What Defines Worthy Art - Spring 2026
Beyond Elitism: A Fifty-Year Perspective on Art, Markets, and Meaning
After more than 50 years in the art business, I view the question of what makes an object "worthy" with a degree of trepidation. It really depends on who is asking. As brick-and-mortar galleries struggle and museums scramble to find common ground among their supporters, defining the "meaning" of what you see (or don’t see) feels a bit like handling a grenade with the pin pulled.
As a collective group of curators, dealers, directors, appraisers, critics, and academics, we have been far too elitist in our definitive judgments of what is "good" and what is "bad." To sustain our ecosystem, we need a far bigger tent, and we must understand exactly whom we are talking to. The arbitrary labels we cast about based on narrow, insular criteria simply don't work anymore.
Museums that depend of government funding and brick and mortar galleries that rely on walk in traffic are in serious trouble, We need to find new ways to engage the support base. It starts with the basic message of how we define art. Only then can art become important to a far wider audience.
Four Guiding Lights: The Mentors Who Shaped the Journey
Early in my career, I was fortunate to have four remarkably different mentors who played monumental roles in shaping my fifty-year journey. The irony still makes me laugh, considering I dropped Art History in college after just three weeks—the moment I realized it was neither easy nor the lively gathering of lovely girls I had imagined.
These four foundational figures cared deeply about my success. As our friendships formed, I often wondered what these accomplished scholars saw in me; at the time, I knew nothing and had absolutely no experience with art. What they saw, however, was someone committed, eager, and willing to learn. While they were united by a passion for the arts, each approached the field from radically different perspectives, providing me with a unique foundation that many of my colleagues in the appraisal and dealing worlds simply do not share.
Roy Sieber, PhD: The Academic Pioneer
Roy Sieber (1923–2001) was a foundational figure in the study of African art history. In 1957, he became the first person in the United States to earn a doctorate in African Art (from the University of Iowa). Joining the Indiana University (IU) faculty in 1962, he served as the Rudy Professor of Fine Arts for over three decades and supervised more than thirty Ph.D. students. His laboratory at IU became the primary training ground for the first generation of American Africanist art historians.
John Lunsford: The Transformative Curator
John Lunsford (1933–2011) was a transformative force for the Dallas Museum of Art (DMA). An Ivy League graduate, he earned his BA in English Literature from Harvard (1954) and his MA from Columbia University (1968). Serving the DMA from 1958 to 1986, Lunsford is credited with shifting the museum from a regional institution into a world-class center for non-Western art, overseeing African, Oceanic, Pre-Columbian, and Indonesian collections. In 1972, he curated the landmark exhibition African Art from Dallas Collections, establishing the city as a serious hub for the field. After retiring from the DMA, he became the Director of the Meadows Museum at SMU, specializing in Spanish art.
Robert Plant Armstrong, PhD: The Philosopher-Anthropologist
Robert Plant Armstrong (1919–1984) was a seminal figure in the "humanistic anthropology" of art and a cornerstone of the early humanities faculty at The University of Texas at Dallas (UTD), earning his Ph.D. from Northwestern University in 1957. Best known for a philosophical trilogy, Armstrong sought to create a cross-cultural aesthetic framework that rejected Western-centric definitions of "beauty." He replaced "beauty" with the concept of the affecting presence—the idea that a work of art is an entity possessing its own power and "being." While Sieber focused on historical and cultural context, Armstrong focused on the ontological and phenomenological nature of the art. Both were vital in dismantling the myth that non-Western art was "primitive."
Raymond Wielgus: The Designer and Collector
Raymond Wielgus (1920–2010) was a pivotal figure in the history of African, Oceanic, and Pre-Columbian art collecting in America. Unlike his peers, Wielgus was not an academic; he was a highly successful Chicago-based industrial designer and engineer. This professional background deeply influenced his "eye." He was less interested in ethnographic narratives and more fascinated by formal qualities: precision of design, integrity of materials, and mastery of craftsmanship. In his later years, he applied this engineering precision to a unique hobby, becoming a self-taught master engraver of antique firearms inlaid with intricate gold designs.
The Coexistence of Two Worlds: The Art Dealer vs. The Art Appraiser
I entered the art world in 1974 as a dealer in African art. As I established myself, I received frequent requests for opinions on authenticity and value. Realizing I needed to formalize this business courtesy into a distinct income stream, I joined the International Society of Appraisers (ISA) in 1990, earning the designation of Certified Appraiser of Personal Property (CAPP) in 1998 and serving on the National Board in 2000.
