This idea of a grading being an absolute indicator of quality used by the best makers has me wondering, so I called a buddy, a highly respected artist by the name of Mike Angelo, to get his perspective. The following transcript has been edited for clarity:
ME: Hi Mike! I know you're busy with commissions but could you put down the quill for a moment? I'd appreciate your take on grading work.
MIKE: Easy, everyone else's work is shit, especially Leonard. He can't finish anything.
ME: Okaaay, but do you grade your work? Like when you painted the Last Judgement, did you give it a grade? Would you rate it against the Sistine Ceiling or the Pietå for example.
MIKE: Have you been at the hemp again? It screws with your brains. Grading? Why would I ever consider doing that? Leonard would, that prancing putz, but who am I trying to impress?
Could you imagine the shit storm that would ensue if Julius somehow decided that my work was significantly variable in quality. He's enough of a pain in the ass with his "When will you make an end?" BS. He'd have been happy with a quick spray job and some stars.
ME: So you don't think grading your output is a good idea?
MIKE: Hell no! That's like picking favorites among my children.
ME: You have kids? How the hell did that happen?
MIKE: Don't be a wise ass. All my works are my children and I have been equally passionate about all of them. No way I'm going to do that.
ME: So, just to reiterate, you don't put grades on your work nor you would consider doing that?
MIKE: Bingo! My work's good. That's enough. You like it or you don't. Mind you, I can see where it could be used as a scam to rope in the rubes, but that doesn't interest me. Give it to Leonard. He'll jump on it like an altar boy.
ME: Ok, great. And thanks for your time, Mike. Don't take any wooden ducats.