Attached are several responses to our Brief User Survey.

I have bolded parts of the responses that I find particularly interesting, and have included personal commentary (in italics) under every question response. Brief User Survey 1. What led you to decide that a work was a failure (aka click to down-vote)? 2. Did looking through these images of "bad art" give you a deeper understanding of your taste in "good art"? 3. Do you feel like you have as much authority to judge art as a major arts institution? Why or why not? 4. Any other feedback/comments (concerning content, layout, concept, whatever) PARTICIPANT 1 1) This question assumes that by comparing two works of art, a definite qualification of the "badness" of a piece of art can be identified, which is not logically sound. Just because one piece of art is worse, that doesn't mean that it's bad. (This makes the comparison feature on the website really interesting! It means we get to see which pieces of art people will consistently down-vote without necessarily thinking that they are calling them failures.) I approached the exercise as a simple comparison question, and sometimes I encountered art I thought was bad, and sometimes I encountered two pieces both of which I liked. I was always able to choose a preference, however. This is an interesting ground for the website to investigate... preference vs. outright failure. Saw the site as a comparison of works that werent always failures. Not always able to denote one as a failure but always able to choose a preference. Posed question of preference versus outright failure. 2) Another interesting thing about this website is that the pieces of art that are included are chosen by whoever wants to contribute (right?). This makes me extremely skeptical when I look at the "failures" included. I, for example, don't consider the Eiffel Tower a failure as a piece of architecture; I think that an analysis of the structure requires a consideration of why it was built, by whom, for whom, when, etc. Just because some people think it's ugly by no means qualifies it as bad. As such, the website mainly makes me more aware that looking at art requires that you always have a justification for your position on a work. It is not substantive to simply say, "That's bad because it's ugly." You have to say something like, "That is unremarkable or ineffective because it has no definite function or gives no powerful impression because...." Devalued the legitimacy of submissions because anyone could submitdisregarding taste not validated by an institution. Ugly and bad not synonymous, site brought up for participant that position on the work must always be justified. 3) Yes. This might be because I feel like I have qualifications to judge art that

are much closer to a major arts institution than the majority of the world (art history major at ivy league university, etc.). But I again have to come back to simple logic. Art can be judged by any viewer; the only thing that arts institutions have that I might not is a greater knowledge of the facts surrounding the art, which might further inform my consideration of it. Views self as having authority to judge art. Proponent of a fact-based rather than taste-based consideration of work; claiming any viewer can judge work but that judgment is only valid when supported with knowledge. Definitely feels validated by art history knowledge and Ivy League membership (an institution). Is this knowledge that the Ivy League/institutions claim to have access to produced and arbitrary? 4) I'm super impressed with the graphic design of the website, awesome job! I just wish there was more to the website that could give me information about the users' input--show us the results of the judging! Suggestion of a potential site expansion giving more information concerning other users input; Bottom 10 could be built upon. Positive reaction to designpossibly because it mimics a white cube, linking the gallery to validating arts institutions. PARTICIPANT 2 1. Failure = something not pleasing to look at, something my little brother could replicate Failure as aesthetically displeasing or lacking in technical skill. The artist should be a genius, able to accomplish what normal humans cant. 2. Yes, it made me define "good art" as anything that I like and not art that is just thought-provoking or technically sound, etc. Used site to define good art in terms of her own taste rather than in theoretical/critical/art historical terms. 3. I do not think so because my exposure to art is minimal. Also, I prefer mostly abstract paintings and funky contemporary sculptures and I don't really know how to appreciate all forms of art appropriately. Doesnt feel authority to judge art. Noted exposure to art as key to being able to judge art. PARTICIPANT 3 1. I tried to place myself in the position of the artist and see whether they were able to accomplish their goal. It wasn't as much whether I liked the work, but whether I thought the work looked the way it was meant to look. I looked for any glaring areas of the art that could be seen as "mistakes." I tried to see whether

