Does todays’ modern art ever go beyond the surface and aesthetic?

So many artists that I come across seems very focused on the "conceptual" and/or design aspect of the objects they create. Philosophically that seems to be the goal, which often enough leaves an impersonal stamp and not much thoughtfulness even if that is the objective of the art. Much of the art openly tackles serious life issues (which is the trend), but rarely goes beyond the surface of the subject manner, giving it an exploitative nature rather than an investigative or truth nature. There are very few artists today that I come across in magazines, galleries, and museums that seem to take their work to that next level of thoughtfulness that really stirs the viewers mind, which to me is the ultimate goal of their work in the first place.

Below are five questions that come to mind when I think about this topic...

1. Could the work be as aesthetically appealing if artists went deeper into their subject matter, and gave less regard to the "look"?

2. Could todays' art appear less modern if "style" wasn't regarded so much as a trend but a self-expression?

3. In general do you think that shock provokes thought, or does it only insight reaction? Or both?

4. What makes modern art modern???

5. Is there anything that is not subjective but rather objective in modern art? Size and color aren't subjective; what about quality or motive?

My biggest issue in many discussions today about art is that there isn't really one. It seems as soon as a reasonable question is brought to the table that argues quality, motive, or depth the "subjectivity" argument comes out. Personally, I'm not arguing the theory of relativity- I believe it whole heartedly, but I think it has been abused by people who don't get the big picture. There are two great things about the theory of relativity- it's a theory, and if it is true, than it existed before it was theorized meaning that the experience of viewing art was always based on the perspective of each individual who looked at it. That makes me wonder why it's become so important to argue the theory of "looking" at art today, when it never was before. Is this the art world simply "thinking too much"? Who gains the most by this "thought"?