form, content: content form

Trying to think about how the Impressionists would react to the world today. What kind of art would Monet want to make if he were alive now? Would he want to paint his landscapes in the open air? Would he remove himself from politics and conflict? If he still painted as he did then, would his art end up directly on biscuit tins, diaries and in clip frames in cheap hotels? Or would it spend time in a gallery, get discussed on the Late Review?
My wife and I have conflicting views on music. She is a classically trained singer and appreciates the skill and craft that goes into creating a good vocal performance. Thus she can applaud the contestants on the X Factor because they show a vocal ability. She also detests Bob Dylan because he sounds like he's beating a bag full of cats and dogs instead of singing. I can't argue that his voice is beautiful like Pavarotti's. But I can argue that what he sings and the emotion with which he sings it makes his song more moving, more like art or poetry than Gareth Gates.
Content over form. Form over content.
So, going back to our Impressionist friends, art is about content over form, isn't it? It doesn't matter what form the art takes (it could be a painting, a sculpture or a disused unrinal) if it has something to say, some observation to make on the world, the human condition, sex, death, MacDonalds... If it has some contribution to make to how we understand the world and ourselves and if it isn't something that // Falling into the old trap of trying to define art here I fear. I keep forgetting I live in the post-modern age...