the art inspired me to feel the way I envision the artist hoped me to feel. Failure defined as an artistic intention that doesnt align with the final product; intentionality crucial. Mistakes as marks of failure. Not necessarily based on taste/preference. 2. I suppose this gave me a new perspective on observing art. Sometimes I feel as though I look at art and am unimpressed or don't think it's "good." From looking at the "failed" art, I now see that it's more about whether the art makes me feel the way it is supposed to. Some of the pieces weren't bad, but didn't inspire me to feel, or if they did, I imagine it was not the feeling I was supposed to have. On the other hand, I now realize "good" art is art that makes you feel the way the artist wants you you to feel. Continued theme of artist intentionality. Successful work should produce some sort of feeling or an appropriate feeling. People use this site toward different ends, but it is good to note that participants across the board said that being forced to compare failed works on the site clarifiedfor themselves their techniques of judging art. 3. I suppose the answer to this question is yes and no. I am not trained in art, and therefore cannot necessarily judge the technique. I also do not necessarily observe art the way people who study do (i.e. I don't know what I am "supposed" to focus on). In this sense, I am not qualified to judge the art. On the other hand, art is meant to be seen by all types of people and to be accessible to those who are artistic and those who are not. I can judge the art from the way it makes me feel and from an average person's perspective. Since average people are meant to see the art too, I am qualified in this sense to judge the artwork. Authority to judge art: yes/no. Views those trained in art as having knowledge of technique as well as some abstract knowledge of what they should focus on in an image. At the same time, accessibility important. 4. I thought the layout was really professional. I also enjoyed being able to view the top ten, but I think it was important to first participate in comparing the artwork and to then view the top ten. Otherwise, I think my perception would have been influenced by other people's opinions. Liked design (see Participant 1 analysis). Perception influenced by and could even be formed others opinions, as views on art typically are. PARTICIPANT 4 1. Anything that wasn't interesting or didn't make me think (even for a little bit), I down-voted. The Lady Gaga appreciation piece comes to mind. It was just a collage of Lady Gaga, not arranged, distorted or played with in any particular way. I guess I

consider these artworks disappointments and thus I want them to fail. Interest and intellectual stimulation important. Artworks not failures themselves; disappointing and thus wanted to see them displayed as failures in the Bottom 10. 2. I really did gain a deeper understanding of my taste in "good art". Certain pieces that might be a bit gaudy or lack skill, I still enjoyed because they still made my mind move. I looked at it and my mind started to move. Whether for three seconds or three minutes I still engaged with the artwork. I realized that I appreciate anything that will make me stop and think about it for a little bit. If I were walking down the street and saw the Lady Gaga poster, I wouldn't turn my head. But If I saw that strange piece with two people sitting on what seems to be a fish, or the Chicago shiny sculpture, I would definitely turn my head. Good art grabs attention but doesnt necessarily have to hold that attention. 3. I am a fan of art for the masses. I think it's more important to enjoy art than to judge it. Quite frankly, I'd like to hear what a 4 year old has to say about these artworks more than a museum. Taking a position for the massescreating a binary of masses versus arts institution without examining how they have contaminated one another. Enjoyment of art more important than judgment; decision of artistic success based upon enjoyment. Is deciding whether or not art is enjoyable a judgment? 4. I love the site. You have done something awesome here. It's both fun and interesting. Really got me thinking. I'll show it to my Art history prof here. PARTICIPANT 5 1. If I thought something was blatantly ugly, awkward, or just plain weird (most of the lady gaga things, for example), I usually chose it as the failure. I tended to like cutesy things, even if they were clearly not high-quality art, and was less impressed by the weirder, perhaps more 'modernist' items. Implies a clear distinction between high-quality and low-quality art but fails to explain what characterizes that distinction. More problematic definitions include cutesy and weirder, perhaps more modernist. 2. Because all the pieces of artwork were so ridiculous, I think I generally knew that they weren't good art-which gave me a general idea of what I thought WAS good art, but I think it also made me question the things (like toilet bowls, or canvases that are just one color) that are considered to be 'art' these days. What makes a green canvas less of a failure than a cartoon sketch of a kitten? I think the monotone canvas, rather than the intricate kitten, would be the failure. But then again, the term "failure" depends highly on the artist's vision and intention for the

work, which doesn't necessarily come across on the Bad Gallery site. The user viewed all of the pieces featured on the site as failures. The site reaffirmed the users taste in art and led her to question major art institutions opinion on art. Survey participant seems to be very anti-institution. Expresses wish to address artistic intention on the sitefailure predicated on an unachieved intention. 3. Not really, because I don't know the specifics about color use, style, material, subject, etc...I can get a general impression of artwork, and can judge it in that opinionated way, but I can't look at art from a studied, technique- and art historybased perspective. Yes/no. Cant look at art from an academic perspective, but can consider it in terms of opinion. How divergent is an academic perspective from taste? 4. Beautifully designed website. Not sure that asking for the most 'failed' artwork is that productive though, because it's comparing the art to another, perhaps very different, piece-not judging the inherent value of the artwork itself. I don't feel like it was constructive, or it helped me think about art. I would've liked to see more famous pieces of art in there, rather than art that clearly was not very good...comparing theoretically high quality art would've added an interesting layer to the site. Its good to know that a user didnt find the experience constructive; perhaps we can build on the site in the future to incorporate a tag feature. Funny how the Mona Lisa, a Monet, and a handful of Jeff Koons pieces were featured! I suppose that the user assumed that any art featured on the site was inherently low art not validated by the institution.