Is modern art rubbish? Robert Florczak certainly thinks so.

In this passionately argued but humungously pompous and highly opinionated (That’s rich. Ed) five minute video Robert Florczak destroys ALL modern art in a sweeping and ridiculous generalisation.

You have to watch it.

My favourite section in the video is the bit where he explains, in triumph, about this question he poses to his graduate art students.

Screen Shot 2015-09-08 at 16.05.44

He claims that after they have provided eloquent and highly considered answers he reveals that in fact it is not a Jackson Pollock. It’s a close up of his painting apron.

I don’t believe this story. You know why? Because THIS is a Jackson Pollock painting and it doesn’t look even remotely similar.


A point worth noting is that these students are studying art under Robert Florczak who teaches at Prager University.

Yes, exactly. Prager University?

And here is one of his ‘paintings’.

Nothing particularly bad about it, in fact, quite the opposite, but it is modern art (in that it was created at a point after impressionism) and it couldn’t hold a candle to a Caravagio.


Maybe Robert Florczak should be advised to keep his ridiculous generalisations to himself. Or simply stop practicing his art.

7 thoughts on “Is modern art rubbish? Robert Florczak certainly thinks so.

  1. I think he was quite clear (at least to me) that not anything created in XX century is a modern art. Of course he could make it more obvious he is talking about some tendencies in art community. And if you count only these, then I am sorry but I agree with him.


  2. complete agree, it is sad to see how ignorant people are about contemporary art… does he know at least the reasons why art is the way it is now? because if he knew that i don’t think he would be saying such ignorant claims


  3. Actually, Prager University is just a conservative propaganda website; there’s no university involved. But Florczak has indeed taught in three respected art programs around the country.

    As a commercial artist, he is good enough at what he does (adapts photographic images for illustration work – it looks very much like he’s mostly using photoshop but it’s possible he hand-paints over photos), for illustrating kids’ books. But his best works are extremely derivative of classic early 20th century illustrators such as N.C. Wyeth and Maxfield Parish. Those that are less derivative (such as his pictures for “Yikes”) are also less successful. He’s not a first-rate illustrator.

    Florczak is highly successful however, if his Prager U story is to be believed, at bullying grad students in class an on exams. Unlike undergrads, those working toward a masters degree are extremely dependent on the good will of their professors to complete their course of study. There’s far less room for challenging and calling out their instructors; they *have* to go along with what they’re told.

    Like many conservatives, Florczak abuses his position to push his own personal ideology, including using deception to embarrass his students on tests. Why he feels the need to do this I don’t know, but I strongly suspect he has some sort of psychological ax to grind because really, if it were as cut-and-dry as he thinks, if modern and post-modern art really have no merit whatsoever, it wouldn’t be necessary to go to such lengths to persuade people of his position. Sooner or later the market for these genres would dry up and nobody would care. Why bother with unethical debunking methods?

    Liked by 1 person

Come on folks. Don't just sit there gawping. Say something. Get involved.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s