I don't pretend to like "modern" art but I'm in no position to criticise. If looking at something gives people pleasure that's fine with me. Picasso was an extremely talented conventional artist before he took up his own particular brand of "Cubism" I believe they call it. From what I can make out much of his work is overtly sexual in nature & he seems to have been obsessed with one particular model. Most geniuses are odd in some way & some are very strange indeed.

I'm sure that not every single thing any artist ever did could possibly be called a masterpiece. Put Picasso's, Dali's or any other famous name to it & it's apparently worth millions. This is something I never figured out.

Brian Sewell, one art critic whose opinions I DO respect, said that "The Scream" is not Munch's best work & " It wouldn't be the end of the world if it disappeared ".
What I will never understand is the "experts" drooling over what appears to me as so much rubbish - some are literally piles of rubbish - like many of the exhibits in the Tate Modern art museum in London. The point here is, how do you define art?
