The difference between an accomplished and a non-accomplished artist is that the former could easily do, if they chose to, what the latter does, but not vice versa.

There is a difference in quality between a Mercedes or Ferrari and a Toyota or Holden; to say 'they are all cars, so what's the difference?' is to be deservedly regarded as an idiot, or simply ignorant.

There are good and bad plumbers and hairdressers and - newsflash! - artists too.

And so it is with so-called 'high art' and 'low art'; almost anyone can do 'low art' (virtually by definition) and these days most do, but 'high art' requires talent, dedication, training and much work.

To value the traditions of other cultures but not one's own is a strange western phenomenon which is sadly spreading world-wide due to heavy cultural-imperialist marketing. 'New' is marketed as 'better' as with other products.

There is cultural paedophilia, where for some reason youthful efforts are regarded as original, whereas they are in fact almost invariably derivative and cliched. Grants are given to 'young artists' who have not proved themselves, let alone their dedication and staying-power, by arts administrators who trot them around as 'the latest thing' or 'enfants terrible' to their friends. These amateurs often in turn end up as administrators themselves, once they are discarded, perhaps deservedly.

If grants are given to individuals, it should be to those who have proven themselves over time and are down on their luck through no fault of their own - unfortunately this is probably not sufficiently glamorous for arts administrators.