Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[abaris]

So what then makes high art? Stuff that's been around for centuries? Stuff that's been imitated by others? Stuff that builds on certain principles and speaks to the human condition? Stuff that follows a strict set of rules?

I think, to even make a distinction is elitist and doesn't say what art is ultimately about. For me that's creating an enjoyable experiecence for those seeing, hearing our reading it. It isn't about some sort of mind fapping.

I'm not that much into art studies, but when I see a picture it either speaks to me or it doesn't. I can appreciate Leonardo's last supper just as well as Picasso's Guernica. And on the other hand, there are paintings that have nothing to say to me, but that again says nothing about their quality, just that it's not my cup of tea.

Same goes for literature, music and film. Lovecraft is a good example, but I would also say, Steven King added something to literature, whilst in my understanding (and most of you probably don't even know him) Peter Handke is only playing with words. Yet the latter somehow gets all the critics on his side, while the other two are considered pulp.