I reckoned this would be a pretty divisive subject, but I was curious to see what other peoples' opinion on the whole thing is. 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.It's hard to say that art is superior to art from before, but it definitely changes.
What is the point in making the schlock this guy puts out when you can take a picture with a camera? Ballroom dance and ice skating are performance, art creates an object and if you create the object you intended to then you've succeeded. This guy's technical skill is the only thing he has and it's an obsolete skill due to the camera and he uses it to make boring ass shit. This guy cherry picks his images to support his argument and he has to be doing it willfully since he should know a thing or two about art. The Jackson Pollock thing is so stupid if you can recognize a Pollock. Modern art is a vast arena and if you can't find something you like you're not looking hard enough or don't care to. I don't give a shit about dance or ice skating and that's fine but I also don't dismiss them because can't be bothered to understand them. Prager University is a bunch of right wing bullshit and this video is particularly infuriating. I wasn't going to say anything because this video doesn't deserve attention but I did say something.
I'm not emotionally invested enough in the subject to get into a heated argument about it, and my intention was not to get people angry. I found this video, found it interesting, remembered a few discussions I had on here, and wanted to use it to spark another discussion. I also never made any claim to be well-versed in the topic, and I am not dismissing anything. All I said was I find it difficult to appreciate; my girlfriend has the opposite view to me so obviously there is some merit to it. I was hoping to see what other people find striking about modern art. Thanks for your points, but I won't engage you in them.
About half way through the video I started to wonder if it was some kind of satire? How can that guy be an art "professor" and yet apparently know nothing about his subject? Or, as you said, he seems to have a vested interest in telling a particular story and is cherry picking to make it work. Oh, and I LOVED the line graph that scientifically/mathematically demonstrates that the standards of art have "fallen." I almost fell out of my chair laughing!