Any time someone complains of "modernism" or "modernists," I immediately think of the Amish. Such complaints are laughable. It reminds me of the petty factionalism of the churches (Methodist) my father pastored at. One church literally tried to have my dad fired for using an official United Methodist hymnal from the 80's and 90's rather than the old Cokesbury hymnal from the 20's. Not only that, they killed the Youth Group and Sunday School in order to reach their objective. Such people I often find to be the worst.
Modernist architecture is good. I love Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, et al. Alao modernist literature and to a degree, modernist music. Modernist theology on the other hand...
Oh, good Lord. I can think of very little in modernist architecture or literature to love. So far as architecture is concerned, the Greats were great, but the rest were middling (and even then, I find van der Rohe the most interesting earlier in his career before he fully developed his modernist leanings. Compare the Glass Skycraper to the drabness of the Seagram Building).
Modernist literature is, by and large, a sea of self-indulgent masturbation, words spewed for the sake of spewing words. I'll take post-modernists like Vonnegut or Ecco over Joyce or Fitzgerald any day of the week (I do love Kafka, though). When it comes to the modernist period, the only literature worth reading is genre: give me Hammet, Chandler, Tolkien, and Asimov any day of the week.
Modernist music is hit or miss the further one moves from Stravinsky. Post 1930 the only thing worth listening to is pop. Swing, bebop, jazz, early rhythm and blues, on to rock music and rap, those are far more profound.