[jerojero]

I see this mistake all the time.

I think people who have the opportunity should visit the MoMA to see the wide variety of art there.

I'm sure a lot would consider van gogh or Klimt to be "traditional" art when they're very much modern artists.

[kjs3]

The OP is using 'modern art' as a derogatory term; I doubt very much they care about accuracy. I doubt a trip to MoMA would be enlightening. It's just a hand wave across 'all those things about art I don't understand are bad'.

[shermantanktop]

This is a very confused comment chain. Anyway, my use of "modern" was not relative to art history periods, but in the naive, common-sense form: it's happening currently and in the very recent past.

And I've seen plenty of contemporary art, read my share of ARTNews articles, and read plenty of artist's statements. I'm enlightened enough - there's great and terrible art being made now, just like there was in 1750. But the frisson of "art talk" happening currently is what I was referring to, and I'd separate that from the merits of the art itself.

That said, I will now channel the curmudgeon you describe and observe that some contemporary artists seem to put a great deal of effort into the art talk side of presenting their work, as though the art talk is in fact part of the piece. And I get it, it kind of is, and nothing exists outside of a context. But as a viewer I just don't want someone talking in my ear telling me what to think.