Art criticism

Among my characteristics there is also of being a stubborn man, so I never tire of repeating and clarifying concepts that I have illustrated several times. To my great disappointment I realize that an important television network like the BBC, once considered very reliable, entrusts its art services to hired fools. The audience is very wide and so I worry about remedying, as far as I can, their idiocies. They created stereotypes for show needs: Leonardo was not a visionary; Caravaggio was not an irascible and violent alcoholic; Modigliani did not anticipate his time at all; Picasso was a very skilled histrion who produced everything; the new wave of conceptuals like Hirst or Cattelan are cheaters whose only purpose is to make money; the proliferation of Monet's water lilies is not at all the anticipation of abstractionism; the disintegration of form in the historical avant-gards was not at all a necessity of the times, whereas it was an operation financed and solicited as for example the Dadaist group directed by Tzara (a person to say the least equivocal) aimed at destabilizing society and culture. The thesis of the inevitabity of art to become filth and rubbish is totally false; by definition art cannot be rubbish, it is become because they wanted it to be! Nothing is eneluctable, let alone the bullshit created by cheater and incompetent artists, instead much is provoked by quite other purposes. The risk is that the general public, let's say unprepared, is convinced that contemporary art can not look different from what is shown and advertised by televison or by large  museums. Artists could easily skip the so-called conquests of so much modern and contemporary art without being minimally influenced. What would be considered to turn backwards, and therefore irrational, is instead very possible and in some way even desirable. The hired critics would be horrified by this hypothesis, but the true reason is that their bank account would decrease visibly.