Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, and the protection is a waste of resources. To what extend do you agree or disagree? v.4

Some people suggest that the levels of artwork have been in a state of steady decline since the turn of the previous century. They argue that mundane pieces are considered extraordinary while awe inspiring items remain in complete obscurity. I tend to agree with the statement above. If history taught us anything, it is that the talent of genuine prodigies and geniuses is mostly celebrated and revered postmortem. It is assumed that their work is so revolutionary that it cannot be appreciated by common folks. Looking at artists like Picasso and Michelangelo for example, even though they did not receive any accolades during their lifetime, their creations will still be looked at with admiration for hundreds of years. Furthermore, in an era dominated by social media, it is easy to see how and why a popular figure is being glorified while other, more talented artists is being discarded. Public relations, appearance and popularity seem to deflect our attention as we crown individuals based on the number of Instagram followers and not raw talent. Moreover, the last sublime artist the earth had witnessed is probably Salvador Dali, who passed away more than a hundred years ago. Therefore, it seems rather logical to state that the level of our artists is in free-fall. In conclusion, as we have seen in the past, full comprehension of the magnitude of art work takes time, sometimes even centuries. Perhaps geniuses are so far ahead of their time that their masterpieces can only be seen as such in retrospect. Hence, while I agree that the level of our artwork is supposedly declining, I am full of belief that future generations will be able to enjoy the fruits of the labour of the contemporary genius, yet to be revealed.