Suprematism and everything after...

I understand suprematism. I understand the meaning behing suprematism. I even understand how supematism evolved, especially in the changing landscape that was Russia. However, I do not understand why this "new" art form should replace every other art form. No, it does not follow the tenents of classical art. And it does not follow nature. It does not even take into account any of the past artists who indulged in the canons of natural beauty. But it does bring about the concept of intuition. It breaks apart the molds of renaissance art and contorts them into new art. And sets the standards for the modern movement. It does what we have done in the span of our existence, it evolved. Suprematism created an art based on our subconscious; it was based on nothing more than our gut feeling, leaving out any influences coming from the outside. It spat on the faces of scholars. The movement was born out of revolution and it was very radical, as well as influential. But to try to disconnect themselves from the established norms or art is ludicrous. The suprematists, and everything in between, were, ironically, born from that classical art. In expressing their dislike for classical art, they revolutionized a new movement and a new way of thinking. So, shouldn't they be thanking them for that? Because radical ideas are born and bred from rising against the establishment. But if not for the establishment, where would radical ideas come from? How would they be developed? In a sense, we have to look back at other forms of art to see how that same art shaped the future and the ideals of people at the time. Ironically, it allows us to understand them better.