But what about the smear ? How is a brilliant song? Line? Color, after all! !

This may or may not be, it does not just good picture - value :)

Added after 9 minutes
I love Borovikovsky and many other artists of the 18th century .
Rothko - not spotting and comparing them is impossible.

vg_edger, do not think for teaching, but can you read something on contemporary art ? In contrast to the art of the 18th century , it is not designed to please any audience, it is not trying to entertain and delight . It is very difficult to understand and requires a truly serious knowledge .
Here is a book , not the best , but it is ..
V.S.Turchin . Through the maze of the avant-garde
http://fege.narod.ru/librarium/turchin/turchin.htm
P.S. Leave the devil and all religion in peace. This is no process in contemporary art does not explain. As anything and without it we will understand.

Not in the bedrooms there are.

I know people (in the U.S.), which hang in the bedrooms Contemporary masterpieces.
And they refer to them simply, in any bank does not hold.

I do not understand this series.
What's the Picasso?
Picasso - a normal artist, abstraktivizme and modernism is not seen .
Malevich - the artist is worse, much worse, but came up with some symbolic things , like " Black Square ".
Duchamp - do not know if he even knew how to draw, but the first thought of the object set . At this would end the nomination of objects, but it turned out that he had just started the epidemic of " installations" .

On the other you do not want to even talk ...

Added after 1 minute
In what sense?
Ie type is difficult to understand , but once understood, then it is easy ?

Picasso all seen.
A series is made on the basis of value for modern culture , it can be extended. And not in styles, trends and better or worse .

"Contemporary art is difficult to understand. "

What is not clear in this sentence ?
If your idea is clear - I congratulate and envy :)

Who said anything about now and then?

I am only in his, and the work I have there also the (tapestries) :)

Not at all.

This is a normal doabstraktny garde.

With tradition of world culture is not broke.

Added after 50 seconds

The phrase "modern art".

I believe that it does not exist, so it "difficult to understand."

Eeeet somehow not bohemian years

[color="#666686 " ]Added after 3 minutes[/color]
Zara , and can expand this idea ? What is the difficulty ?

[color="#666686 " ]Added after 10 minutes[/color]
And the peasants ?

It requires some prior awareness, often appeals to the already known cultural patterns. Perceived in the historical cultural context. I happened many times to deal with people (not just students) who are watching (well, let's call it) contemporary art after pre-lecture conversation without it. The difference is usually striking.
In contrast to the figurative arts, and more or less realistic, in which at least one that is shown is perceived by all. Certainly perceived differently, but problems with pattern recognition there is no one else.
In contemporary art must learn to read the message of avoiding image, often against the inner aesthetic protest.
In other words you need aesthetic, psychological, historical, philosophical preconditioning.
In effect, you must have some set of codes that are not built into us by nature.
Let's say, the paintings of Bosch: about half of the way we now do not understand - codes are lost. For example the black birds symbolize his sin and the knowledge we reveals a small part of the meaning of this picture. But there is much that is still unclear. I think that a contemporary even noticed some elements to surprise us, and immediately read its meaning. As we look at the hammer and sickle immediately understand that this is the USSR, not tools.
But even with the lost codes we even recognize images Bosch. Now imagine a contemporary of Bosch, looking at an art object or a Rothko color field. For it to be something he knew would have to tell the whole way, which took humanity, with its wars and revolutions, with its styles and trends, with the globalization, problems etc.
Wrote a lot, I do not know if we can clarify something in his short phrase. :)

On the fan, as they say.

Added after 3 minutes
Codes are always lost , and this is the beauty of art.
Even in " War and Peace" on a Russian man of the late 19th century, they were also lost, because every reader reads a novel differently than the writer .

Among other things.
You think you understand Chardin still life easier than Picasso cubist thing ?
Equally.
The main thing is to have something to be understood.

In contemporary art, nothing to understand , so it is, as you might think. and " difficult to understand."

In general, the art is not important insight and perception.
This is important in science - understanding .
And the art - not a science, it is different.