The basic premise of his rant rests on the notion that a work of art must have 'inherent value', that it must be 'beautiful'.
He doesn't outline any concrete definitions of beauty, but he certainly does have a bone to pick with the art establishment. Mr. Burdick wags his frustrated finger at those critics and curators who are responsible for the 'cult of ugliness' that according to him, dominates our contemporary art world.
This is a rather loaded topic, but I thought I'd put it out there...
So: does art have to be beautiful?
Oh, and here's a little preview of what I've been working on.
Virginia, oil on board 8x8" 2010 sold