Underlying Michael's question -- Why is it people can't distinguish between "mediocrity" and "high quality" in "Art" -- is the assumption that there is a "fact of the matter" about the "quality" in any given work.
"Sophisticated" people regularly assume there is such a "fact of the matter", and usually their response to anyone who disagrees is a sneer: "Well, if you can't see that WAITING FOR GODOT is high quality art, God help you." If such a savant does move beyond sneer to specifying alleged evidence, the evidence always can be ultimately exposed as a stipulation and not a mind-independent "fact of the matter". Even then the stipulation is usually vulnerable to reasonable dispute. Take Michael's suggested example -- great replication. When "is" something "great replication"?
