The old 'saw' about artists having to suffer for their art gave merit to the idea that only the most determined artists had the best chance for success or recognition. The easier any endeavor becomes, the more players and kibitzers come to the table. The traditional business infrastructures of art, music, writing, design, photography and creative thinking were built upon subjective filtering of demonstrable junk, leaving in the main mostly good stuff for us to peruse. The problem now is simply that the old mechanisms (e.g., critics, curators, studios, publishers) evolved to deal with traditional numbers of new works coming on the scene. It was reasonably well handled, but for the carping and whining of those artists whose work was derided or ignored. Now there are uncountable and unmanageable legions of so-called artists of all stripes whose works are seeing wide distribution. The old mechanisms have been toppled to some extent and are often tossed out the door along with all of the dedication and single minded pursuit of style, quality and substance offered by most of the traditional arbiters of taste. Instead we're now confronted with the fact that the wishes of so many heretofore unimportant artists are coming true: they now have a platform as visible as the one normally provided to better writers, musicians, artists and thinkers whose traditional regimen of having to run a gauntlet in order to achieve success is no longer necessary. The net effect is already felt. Now too often, the one with the best search engine optimization gets the most attention. We are averaging down. The same people who bemoan the difficulty of sorting through the private eructations of myriad bloggers, incompetent musicians and writers seriously in need of grammar lessons, also bemoan the difficulty of finding "good stuff". Just as the quality of a Wikipedia entry survives scrutiny in direct proportion to the objective accuracy of the writing and number of factual, germane citations associate with the entry, so too do writers, musicians, painters, photographers and philosophers publishing online survive the cull of popular opinion. The problem is, the late '90s pronouncement that millions of undiscovered artistic gems would be uncovered has not come true. There is not a greater percentage of good quality work now and there is no recognizable quality mechanism to use as a filter. Existing filters demand that inexperienced users apply their own criteria. That, by any definition, is not a move to quality. To determine the differences between good quality and bad quality, dedicated observers whose principle focus is the type of work being scrutinized remains the very best way of filtering creative output. Seeking out the opinions of a variety of experts has always been the most reliable way of finding "good stuff" and at the same time educating ourselves. I just don't have the time to study hundreds of thousands of paintings, books, music recordings and opinions. I have a business to run. I rely on people who have dedicated themselves to becoming experts - making art or writing or music their business essentially - to tell me where to look first. This is just common sense. Those same experts come to me or someone like me when they are in need of expertise in my speciality. The Internet and the Web have failed in this regard because they are a long way yet from being a platform capable of sustaining the aforementioned experts.