Sigh, I feel like I should comment and add to the discussion but I might just end up ranting. I'll try and keep this short.

I believe that there is good and bad art, I'm undecided on how much of that is objective versus subjective though. The problem is that far too often, we only want to analyse art on the aesthetic beauty of a piece. In reality, what makes a piece good or bad is the message it conveys and the impression the piece leaves on your conscience, as well as it's ability to communicate those ideas. Similar to music, dance or any other art form, the visuals are nothing more than the medium to communicate ideas. To put this into perspective, it's like analysing an album for it's chord progression versus the themes presented in the album. Similarly, finding importance in the sentence structure versus importance in the author's message. The problem the man in the video has is that he holds the medium to a higher standard than the idea.

There is always something amazing about someone who can execute their medium to the highest degree. Ideas change and each new artwork offers a new perspective. Medium on the other hand (in the case of art aesthetics) can get boring if you see the same thing over and over again, or a lack of depth in the ideas. In my opinion this is what has been driving the constant desire for new aesthetic looks, no matter how contrary to traditional values of aesthetics they are.

On a side note, I would take most things Prager University says with a grain of salt. They are not a real university, just a youtube channel that likes to publish clickbait titled videos with a heavily right wing stance on most of their issues. Things like dropping the A-bombs was the correct choice, modern art sucks, feminism is wrong and Christians being the most persecuted religion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but Prager University really gets my blood boiling.