These three different genres of art are distinctly different from the ones that preceded it. Art ceases to be representational and started to move towards being abstract or absolutely expressional. For example, Futurism sought to represent the nature of experience. One very interesting idea brought up was the being original is modern concept. As such, one wonders what the intention of these artists are in defying tradition. While the study of art developed to enable such bold advances to be made, the social revolutions that are occurring in these periods have to be considered in thinking about the these changes in our perspective towards art. Without dismissing the philosophy behind these genres, there is a need to question if the defining factor of these genres is simply a need to rebel against what they thought was normative. Art has also further evolved since then, and one question I wonder about is why the art today has deviated further and further away from that of the past? Is this simply a reflection of how society has changed, or a result of the need to be original. Is this need to be original stopping us from understanding art? Although I appreciate the beauty and the concept behind these movements, I find the need to rebel against the traditional very unnecessary. This is more clearly reflected in art today. It seems almost as if it is only to prove a point. Perhaps, we need to keep in mind that there is also value in art that doesn’t have a grand philosophy behind it.