In the latest trend

1. What does "dressing up Modernism in the latest trend" imply in the following context? Does it mean "changing the appearance of Modernism in their own point of view on abject art"?

2. What does "to continue the critique of the disembodied nature of the spectator" mean? Because, there is nowhere in the paragraph any reference to the spectators (viewers) of artworks.

Context:

Art historians Rosalind Krauss and Yves-Alain Bois take so-called abject art to task for its emphasis on substances and matter which they claim forecloses any critical evaluation of form and structure. By contrast, they claim to recuperate the operation of abjection as found in Bataille’s philosophy of the informe or the formless. Krauss and Bois, who emerged in the wake of Modernist art criticism, want to enflesh Modernism’s evacuation of the body with bodily abstractions such as horizontality, base materialism, pulse and entropy. These concepts, they maintain, are the operatives rather than the processes of abjection, and they can be present without recourse to the representation of a naturalistic body and its internal organs. They curated an exhibition in 1997 called L’informe: Mode d’emploi, which grouped artworks into these four vectors. They saw this show as being counter to the fashion for bodily fluids and other objects of disgust that were raging in so-called abject art. While Krauss and Bois could be seen as repressing the fleshy body yet again, as well as being accused of dressing up Modernism in the latest trend, the point of their alternative to the dominant trajectory of abject art is to continue the critique of the disembodied nature of the spectator that began with enlightenment modernity in the late seventeenth century and became elevated in the height of Modernism’s idolisation of pure objectivity. So in a positive sense they can be seen as inserting the operation of abjection back into art history rather than illustrating abjection by reifying it in bodily substances and essences, the latter of which dangerously harks back to a naturalistic conception of the body outside history and social change.