The idea that only unique qualities justify the label of art is widely accepted, yet claims of declining standards in prize-winning works are overstated. I largely disagree that contemporary awards routinely mistake ordinary pieces for masterpieces. Instead, criteria have broadened, reflecting changing artistic purposes and audiences rather than a collapse in quality.

First, artistic quality is not fixed but historically contingent. Over the past century, innovation has shifted from technical virtuosity alone to include concept, context and social critique. Prize juries often reward originality in ideas or processes, which may appear simple but demand intellectual rigour. For example, minimalist or conceptual works can challenge viewers' assumptions and influence future practice, demonstrating significance beyond surface complexity.

Second, the perception that true art goes unnoticed often stems from market saturation and media amplification, not from judging failure. With vastly more artists and platforms, attention is fragmented, making recognition uneven. However, museums, curators and critics still identify and preserve works with lasting impact over time. While some celebrated pieces fade, others gain recognition gradually, suggesting that quality assessment remains active rather than abandoned.

In conclusion, although contemporary art prizes sometimes provoke controversy, this reflects evolving definitions of excellence, not declining standards. Judgements now encompass diverse forms of value, and genuine artistic achievement continues to be recognised, albeit through more complex and contested pathways.