[Jim Riley]

I read Robert's newsletter when it was first issued and again when posted on this thread and have a very hard time understanding how his concern about the behavior of those in the business of art can be interpreted as a criticism of "modern art". He points out the need to maintain fair business practices and avoid exploitation of art and artists (with a note that artists often diminish their own worth through poor business judgement).

His community is very fortunate to have somebody like him in this business and serving as a strong advocate of fine art and craft. His notes suggest that his goals are to establish excellence and do not seem to qualify excellence as exclusively representational.

It would guess that the "knock offs", in fact, are more likely to be traditional in subject and style. Why or where does this belief that "weird" and "dismemberment" sells come from? Is this the artist community's equivalent of the "urban myth"? I have visited many galleries over the years and found very little work that would qualify as disturbing. I have ignored a lot of "Modern Art" in my day but have to say that very few of those pieces have upset me as much as the many poorly executed painting otherwise characterized as "realism".

I think Robert's appeal is for excellence whatever the style, form, behavior, or business practices. He's a great spokesman for the Arts Community.