It amazes me how many people are so attached to ideas of art that have been outdated since before they were born. I can definitely appreciate the old masters for their talent and technique, but it's been a long time since those were the only indicators of an artistic work's quality. There's no way that you can reasonably use the same criteria to judge both David and Rothko. Overall, Florczak's idea of what constitutes "good art" is way too narrow. He discounts decades of European art and completely disregards any non-European traditions, many of which don't adhere to Western ideas of representation. Even his idea of acceptable subject matter is too narrow. I'm not surprised to hear that Prager University is just a right-wing Youtube channel.

I feel like I should also mention that I don't believe his story about the apron. I don't have any instruction on the subject other than a few university art history classes, and it was pretty obvious to me that the image he showed wasn't a Pollock painting. I have trouble believing that graduate art students can't recognize a stained apron when it's shown to them.