As a mech. engineering student I see nothing wrong with this statement. Newton is a God. Joking aside I see your point and it is valid; but I'd still debate some differences between what I said and your analogy. You're saying I'm dismissing modern art because the product is shit (I'm not dismissing it by the way. I'm just saying I find it hard to appreciate, but let's say I am dismissing it), where the product of classical artists was consistently sublime. But I'm not saying that. Let's take The Last Supper as an example. Da Vinci developed a new, "better" method of painting the fresco. That backfired spectacularly, because it began to deteriorate very, very quickly. In many ways, you could say it was a failure; however I can still appreciate it. He scrutinized and tweaked old methods in an attempt to create a better product. I would say it's the same attitude that a scientist would have. Looking back at previous work critically and developing on them, or scrapping them completely and developing a separate model. What I'm saying is that I have a tendency to look more at the development of a thing, rather than the thing itself. However, from reading through the replies here though, I can see that that mentality could be one of the things stopping me from appreciating art. I fail to look at it and ask "what was the artist trying to say here", and jump straight for "how was this thing made". I focus more on execution than product. That said though, I'm looking through dashnhammit's list down there, and some of the things he's linked is pretty stunning to look at, nevermind what the artist's intentions were. I think the art that I have seen is really pretty limited, and the only ones that stick in my mind are the very abstract or "shock-value" ones. Thanks for your points anyway. I'll definitely keep a more open mind next time I visit the art gallery, and try to look into the conversation behind pieces when possible."Modern science is shit, because Newton and Darwin accomplished way more than anyone alive today."