Ted takes a great tack on this and I’m somewhat in agreement. (I’m not sure about the utilitarian aspect that he alludes to there…)

One problem is recognizing that all humans have a capacity to create; some realize that potential (and it MUST be seen in terms of potentialities) with great facility than others. As they do, there is often a change in the work produced. The word “quality” can be applied to recognizing the fact that the work has changed.

But people are reluctant to acknowledge that kind of difference for fear of “hurting feelings” or “losing face” or “diminishing their self-esteem” … which is pretty sad, really. Too often, the use of the word “quality” is a code-word of exclusion; it shouldn’t be.

We should all be striving to achieve “quality”, which is to say we should all be striving to achieve the best that we can, recognizing and celebrating the differences between us that make the rich variety possible.

Curatorial expertise is not to be trivialized …

I think the key word you used was “interpretation”. While this could be viewed as “telling people what to think” I think the better interpretation doesn’t have to – nor should it.

I think at the very base level – all any of us want to do is to get visitors as excited about art as we are. If you’ve done that you’ve accomplished something. Getting to that is where all the work is.