> But who then should curate the curators :) If I wanted to push my argument further, I'd say the ultimate answer is the same: people who know what they are ta

> But who then should curate the curators :) If I wanted to push my argument further, I'd say the ultimate answer is the same: people who know what they are talking about. You're right that there is no real objective measure of the quality of art. Which leaves a choice: throw up your hands and say everything and nothing is of value, or do what sounds terrible to most people: trust that a cultural elite is capable of making sound choices about what is valuable and what isn't by virtue of their understanding of the tradition and community standards. If there is no external and universal value, there can still be an internal value that grows from a culture, education, strong institutions, a living and evolving tradition[0], careful thought, and understanding — the people who have that are a cultural elite. It's an elitist, subjective, and probably conservative approach riddled with biases and problems, but it's better than the two alternatives: the market decides, or (which appears to be the case in the article) some market researchers decide. [0]: By tradition I mean: "an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined in terms of both internal and external debates." It's Alasdair MacIntyre's definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_MacIntyre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_MacIntyre