Old Dead White Men

A comment was made in class today that I outwardly ignored for the sake of continuing the conversation, however now that I have a moment to collect my thoughts I would like to address it.
The statement was was something to the effect of that the philosophers in our book have increasing irrelevance to contemporary art because they are "Old dead white men."
Being one, I find it offensive that we can use "white men" as an epithet now that goes largely ignored in class.

I wasn't aware that race and gender affected the validity of your arguments. If this is true than the entirety of my blog may be ignored, as I identify as both Caucasian and male.

If you have continued to read past that line then you are at least open to the idea that all humans are equal and have the potential for valid, relevant philosophical thought.
The mark of a good philosopher is someone who, while possessing many of the intellectual virtues, postulates ideas that are far-reaching and timeless. While we may disagree with Plato, Bell, Tolstoy etc. in some aspects, we should acknowledge that they gave us ideas that were attempts to define art that have been used for the basis of aesthetic philosophy for centuries. To dismiss them all because our ideas of art are evolving is ignorant. Just because cubism is recognized as an art form, does that mean that Tolstoy's theories are automatically outdated and irrelevant?
Because film now exists does that mean that Hume's theories cannot be applied to it?
Does CGI negate the intellect of Freud's desirous theory?
Please forgive the combative nature of this post.
Question: Do you believe that any of these philosophers (Weitz excluded)are still relevant to the discussion of art?