If the motivation for such a position was an opposition to everything modern it would be rightly criticized (I don't know about "reactionary" since that term has been used in so many different ways as to become nearly meaningless). I don't think that there's a single person here who likes/doesn't like things because they are modern or not. There are plenty of modern things (including in art) that are exceedingly good. That the art movement(s) we don't like are called "modern" is no indication that in a different sense of the term that we oppose modern things. Heck, some of "modernism" is frequently called "primitivism" and we oppose that too. Let's not let the alternative definitions of the terms used to describe various movements get people confused about what it is that we oppose about them. It's not that these things are "new" (in fact, after a hundred years of this nonsense it's not even new), it's that they are ugly, pointless, trivial, useless, and/or meaningless.

I like all kinds of contemporary music too. I also despise John Cage, not because he's "new" (he was famous before I was born and I'm not that young). I despise him because he substituted stupid stunts for music.

--Brian