I reckoned this would be a pretty divisive subject, but I was curious to see what other peoples' opinion on the whole thing is.

It's hard to say that art is superior to art from before, but it definitely changes.

I'm pretty torn with this statement. One side of me is saying "Of course he's right! Preference is objective subjective!"

On the other hand though, taking some of the speakers examples, I think we can all agree that there is a certain level of "quality" (the definition of which is admittedly ambiguous. I'm defining it as "effort on behalf of the artist to create a product that is aesthetically pleasing") that is present in Michelangelo's David that isn't present in the 10 million dollar Levitated Mass in the LACMA.

Taking the speaker's ice-skater analogy, the quality of performances over the decades has increased dramatically, because each generations of figure skaters builds on the last. New techniques, new technology, etc. and the current iteration of figure skating is really a sight to behold. The same can be said for ballroom dancing, as another example. This philosophy doesn't quite seem to be present in modern art in my experience, where it was apparently the case in Renaissance art for example.