Editor’s note: All opinions, columns and letters reflect the views of the individual writer and not necessarily those of the IDS or its staffers.
Wandering the galleries of the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, you might see Vincent van Gogh’s “Starry Night,” Salvador Dalí’s “The Persistence of Memory” or Andy Warhol’s “Campbell’s Soup Cans.” You can visit my personal favorite, “Christina’s World,” by Andrew Wyeth. But among the halls of sacred self-reflection, you can doubtlessly hear the snickers of unsatisfied patrons wondering why there’s a shovel hanging from the ceiling.
That disdain for modern art is nothing new.
At Indiana University’s Sidney and Lois Eskenazi Museum of Art, visitors can see for themselves artwork that has been historically disparaged. The galleries hold Emil Nolde’s “Nudes and Eunuch.” Once displayed in the Nazis’ infamous “Degenerate Art” exhibit, the piece is an example of the artwork confiscated by the regime to maintain their idealistic vision of German culture.
Belittling expressionism and other modern art movements, the Nazi exhibit prevented artists from sharing commentary on issues like race, gender, sexuality, religion and politics. By dismissing abstraction as “degenerate,” it discouraged critical thinking that helps audiences interpret artistic expression.
Today, that mindset persists in our phones. Social media creators with large platforms, like influencer Haley Kalil, have reeled in millions of likes devaluing modern art. In a popular trend, museum goers stand beside an artwork they “think they can recreate.” Some artists have even jumped on the bandwagon, promoting their own work by comparing it to contemporary performance art. What all these clips omit are the creative processes, underlying meanings and historical context of the artworks they dismiss.
Online, “I hate modern art” is not a difficult phrase to come by. When these trends come in short-form content, our brains soak them up like sponges. So much so that when collecting examples, I noticed even I had originally liked Kalil’s video. Quick clips lead to faster scrolling, which is the ultimate key to information overload. To process it all, we accept it. In doing so, we accept certain types of messaging without being fully conscious of it.
These trends alone show anti-intellectualism runs rampant on the web. But that rhetoric extends beyond the art world. Trending phrases, like “book purist” and “let people enjoy things,” make us feel pretentious for expecting more from what we consume. With the development of AI-generated video content, the quality of a work is dismissed so long as it’s entertaining. You might wrinkle your nose at Yves Klein’s “Blue Monochrome,” but boy, is “Fruit Love Island” a hoot. The comically absurd TikTok series averages around 10 million views per episode.
Of course, you aren’t going to like or understand everything you see. I don’t like or understand the infamous banana-taped-to-the-wall. But while it’s tempting to dismiss absurdity as childish or, as many internet users have said, a “money laundering scheme,” bear in mind a quick dismissal lacks the proper research to truly appreciate a work’s value.
Sure, German Expressionism was weird, but that was the point. In a time of political and social unrest, artists took concerns to the canvas. The art that makes us uncomfortable often promotes change. If we regard art simply as a source of aesthetic pleasure, we miss out on messaging that could expand our worldview.
The internet is not the sole culprit behind this rhetoric. Instead, it perpetuates it. Alarmingly, the U.S. government is more than happy to slash funding for the arts. In a survey conducted last year by the American Alliance of Museums, 34% of museums lost government grants or contracts in 2025, with a median loss of $30,000.
Over the past year, the Trump administration has been an antagonist of the arts, launching frequent attacks on institutions like the Kennedy Center and Smithsonian Museums. And Trump’s contempt for modern art is nothing new. Upon attending a Brooklyn Museum exhibition in 2016, he said:
“It’s not art. It’s absolutely gross, degenerate stuff.”
Eerily mirroring sentiments of the Third Reich, it begs the question: Is this preference for more traditional styles genuine or white supremacist ideology under the guise of artistic taste? If it was only a matter of taste, the current administration would not be taking such pains to prevent modern art’s circulation. Declaring certain artforms lesser-than is not solely based on quality or technique. It is an active attempt to silence artists — often minorities — from expressing ideas that challenge the status quo. Even the seemingly harmless memes you see on your phone are helping.
Look, no one wants to be a know-it-all. But when thinking deeply is considered “purist” or pretentious, we lose out on so much commentary that could lead to real social change. From the art hanging in galleries to the music playing in your headphones, the media we consume shapes how we view the world. Before you write off a particular style or medium, adjust your eyes. You might be surprised by what you find digging a little deeper.
The following pieces utilize various styles and techniques to provoke thought in their viewers, providing a great introduction to modern and contemporary artwork. You can view these and others at Indiana University’s Eskenazi Museum of Art.
“Three Friends” – Marsden Hartley
“Number 11, 1949” – Jackson Pollock
“Business Lunch” – Jean Dubuffet
“Boston Aquarium” – Samia Halaby
“Poplar Trees” – Samuel Levi Jones
“Islandsk Portrait” – Carl-Henning Pedersen
Emma Howard (she/her) is a sophomore studying journalism.
