Quote Originally Posted by MacBeth
Everyone knows that art stopped in 1695
Agreed, except for some Pre-Raphaelite works (Rossetti etc.) and the British Romantic and Neo-Classical painters (Turner, Constable, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Gainsborough etc.)

Baroque was the pinnacle of art, combining the attention to accuracy and detail of the rennaissance with ultra realistic light and perspective techniques that haven't been improved upon since. The dark backgrounds and contrast with subtle, delicate, well painted, light effects in the foreground create an atmosphere of intrigue, intensity, realism and dynamism that has not, and most probably will not, been matched by any later artistic movement.

Abstract Expressionism (the movement of Kandinsky and Pollock, and seemingly this little girl) has nothing that makes it 'good' other than simply being abstract; no movement, no light, no dark. I'm left completely and utterly cold by its unsubtle blocks of colour and complete lack of 'form', form that is necessary in order to be able to experiment with colour, light and indeed form itself.

I find it "very, very, VERY ignorant" of people who complain about people's opinion of art when they themselves clearly know nothing about it. As an artist, amateur admittedly, I can assure you that ANYONE could paint like an abstract artist (not so with some of the other modern art movements though) as it is essentially 'child art'. All art is social comment, it's just that modern art's is far easier to understand and the ideals it embodies are shared with today's patrons. Those ideals are, somewhat unfortunately, ones of deconstructionism and breaking with tradition, which invariably leads to the abominations we see selling for thousands today.

I have no problem with abstract art, in fact I quite like some of the small subtle pieces that one sees around in people's houses, restaurants and shops, but none deserves to be called a masterpiece, none of it is 'good' enough.