I so 100% disagree with you. Art in itself in a form of communication. "I don't get art" is not an admission of failure but only a personal opinion. Just because mass media loves a piece, it does not mean it is cool. One critic can just acclaim a piece for fun, and the rest follows. Art is so subjective. For instance you don't get Van Gogh even though I think he is a genius in color. I think his distorted realities are breathtaking and I would spend hours looking at his paintings. But I can never say you are a failure. Just Van Gogh's painting don't connect with you.

Also what you like is modern art, not contemporary art. Modern art included the abstract expressionism movement which I assume you love. What the article is referring to is contemporary art.

Many contemporary art pieces, in my opinion, are stuck in the abstract expressionism period. They never inherited the concept only the image. In other words, many works are vulgar for the sake or being vulgar. Many artists become artists for the idea of being an artist, the idea of being carefree. I remember when I was in CMU, a lot of the art students just love parties, drugs, and sex. The professor love works about vulgar sex. If you can somehow relate sex and drugs to your art work, then everyone loves it. I remember one girl did a whole show on blowjobs and it was a blast. And another girl painting two old women naked in the bathroom, one hold her hand in a hand job position, another one opening her mouth. She then cut a perfect round hole in the hand and the mouth area, essentially two glory holes. The professor loved it. The students loved it. It was displayed in the CMU hall way for weeks. This vulgar art movement is quite popular now days.

Many many students just party all day and pile a bunch of trash together before review and bullshit about the work. And their review will go great. The entire school knows that if you can make something no one understands and write a 2 page essay explanation it, then your work is deep. If your project does not relate to the meaning of life in a form no one understands, then it must be shitty.

When has art comes to reading pages of explanations? To me, an art piece is a failure when it cannot express its concept and when it is not aesthetically pleasing. Of course the second part is very subjective to personal taste. You know Van Gogh's point of perspective in art but you might not appreciate it. Perhaps because I went to a design school, took plenty of art studios, been through the importance of bullshitting, I sincerely believe that there are plenty of shit in contemporary art scene. Shit that barely have a concept and artist don't have ANY skills to carry out their concept. So they make very ugly, vulgar, disgusting, twisted pieces to bring a reaction from the viewer. Then they bullshit about their pieces because they are very good writers. For some reason I don't understand, it is much easier to succeed in NYC art world from creating something ugly and disgusting then creating an aesthetically pleasing art piece. I don't enjoy spending my time to figure out the bullshit behind the shit.

Anyways my point is art is highly subjective. Something I might think is shit and cannot even be considered as art you might adore and hang it on your wall. And vice versa.