It is all relevant isn't it?

While reading the other day,

 I came across an article that condemned a young mans apartment decor because he had framed photos  of semi nude women from a glossy magazine.
The photos showed a very tasteful display of five photos that were on a blank wall.
While the style of decor did not really appeal to me, I thought  

"what is wrong with that?"
He chose photos to frame, that while displaying partial nudity were not vulgar in any way!

So, what is acceptable?  Is a modern depiction vulgar while the Old Masters renditions selling for Gazillions of dollars are acceptable just because they are old and painted by a "Master?"
Was the young mans choice in art so bad?
He framed what he liked and what he could afford.

Many years ago, it was the Master of the house that displayed "His" preferences in art on his Manors walls.

So, what is art?
What constitutes a collection?
Who decides that it is good or bad?
Do we have to adhere to what is dictated as art, as opposed to what we like?

(The Blond Nude....Manet)

It is about time we opened our minds to the old adage
"Beauty is in they eye of the beholder"
It is about time we look at a young mans walls and appreciate that his five glossy photos lifted from a magazine were framed/matted and hung with care.
It is about time for us to realize that by not just taping them to his walls he was showing a lot of class and good taste.

It is time for us to come out of our glass houses and appreciate any young person that takes care while presenting any art form.

We may not like it, but we  (hopefully) will appreciate that this person cared enough to show he had good taste in his choice of display.

("Just the two of us" author or production company unknown)
~~Tomorrow all.