However, most of the people on SDN who decry modern+postmodern art are contesting the idea that modern and post-modern art is art at all.
As I have pointed out in a few of those threads such as this one and this one (which is a bit older), it appears that most of those who cry "this is not art!" either have faulty definitions of art or expect art to be either entertainment or craftsmanship.
Allow me to elaborate. The most common arguments for modern and postmodern art not being actual art are:
- It is not pleasing to the senses, ergo it is not art. Those who say this are judging art as if it was supposed to be entertainment. If something is created with the primary intent of merely looking or sounding good, it is entertainment first and foremost. What distinguishes art from entertainment is that one of the central purposes of art is the promotion of one or more clearly defined ideals, in some cases even a complex philosophy. These ideals can be directly philosophical or aesthethical (though aesthetic ideals usually are rooted in a philosophy). They can be the personal ideals of the artist, or if the art is commissioned and paid for, also the ideals of the customer. Those who consider this definition of art tailor-made to defend modern art may want to know that this definition was also that held by Friedrich Nietzsche and Richard Wagner.
- It took little effort to make, ergo it is not art. The people who say this are either confusing art and craftsmanship with each other, or they hold art to the same standards as craftsmanship. In other words, it is a classic apples and oranges situation. Craftsmanship, not art, is about the display of technical skill. Something can be a intended as a showcase of great talent without having any distinct ideals or message behind them. Of course, it can be argued that the respect for great talent is an ideal in itself, which is why art and craftsmanship often overlap. However, this does not mean that the two terms are interchangeable.
- I do not understand what it means, ergo it is not art. I can accept this to an extent if they mean "the artwork in question does not do justice to the ideals it is supposed to represent", but most often (such as in the thread about Duchamp's Fountain) those who say this have already decided beforehand that it does not mean anything and do not even want to find a meaning in it. Case in point - when I pointed out to Pcm979 that Duchamp's Fountain could be a metaphor or a symbol for something, he appeared to actively reject that idea. In short, these people, most bizarrely enough, mean that modern art is not art because it forces the audience to think. (Noone needs to point out the irony of this) Some even go as far as saying that modern art has no purpose other than being intentionally unaccessible and meaningless. Though this applies to Dadaism (funnily enough, the Daddaists repeatedly stated that what they were produced was not art, occassionally using the term "anti-art"), it could just as well argued that the intentional inaccessibility of much art gives it an esoteric dimension of mysteries which the viewer is invited to unlock.
(To be honest, I have never figured out exactly what H. R. Giger is trying to say with his paintings of biomechanical landscapes - is he denouncing or praising technology? Or is he just aiming to scare the fuck out of people?)