Modern art cannot exist in the same world as traditional art

There is no foundation for modern art abstraction other than proving that the public will accept whatever you tell them to accept. After all the long years of Pollock’s and Picasso’s and Duchamp’s, a cursory Googling of contemporary art definitions lays bare this bizarre and poisonous foundation. A definition of abstract expressionism reveals its basis is ‘A school of painting that flourished after World War II until the early 1960’s, characterized by the view that art is nonrepresentational and chiefly improvisational.’ If this revelation about art is true, that means that Michelangelo, Raphael, Phidias, Sargeant, Turner, Reubens, Titian, DaVinci, and every artist before this movement were completely wasting their time actually learning the craft of painting or sculpture or architecture. They should have been practicing random improvisation, freeing themselves of talent and technical prowess. They should have been splashing paint about like the moronic Pollock, or painting three stripes endlessly like the con Rothko. The average person assumes that public art comes to them courtesy of respected, talented academics and institutions devoted to furthering and bettering society. They can not fathom or assume that our art ethos is an enormous lie eroding western civilization with hubris and hatred.

Modern art cannot exist in the same world as traditional art. Modern art can exist only as a hate-filled backlash against the superiority of that which came before it. If something appears to have no point should one dig deeper until a point manifests? Does it not remain ultimately pointless?