van Gogh was good, but I wouldn't say he revolutionized anything except a specific style maybe. I doubt he is why cartoons are colorful ans agree it's probably technology. They're colorful because they're art designed to grab attention and are often exaggerations of reality, which is generally more toned down. People just like color. I wonder if the reason people believe van Gogh to be so great because of his story than just his art. He's the ideal artist. He dedicated his life to art, had no job and relied on family to support him. He was a starving artist and no one bought his art when he was alive. I think a lot of people look up to that.
I always thought it funny when someone would criticize cartoony stuff, too. Naturalistic stuff is great, but sometimes it can't be expressed well enough within the limits of what is little possible in reality. I could draw a realistic picture of a person waving their hands in the air and screaming, but it wouldn't get as much across as a drawing of a unrealistic person with their mouth larger than is natural and their arms waving around like noodles. The first time I thought about this sort of thing was when I was in middle school and a teacher was talking about it and I looked at her confused before pointing out Egyptian paintings, pointing out how unnatural everything looked like in a cartoon. The Egyptians cared most about the entire body being on display, so they had to break the rules of what was physically possible to express that. I don't think enough people who supposedly know about art know much about art history earlier than the past century or so. No one has to know everything, but be aware at least. Also, video games supposedly not being art. That's what they said about film before it managed to gain the respect deserved. It's art. Complex, typically made by groups than one person, but it's art. Just because there's a lot of soulless stuff doesn't mean it's not a form of art.
Abstract used to bother me more before I had to make some for a couple of my art teachers. It's like with non-realistic stuff being about expression than what's real, but turned up to eleven. It's more about process, emotion, intent, and all that. Unfortunately, a lot of it doesn't make it good for people other than the artist to understand as it's very much as near a raw form an expression that can be made and it only makes sense to that person. This form of art usually needs explanation, which is not exactly a good thing. Also, there's a lot of bad abstract and other contemporary art. People mistakenly think it's easy and just throw some paint on a canvas, completely missing the point. Or it's just really off putting, but then again art's not always pleasant. I don't particularly care for abstract paintings or drawings, but sculpture can be fascinating. I'm especially fond of instillation art.
"Raumzeichnung (Drawing of a Room)" by Monika Grzymala
"Cold Dark Matter: An Exploded" by Cornelia Parker
And here's a YouTube video of an instillation of a light garden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt9POU_FNhECan you imagine seeing these in a gallery, seeing them in a physical space and existing? It's pretty mind blowing because you subconsciously interact with it even if you're not touching it.