So much money...

For such inferior art.

That's right. I said it. Picasso really isn't that good. In fact, he stinks.

Art is of necessity linguistic. It is a techne, a craft, after all. Though art is born within men it is meant to be expressed among men. If one cannot look at a painting and develop some sense of what the artist is communicating, then what's the point. That sort of art really is based on "using your own words" (George Carlin has a funny bit on idiom; literally, to use your own words would be to speak in gibberish and nonsense).

Consign it to the flame.

Though most historians attribute the development of modern art to the development of the camera and other technological achievements, I think the death of an educated yet common culture did the trick. Visual art especially, which relies on well-known forms and figures to make its points, is worthless without a storehouse of common knowledge. Something as seemingly insignificant as not being acquainted with the Bible, for instance, renders most of civilization and its artistic artifacts unknowable to you. With no common heritage all art becomes solipsistic of necessity, so bring on the water lilies (yes, I also hate Impressionism; there's a reason landscapes were relegated to the bottom rung of visual art for centuries).