This merely goes to show that aesthetics has lost its importance in the modern world. What I mean by this is that we now have a false dichotomy of science and art, where art is some contentless -- and, often, symbol-less -- mash of color, an impotent Universal manifesting spontaneously either for profit (cartoons, video games, pop art) or -- as tangentially noted in a recent thread about postmodern irony -- as an admission of defeat; a death rattle.
The marriage of knowledge and aesthetics has ended, resulting in compartmentalization. This kind of compartmentalization quite obviously has adverse affects on media, often to the point where the particular medium has its entire core removed for no other reason than so that it can be packaged and sold.
This shouldn't imply that we are no longer in search of truth; rather, it means that art is dead, since truth has been relegated to materialist discoveries, none of which apparently merit any kind of symbolic reverence. Consequently, we over-emphasize scientific truth to such an extent that it, too, has its meaning completely obliterated. We might find something really amazing on Mars, but that isn't going to stop all the garbage technology from reaching the homes of laymen. Eventually, science mutates into YouTube and X-Box 360 while art simply....evaporates.
This probably has something to do with the fact that any modern scientific breakthrough winds up trickling down through populist channels until its profitability has been maximized: "Dude, this chair has seventeen different degrees of softness and will fit the shape of your ass perfectly if you set it correctly. NASA invented it!" So we have a 'scientific community' -- an elite which has no interest in Mexican cosmic art -- and the general public, which is self-explanatory at this point. Betwixt the two, who is going to bring meaning back into our lives?
As for good modern art, try the Polish surrealist Zdzislaw Beksinski: