Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[Jenny A]

Of course, because ultimately art comes from an emotional connection with the medium that allows you fluidly manipulate it into a creative expression.

Emotional connection with the medium? Really? Many artists do have an emotional connection with their mediums be that word, the violin, their own voice, oil paint, marble, wood, or their own bodies as in dance. But that rarely, if ever, is the point. It's emotional connection with the subject that's necessary.

But that just proves my point that standards can be set for what is and isn't art, because you can evaluate a piece of art by looking at how developed that emotional connection was and its influence upon the final product.

At best you can evaluate how much emotional connection was conveyed to you by the final piece. Art is about communication, otherwise it's just a form of mental masturbation which may be very exciting for the creator, but is not necessarily all that interesting to anyone else.

]You see, evaluating art isn't just about the final product. It's also about evaluating the process involved

I strongly disagree. If the result is not good, the fact that the process was a journey (even a deep emotional one) for the artist won't make it any better art. You are mistaking art therapy for art.