess...
If these murals were posted to DeviantArt under a fake name, I think most would react like the parent comment. Social cueing plays a big role in how people publicly respond to art.
I can't find it now, but there's a piece by some writer where he interviews a New York City art critic. It takes some wheedling and wearing down, but eventually he gets the critic to admit that if a particular piece of abstract art weren't presented as "by so-and-so the Famous Artist," the critic wouldn't consider the work notable, valuable, or really very appealing at all. By itself, the work isn't very good. It only has value when attached to a brand and the according social expectations.
I think this is a common observation in the art world. But we're not bound to the art world's perverse economic incentives, and Works Progress are in particular was created with consumption by mass Americans in mind.
(I also think they're basically unknown to ordinary Americans, ironically, making the social cueing you're describing even more difficult.)
One maybe needs to know Picasso could (and did) paint in other styles, with phenomenal skill, to decide to appreciate his more cartoon like work as a conscious choice. For more modern artists who emerge rapidly into their style, It can be hard to look at a filthy unmade bed, (Tracy Emin) or half a shark in a tank of Formaldehyde (Damien Hirst) and feel like you aren't having the mickey taken. Or Kapoor "owning" Vantablack, and displaying giant mounds of dry colour. Or Oldenburg's "big things" which are all over the US as civic art.
A lot of the critique of Koons comes down to his emulating the Warhol "Factory" model. His personal input into the outcome is sometimes questionable. Why don't we say the same about Andy? Maybe we should?
"Punch" magazine had a cartoon decades ago ranking real unsigned picasso value over faked picasso real signature. Dali (for instance) was sort-of tricked into signing a shedload of paper, maybe he didn't care, maybe he wanted to get rid of the interloper, but there are now works which have valid authenticated signature but which are probably fake art.
(I don't like a lot of picasso btw. I prefer matisse, a contemporary, and I think every bit as revolutionary in his own way)
I don’t like Picasso either (as much as I’ve tried), and I agree with the sentiments around “factory” contemporary art like Warhol and Koons. To me, these embody the worst (and naturally consequent) excesses of art capitalism.
The art looks unique, detailed, and dynamic.