I hear so many people say that modern art is [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] and easy and that they could make a masterpiece with minimal effort. What interests me about modern art is why such odd concepts of art become renowned. A pile of [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] would not be called art, but [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] put in cans and sold according to the price of gold is- don't ask me why- I've forgotten that lecture (but it was insightful).

We have to accept that art is no longer based purely on talent and tradition. The ignorants out there who can't see this clearly have not looked at it in perspective. Art has always, from the stone ages to the present, relied on current trends for definition. There are many astronomically talented painters and such who do not gain the recognition they would have 400 years ago. This is because art is no longer defined by what is aesthetically pleasing. Humans have reached the inevitiable stage in our existance where the norms must be questioned to the extent where this kind of work is created and appreciated.