It praises that what is broken, though.
Discussion
There are many facets of modern art, to treat everything from Duchamp onward as a monolith is wrong. There are ancient writings saying the world is broken and new generations are destroying it. It is a common issue repeated generation after generation to over romanticize the past.
It's getting bad.
So we agree there is something wrong with the world.
Now, the thing regarding art was it tried to reinforce the best to the world.
Now it highlights the worst of it.
However, it is fair enough that one specific characteristic, be it technique or goal, can not define what art is. That would mean to say anything with the same characteristics would be art. And that is not true.
The thesis statement throughout the documentary is: something was not just lost, it was purposefully broken. And artists are not trying to express a renewal with the same good principles, but to say "bad and ugly are now good and beautiful".
A lot of classic art depicted the brokenness of the world. Saturn Devouring his Son, anything titled โThe Rape of theโฆโ etc. Art isnโt just about good thoughts and emotions, itโs about communicating any part of the human experience.
I do sometimes think it could be useful to categorize art into what kind of way itโs trying to communicate. Putting a urinal in a gallery space is very different from Jackson Pollock is very different from Michelangelo. But I actually get calling them all art even if some art I donโt like as much.
I suggest you to watch the documentary because you have just not understood the thesis.