Modern art is a continuous argument, not a series of unrelated shocks

Gompertz's organizing claim is that the parade of movements that make up modern art — Impressionism, Cubism, Futurism, Dada, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, Minimalism, Conceptual Art — is not a random accumulation of novelty-seeking gestures but a connected chain of reactions, each movement explicitly responding to the perceived limitations of the one before it.

He treats art history the way one might treat an ongoing debate: an artist makes a move, the next generation finds it insufficient in a specific, identifiable way, and responds with a countermove that addresses that specific gap. Cubism's fracturing of form, for instance, follows logically from dissatisfaction with the Impressionists' focus on fleeting light at the expense of solid structure.

Once a viewer understands this connective tissue, the seemingly arbitrary leaps between styles resolve into a legible sequence of problems and solutions, which Gompertz argues is the single most useful lens for approaching any unfamiliar modern artwork.

Takeaway: when confused by a piece, ask what earlier movement it's arguing against rather than judging it in isolation.