Jerry Saltz states that there is bad art at the Chelsea Galleries and the goes off on tangent as to why having “bad art” is not such a bad thing after all.  Using percentages he describes how much good art there is and how much bad art there is.  My question is:  How is it possible to measure what the general public feels about art if such a small part of the population that goes to view art is actually qualified to judge it as good or bad?

Saltz shares that “Even a powerhouse like Barbara Gladstone went through years of showing iffy and even awful artists (ahem, moi). It’s just that few people saw her do this (fortunately for me).” This detail about the authors life brings me to ask if maybe his failure in art is why he points out “bad” art so much? Is the author speaking out of spite due to his failure when it came to becoming an artist? Do you think that the time (2006) that this article was written had any influence on his outlook on art at the time?

Saltz talks about how the majority “bad” art weeds out the “good” art, leading to a sort of “survival of the fittest” art (Darwinism). From which perspective if he speaking of when he says good art and bad art? How can he, even if he draws from statistics, be trusted with what good and bad art is when there is no universal consensus for it, or anything for that matter?

First of all, I am truly confused as to what Saltz is defining as “bad art”. I understand that many people are asking the same question, but with the amount of focus that he puts on this idea of bad art, it’s hard to avoid this idea. Secondly, Saltz states that “…something that is often overlooked and quite underappreciated is that bad art tells you as much as good art.” I find this to be extremely interesting, because then wouldn’t that make it good art because it has a message/narrative and contains a learning experience?

Note/discussion worthy quote: “The artworld is continually spawning huge amounts of art so that a minuscule portion will survive. You begin to see art as a life force unto itself, seeking to guarantee its survival. An art scene can only be an art scene if it’s big and diverse enough to support this high ratio of bad shows.”

Saltz says that “bad art tells you as much as much as good art does,” but how do you classify which art is bad? If you can get some meaning out of the artwork, couldn’t it be considered good art? And if the ratio of good art to bad art is fairly constant to other cities, why is Chelsea seen as having more bad art than the rest of the art cities such as Berlin and Los Angeles? Also, if the art scene expanded to other neighborhoods in New York, would Chelsea still hold its place as the art center of New York or could another neighborhood replace it as the art scene?

The author states that there is many bad art in Chelsea but that is positive because it is crucial to have bad art to bring out the good art. He states, “About 85 percent is not good; 15 percent might be good”. How could the author make a statement with a statistic about art?  How can one define good art and bad art?

As Jerry Saltz states in the sixth paragraph, “the thing that really makes it different: a one-stop art district”, Chelsea covers extensive types of art. What is author’s attitude to Chelsea such distinctive feature? Does author agree that Chelsea gives many novice artists a platform to show their new galleries or does he really criticize that Chelsea present “bad” galleries with a bunch of good works of art?

The author’s concern for the art world seems to be only for the sake of the isolated art community. He writes “The interesting thing about right now is that while a gallery may not be visible to a large number of people, it can still be visible to just enough people with money.”, and while I understand his argument about the importance of having enough patrons to keep the art world alive and running and changing, isn’t it equally as important to make contemporary art more accessible to the average New Yorker, because the high-brow, expensive atmosphere of the art scene is what keeps everyone at bay.

I know a lot of people already wrote about this, but it was something that bothered me too. (I thought of my question and then saw everyone else’s and decided I’m going to write it anyway.) The author focuses so much on “bad art”. “Bad” is a very general term. What does he mean by “bad” and bad according to whose opinion? Why, according to him, is the art “bad”? Also, he says “bad is good” and “more bad is better” which kind of gives a mixed message. If the bad is good then why does he seem so upset about it?

The author seems to have a great dislike for a large amount of the art at the Chelsea Galleries, stating only one or two things out of fifty shows would really impress a viewer. However, he then says that “you [the reader] and I will be thrown by different things.” So, doesn’t that negate his previous statement, since the reader may be impressed by more/fewer artistic creations than the writer has? Saltz seems to be assuming his audience thinks the same as him one minute, and then acknowledging their differences the next, which tosses a whole section of the article out the window.