I have a prep first period for the first time since I was teaching elementary in Rockaway Borough. Very strange. I am an early riser and get here so early, I feel like the whole morning is a slow rise from sleep to mellow. Then... BANG! Photo!!!! All the photo classes are jam packed and everyone needs so much assistance that it is like a roller coaster ride to the end of the day. Very fun but I feel bad that I have to rush the instructions to everyone in an attempt to get to everyone and get everyone to do things... Still working on fixing this flaw of mine.


So my thoughts of good art versus bad art... I know what I like when I see it... kind of like when I am in a shop and I am asked by the shopgirl if I need help. No, I do not. I know what I like, know it when I see it and that's that. So, back to the art... I also know when I see "art" I don't like. So when thinking about these two questions, I feel my answer is really not about bad versus good. I see it as if it would be considered bad, then I don't consider it art. I can't judge someone's work based on their ability - how some define bad. I can't judge someone's feelings, mood, mindset at the time of the creation of the work. But I do have a fairly in tune b.s. detector and if the supposed art causes that b.s. detector to redline, then I do not define it as art. It may be beautiful and meticulously created, but there has to be substance, and not just interest in wowing people or massive concern for making millions. There was a "photographer" who received a lot of press in recent years for his images of humans with animals. He was so secretive about his methods - suspicious to many - and so full of it in his interviews. But supposed art lovers loved his schtick but I just smelled something funny. So it was not bad art, it just wasn't art at all.....

So there....