[austinjp]

Let's say you see tens or hundreds of works by artists who qualify ("years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter"). Do you think you'd describe all the works as "good"?

Seems doubtful.

Or maybe you would say they are indeed all "good", but not equally good. Or maybe each night be "good and...." some other quality, varying between the works.

So what are those qualities that might distinguish between all those "good" works? And might you see if they apply to other forms of visual art? Perhaps those qualities might find a fuller or more varied expression in other media?

> At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything

Check out Marcel Duchamp.