I was thinking about the closing remark I made regarding art in my last post. I was generally saying that artists are distinguished (good) if they are able to convey an eternal emotion in their art. but am I allowed to say that? what constitutes GOOD art? is it good if it sparks controversy, if it does or does not call upon an emotion? is the art good because of the history behind the artist? i believe i was close in saying we must have faith in art and the direction art has taken, but must we have faith in that all art will be good? or that art IS good or bad? because afterall, we WILL NEVER have a standard of comparison. sorry guys if i turned any of you off with my last post! i do acknowledge the fact that art opinions are exactly that--opinions, but can we agree that as an audience, a lot falls on our shoulders and much is expected of us when it comes to enjoying art??