Harsh, I agree. But deserved? "Modern art" (in the vernacular sense, rather than the art-history one) seems to me a 'thought-terminating cliché', an excuse to disdain an entire and rather broad field of endeavor without first taking the trouble to engage at all with it.

At least that's how I find I most often see it used. Perhaps that's not what is actually happening here, but nothing I've seen so far distinguishes this example from any other of the type. Nor do I see any reason why this example deserves any more favorable consideration than any other.