Why is old art seen as good and creative and new art isn't?

[Deserter]

I feel the latter is more colorful and imaginative, like the places shown loterally don't exist. When I look at it it illicits something in me and activates my imagination.

Then I look at old art which is allegedly good and I feel nothing. Bland color paletes, and it's mostly just drawings of old people, but somehow this is meaningful. Somebody explain please, what's really so special about the Mona Lisa?

[drummerdude25]

People get attached to various artistic works, it’s something they identify with… movies, music, what have you… could be anything.

Art is very interlinked with the movement of society and culture, so I think if people aren’t “plugged in” to maybe what might be socially or politically relevant, and/or what might be stylistically popular, they may have some trouble comprehending the new wave or what would be considered more contemporary.

If they aren’t immersed within the culture and experiencing some type of growth in tandem (which we all should be doing), there’s nothing for them to attribute to their own lives. I think it’s very important to always stay open-minded to the way society is moving, and seek out new experiences. But a lot of people reach a point where it’s almost like they throw their hands up and tell themselves “I’VE PEAKED!” and from then on, “everything sucks” and things were “much better in the old days…”

[Jamie05rhs]

Oh, you mean OOOLLLLD art. Yeah, a lot of that isn't as impressive. But still, you have to respect it, as it laid the groundwork for the art that we have today. And by the way, I do like "old" art. Meaning stuff from like 1860 to 1960.

[kuladiamond]

Its more about appreciation of the history of the art form, these things were impressive for their time.