The author seems to go back and forth on his opinion; he states that not every artistic aspect of Chelsea is good, in fact, many are downright awful.  He compares one bad Chelsea day to “a season in hell.”  Then, he writes that every city has bad shows and art.  It is unclear about his opinion on Chelsea in comparison to other cities around the world.  Does he like Chelsea better?  Does he consider London, Berlin, and Los Angeles artistically superior to Chelsea?

The author seems to be very back-and-forth with his opinion. He finds himself not “bashing” but most definitely criticizing many different aspects of Chelsea… I want to know if he possibly had a bad experience, in general, that ruined Chelsea for him? Also, even with his back-and-forth opinion, did he truly believe Chelsea to still be artistically superior?

at the beginning of the article the author states ” you can see more bad shows in Chelsea in a day than you sometimes can in a year in other cities”. How can they describe art as bad, if it depends in the point of view of each person ?

In the last paragraph the author says that more money ensures the continuation of the galleries, which consequentially increases the chance for bad art.  But then he says that it “makes for more chaos.”  What is he referring to? Why would there be chaos?

While this post was interesting and informative, the author used a lot of jargon and references that I wasn’t familiar with. Examples: various mentions of particular art showings, “fly-by-night galleries,” “Damien Hirsts’s recent New York flame-out,” and “blue-chip artist.”

Tamar Lichter

Is there “bad art” if beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

The article stated something on the lines of Chelsea Galleries being endangered because the leases will expire soon.  It is debated whether this is a good thing or not since having such a large amount of exhibits, 300, is heavy on the area.  I understand why they want to decrease the amount of art exhibits since, like the article said, it is common to see more bad art there in one day which “feels like a season in hell.” What constitutes bad art? Isn’t art appreciation relative to the viewer, so what allows people to say something is bad art?

How does the character of a neighborhood change when it becomes more “upscale”? How does real estate or money affect the art scene?

The author says that variations in style are “always indicative of the characteristic approach of the artist to the subject” (100). I’m just curious if every piece of art has/needs style and is it always easily identifiable? Does an artist need to have the style in mind before they create their piece? I think this plays well into Ashley and Yoo Na’s questions, about whether these concepts need to be included in a work in order to be considered “true art”.