So, you’re disagreeing on my semantics, not my actual perspective on the subject (from what you said). “Modern art” is a term that inevitably has wide and relative implications since its early coinage, no matter what the official definition, but I think my usage was clear enough in referring to mid- to late-20th century movements while adding context to my intolerance for contemporary works. (Quick edit for further clarity for those who don’t feel like Googling: the official definition for modern art spans from the 1850s to the 1970s, covering Dadaism, Pollock, and the like just fine.)
What I criticized is still colloquially categorized as “modern art,” it’s just a matter of clarity or pedantry that I would further clarify it to lesser-known, if more artistically accurate classifications. After all, most of the works I revile are still housed in “Modern Art” museums, so I consider it fair game as a term.
And for the record, I love Impressionism and respect all of its rebellious context. That, apart from German Expressionism, marks the last “art movement” I’ve ever felt a strong passion for. I love art, but I no longer enjoy its recent “movements.”