I would say, that, generally, there is no matter what materials or techniques or methods you are using. I think, that the main part of any creative work is it's idea. So, we can't compare ideas of past with the newest ones. The different techniques only can help us to express something new (or old), but if we haven't any new idea our work wouldn't be modern. We need modern ideas to create modern art (or musik, literature, or scientific theory, or anything else).
At the same time, I think, we can't reise on that lewel of fulfilment (I hope it's the right word) of works(I mean technique level), which had achived artists of past. It's so, because the modern art became something that evertbody can do (or can try to do).

(I recall Dushamp, one artist, who used "ready-made objects" in his works and it was 100 years ago.)

So, for example, the ability to create became more accessible for everybody (like other things in this world). This also show us that the ideas of our time influence on art,technique and methods we use in creating art.
(This means, that technique and methods we use in creating art need to be more accesible for everybody - like Ballpoint Pens).
And so on. We can find more examples.
So, new materials/techneques help us to create something new, to have our own "image", story, history and ect.
But we need new ideas (or "good-forgotten" ideas)to name new art "modern" and so on.
(And, finnaly, I'll add my explanation of rigor laws in iconographia:
Creating icons was kind of mystery. Comparing this with idea of middvil times that nobody can grasp the wisdom of God (saints and etc.). So iconographia was more a ritual, then a kind of art. Also we can recall, that the rules of that time was too rigor, these rules determined all life of people and it's naturally that such rules was in iconographia.)
Respectifully,
L.