Betty Brennan wrote:
>
> I also do not want to offend anyone, but I felt compelled to respond
> to the position of good art and bad art.  Of course, art is subjective
> depending on the viewers preferences.  However, I do believe you can
> judge the quality of art and it has nothing to do with culture.  My
> subjective qualification of art would be based on whether the art is
> realistic or causes some type of emotional response.  I am the owner

I'm sorry, but you have to admit that your subjectivity is born of your
culture, no?

> of a museum exhibit fabrication studio and therefore have hired a
> staff of artists.  When we hire artists we of course look at their
> portfolio and we typically give them some type of test.  For instance,
> we have asked them to look at this piece of tree bark and quickly
> match the colors and reproduce it on canvas.  You would be surprised
> how many graduates of art cannot even come close to doing this
> Obviously, I have some personal frustration and therefore my opinion
> is biased, but if an artist does not have a talent beyond what I can
> do (I'm a business person not an artist) then I consider it poor art.

sorry again, but you are confusing technical skill with artistic
talent.  i, personlly, could mix any color you wanted with oils, and
probably couldn't even get close with acrylics.  but what does that have
to do with quality of my work?

> Additionally, everyone has different preferences on what type of art
> they place on the walls of their home.  Once again I prefer extremely
> realistic art.  I think quality would be based on what the majority of
> people quantify it to be.

now you are confusing art with democracy. ;)

>That is why there are successful commercial artists and unsuccessful.
>

> Betty Brennan

kjk