>However I believe since the modernist movement the ideal has shifted to be more about eliciting an emotional reaction
That does not mean that what they produce cannot be ugly or bad.
>I really don't think you are going to get many art critics to agree with a "Guernica is bad, actually" take.
...Okay? Does the existence dissenting opinion mean that I am incorrect? Let's say my claim about Guernica is true. It is indeed ugly and bad art (remember, this is objective). Art critics saying "No, Guernica is beautiful and good" essentially say "the truth is false". So, if Guernica is indeed the antithesis of beauty, it matters little what dissenting art critics say, as they are incorrect in stating that something is not what it actually is.
Does their age determine their validity?
>However I believe since the modernist movement the ideal has shifted to be more about eliciting an emotional reaction
That does not mean that what they produce cannot be ugly or bad.
>I really don't think you are going to get many art critics to agree with a "Guernica is bad, actually" take.
...Okay? Does the existence dissenting opinion mean that I am incorrect? Let's say my claim about Guernica is true. It is indeed ugly and bad art (remember, this is objective). Art critics saying "No, Guernica is beautiful and good" essentially say "the truth is false". So, if Guernica is indeed the antithesis of beauty, it matters little what dissenting art critics say, as they are incorrect in stating that something is not what it actually is.