dont get me wrong, i actually like more the stuff after expresionism, but im just wondering
no, by ugly i mean "not pretty". i dont mean that is not beautiful or meaningful because i find it better that pre impressionism work on that area, i find it more interesting and i like it better.
for me art has to be meaningful to be beautiful.
BUT after impressionism most of the artists started to make ugly pieces, the best example is dada, they wanted to critizise the society that paid war and that*s why they did it, but what*s the excuse for fluxus art, for example? they anted to "see the pretty things in ordinary life" and wanted art to be "fun" and it is fun, and interesting and all... but is ugly

i am more amazed at a piece of art that looks like you can reach inside and feel all the 3-d life inside. and i even like impressionistic, but some of the abstract is ok, some might be good, but most of it is not my style.i guess if it looks like my 3 year old could have done it, i am not as impressed with it knowing it came from an adult. don't get me wrong all of it is not by any means ugly. some of it just doesn't move me.

I disagree, after impressionism it all started to get interesting. People actually started expressing themselves and what is in their minds rather than just painting portraits or landscapes. It's all how you look at it. If you just want to see a picture it's ugly, if you're looking for a deeper meaning it's interesting.

I do have to say though, Dali's work, now that was ugly, those clocks were just horrible. lol.

because a lot of people disagree with you, I actually find a lot of art after impressionism quite beautiful. After all there are so many art styles out there nowadays, so everybody should be able to find some art s/he can relate to and find beautiful.