Critical comments on the visual art scene in Perth made by a local arts writer on the ABC's  Sunday Afternoon show, aired the 3rd of December, should not stand as the consensus of informed opinion. Considering the knowledge and understanding of art history owned by the speaker and minus an academic institution's backing, one can only conclude the sentiment voiced is a personal judgement against, rather than an objective assessment of, the situation.

To say the visual arts in Perth has a problem that can't be easily fixed because of the 'specific history of this place' reveals a closed mind. To dismiss 80% of the art  market because it patronizes galleries that 'specialize in pictures of cows in fields' is vanity of the highest order. An art writer who carries such a mind-set is an insult to any journal that publishes his work as it attacks their advertisers; an art historian who makes such a biased statement insults his contemporaries for what is recorded here and now shapes tomorrow's view of today; and any art curator who insults the product of the institution that hires him to present their centennial exhibition owns of a sad logic.

Perth may be geographically isolated but it is neither incommunicado nor starved of visual culture. I cannot agree with the comment about how this city's art education is lacking 'a depth of acquaintance with a wide range of art styles', especially when it's made by a ex art lecturer. Many practising artists and art educators have travelled, learned and returned to share their knowledge. Others have come from abroad, remained and enriched the local art scene through their contributions. Then there are the creative ones born, raised and educated here who are able to communicate what is relevant to them in an original visual language. Isn't this how it works around the world, and has always worked throughout the history of art?

The broad range of art styles and levels of talent in this town are equal to what I have witnessed in other major cities in Australia and the United States. Here, as in most cities, we have a large number of artists whose work reflects the taste and preferences of the dominant class, a smaller collection of angst ridden souls who use their art to beat some sense into our aesthetic, a lesser number attempt to be revolutionary and experiment with techniques while some retreat into the mind through minimalist art. We also have a few real artists who simply follow where their creativity leads, which is usually to new frontiers in art. Unfortunately only future hindsight will reveal who these 'few real artists' are at this juncture of time.

Like it or not, what the art world in every city needs more than anything is a vital market so the 'few real artists' can exist. The label 'commercial' informs us that the gallery is a business, and as anyone who works in a business knows, to stay in business you need to make a profit. To make a profit you need to know your market and give them what they want. The commercial galleries do that very well. By staying in business the commercial gallery holds a door open for the 'few real artists' in our midst. By making a profit, they can be generous and exhibit 'unsaleable' works because they need to be shown, or the artist needs to be promoted or the public needs to be educated. They all do it, and the art world appreciates their good business sense.

In an era decidedly lacking in philanthropy, in a society that revolves around market forces and the bottom line, in a community where it's who you know that gets you what you need to survive in the art world, the commercial gallery is a much valued asset. And in an era of instantaneous international information distribution, gone are the days when the few with a pen, a flippant remark and a prejudice are the arbitrators of taste.