OK, folks: here's the story:

Since early humans made images of hands and animals on cave walls, humans have enjoyed creating and viewing visual representations. We still do. All you anime fans are appreciating exactly that.

From cave paintings to portraits, visual representations continued for millennia: paintings, sculpture, sketches. Then along came photography. It was no longer necessary to use paint to represent people, battles, or day-to-day life.

So artists began describing visual moments without using purely representative techniques. Thus we have the "impressionists". The feeling of sun through trees, the warmth of dancers under a colorful awning, the embrace of lovers - all rendered with imprecise strokes, the end result being an image that pulls more from your emotional and experiential core than from your visual memory. Creating an "impression" in your mind rather than a direct representation.

This sea change in visual art was extremely powerful, eclipsing photography. Through the years, artists sought to go even further in creating a visual piece that extended itself ever further from realism and toward abstraction - with the caveat that the work continued to evoke a sense of wonder, amusement, beauty, or aesthetic appreciation.

Impressionism became post-impressionism, then Expressionism, followed by Cubism and Futurism, followed by Surrealism and Abstract Impressionism. Each form continued the mission of visual representation. But they also wandered ever further from literalism.

Yes, they ventured well into obscurantism. But they could only go as far as viewers would follow.

Looking at some rocks under glass may not seem like much. But did it have you ask yourself any questions? Questions like: "Is this much different than rock collecting? And if so, why collect rocks? OK, some rocks are beautiful. But why do they seem more beautiful when they are removed from their habitat of dirt and mud? Is it because dirt and mud are not beautiful? If so, is not raw nature in itself not beautiful? Surely it must be. Dirt is only "dirty" when it comes in contact with humans. So is it really "dirty"? And if it's not dirty, why are these rocks more beautiful when removed from the dirt? What is the nature of my sense of beauty in things removed from nature when I find nature so beautiful? What is the actual nature of my own aesthetic sensibilities?"

Look at all this thought and reflection. Brought about by rocks under glass.

That's the "why" of modern art. In the old days, some fancy portrait of a prince or a duchess was "great art". Surely it showed great skill. But what impression did it make on viewers? Did it advance their understanding of the world or themselves? Did it ask them to think or reflect? Not really. It merely made them marvel at the beauty of the work. And that's good enough.

So how can modern artists make people marvel? With epic 3D movies, laser light shows, etc, how do we make an impression on modern eyes? By making them think twice (or thrice) about what they seeing and what they are experiencing. By causing them to ask questions and explore their own psyche for answers.

That, my friends, is the fucking point of it.