Ratings
Artblog.net uses an in-house rating scale called the Modified Massengale Good Better Best Scale, or MMGBBS for short. Philosophically, it starts from this statement by John Massengale in 2004:
If we create a scale with Good assigned 1 to 10, Better 11 to 20, and Best 21 to 30, we can grade the 27 piazza [the Campidoglio] on the same scale as the 9 town center without disparaging the town center.
The MMGBBS uses two indices ranging 1-3 and 0-9 on either side of a decimal point which is more syntactic than numeric. The left side describes the tier of the work. One corresponds to artists granted low- to middle-level recognition, attempting respectable objects; in other words, nearly everyone. Two corresponds to artists granted high levels of recognition and/or capable of realizing major ambitions, formal or otherwise. Three is reserved for the dead.
On the right, a 0-9 scale describes quality of the exhibition in question. The checklist includes beauty, ambition, originality, installation, craft, concept, cataloguing, and scholarship. Beauty is weighted heaviest by far but it's important to note that the exhibition as a whole is under review, not just the work in it. Despite its position, a 5 is a decent showing, and even 4 indicates something worth getting out of the house for.
Thus the scale goes from 1.0 to 3.9, but whether it does so continuously is open to interpretation. 1.8 is an excellent rating for a little-known artist of reasonable ambitions, while 2.1 is damning for highly recognized one. The author reserves the right to correct reputations, at least via commentary, by adjusting the left-hand number. The author reserves the right to eat chocolate ice cream for breakfast if he feels like it.