Do you really think that prior to the 20th century, there was no neglected, unremarkable, in-style but sub-par art, or art that might succeed on its own merits but failed to impress for other reasons, or art that just failed to ever catch on with those who had control over funding/critiquing/displaying it? Do you think that there was no prettying-up of mundane items, creating aesthetically-pleasing but not-terribly-formalized objects and images, no creative commission of form and image to medium for the sheer hell of it, regardless of what high society was upvoting as "the in thing" this year?

I am sure that there was all of that, but having seen some works that I know were simply "churned out" to meet the trends of the time, were done by artists considered mediocre in their time (these pictures may not circulate around high class galleries, but people still own them,) or did not achieve popularity in their own time, I have to say that I haven't found any less appealing than I find nearly all Modern Art.

I know that there are people who appreciate it much more than I do, and I'm sure that many of them can argue coherently for their appreciation, but to me, and I believe for a number of other people here as well, Modern Art appears to be a genre that does not demand redeeming qualities in exchange for success.