This background shapes the lens through which I view art—one influenced by the natural harmony and tension between the roles of dealer and appraiser. They operate in the same ecosystem, but answer to different incentives.
The Art Dealer
Primary AgendaTransactional: Moving works from one owner to another at the highest sustainable price.
Perspective Forward-looking: Anchored in what a buyer is willing to pay today or in the near future.
Core Approach Advocacy: Highlighting strengths, managing weaknesses, and leveraging strategic storytelling.
Primary Risk Stagnation: Unsold inventory that ties up capital, credibility, and physical space.
The Art Appraiser
Evidentiary: Forming a defensible opinion of value for a specific purpose (insurance, tax, estate).
Backward-looking: Grounded in comparable sales, condition reports, and historical market data.
Restraint: Emphasizing documentation, caveats, verification, and legal/ethical disclaimers.
Exposure: Overstated or understated valuations carrying legal, financial, and ethical consequences.
This divergence creates the central tension: aspiration versus substantiation. Dealers lean into potential; appraisers lean into proof. Yet, they are deeply symbiotic. Dealers depend on appraisers to stabilize market confidence, while appraisers depend on dealers for real-time market intelligence on private transactions and shifting tastes long before they appear in auction records. Conflict arises only when the roles blur—such as a dealer inflating valuations to move inventory, or an appraiser abandoning neutrality to promote a work.
The True Arbiter of Engagement
Importantly, neither the dealer nor the appraiser is the final judge of artistic worth. They arbitrate market value, which is merely one dimension of an object's significance. An artwork can appraise modestly and be deeply important, or it can sell spectacularly and quickly fade into irrelevance.
When we consider who decides what art matters, the answer scales according to the context:
For meaning in your own life - You are the final arbiter.
For cultural standing and importance - Time is the final arbiter.
For markets and institutions - Power and consensus act as provisional arbiters—but never final ones.
Institutions, critics, markets, and academies are temporary amplifiers. They can accelerate recognition or bury a work for a time, but they cannot manufacture lasting value. History doesn't vote; it filters.
Admiring Art: The Freedom to Choose
Looking at art is active work, not a passive pastime. Every return to an object tests whether it can support your attention. Strong works are built for revisiting; they stay intact under repeated viewings, slowly offering more over time. Weak works burn through interest quickly and require a long block of text beside them to maintain authority. When art fails, it usually prioritizes message over presence, or shock over depth.
The subjective definition of art matters only to you, the observer. If you look at Monet’s Water Lilies and find yourself bored, or if Michelangelo's David leaves you cold, your reaction is yours alone. You are not "wrong."
[ THE ART LOVER'S DILEMMA ]
│
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ │
[ High-End Tribal Art ] [ Decorative Art ]
• Multi-million dollar market • Mass-market appeal
• Strict academic metrics • Dismissed by elitists as "trash"
│ │
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
│
[ THE COMMON GROUND: FAIRNESS ]
• Was the representation honest?
• Was the price fair?
• Was the transaction transparent?
Years ago, a Dallas collector admired a 19th-century Bamana chiwara headdress in my gallery priced at $65,000. She loved the piece but could not justify the cost, asking if I could find a quality reproduction for less. Six months later, I sourced a Bamana male vertical headdress carved specifically for the trade for $650. Forty years later, she still loves it. That was a seminal moment for me: Who am I to tell someone what they should like?
Since 2015, I estimate I have cataloged over 5,000 pieces of decorative African art, even while my appraisal business simultaneously handled seven- and eight-figure Tribal art objects for elite clients. Many of my colleagues dismiss decorative trade art as "trash." From a market perspective, that is an incredibly ignorant stance. The consumer's tastes change, and it is the dealer's job to meet those desires, while the appraiser acts as an objective evaluator of value-impacting characteristics—not a judge of taste.
This is why my appraisal colleagues on Antiques Roadshow might hesitate to pitch a fake or a lesser object to producers, whereas I wouldn't hesitate for a second. If an object has a wacky, compelling story, it deserves the screen time.
The Transactional Philosophy
Ultimately, the definition of art boils down to a single principle: fairness.
The aesthetic assessment of art is entirely subjective, leaving the transaction itself as the only objective baseline. The essential questions are not about the brilliance of the brushstrokes, but about the integrity of the human exchange:
Were you cheated?
Was the work misrepresented?
Was the deal conducted with honesty?
If the exchange is just, the art is valid. Whether you are a truck driver, a mother of three, or a bank executive, your personal engagement with an object is paramount. Beyond the basic ethics of the sale, what anyone else thinks does not matter one whit.
