some remarks on quality

Whether a painting has quality should not be answered by just claiming an authority. Arguments should be put forth to make a case. Quality can be discussed.
Unfortunately considering quality is not a favourite subject with the scholars as it would not only require an understanding but also the willingness to share the understanding. So the bothersome question for details is usually avoided with a lofty declaration, and often, with a healthy ignorance, it is forgotten to mention that there might be such a thing as quality at all.

The connoisseur however needs to understand the quality.
With an understanding of quality he gains independence; independence from the discriptions in museums and catalogues, to open the mind for details and structures of the artworks;  independence also of all the self declared specialists, the dealers, the curators….. and become able now to find his real treasure, next to the famous icon of the art historians, tucked away in to a dark corner of the museum, or in the dealers shop, neglected, with a far too low price tag. And of course, only with an understanding of quality the connoisseur can tackle the difficult question of authentication.

There might be other more sentimental reasons to feel attached to a certain artwork. But to admire the quality of a painting is the most sustainable.
It is the base to open and clear the mind to ask for more. If the connoisseur is able to understand how the painter has used his tools he then will see clearly the mind behind the painters hand, the next level of quality, the intellectual quality, the expression of the personal wisdom of the painter.

But what is quality in painting?
The categories of quality can only be part of the painting and could not have any relation to an outside system of value, like for instance the question of taste, modern or contemporary; aspects of technical and social development.