Selected excerpts from emails and forums postings:

... my score was 67% ... I recognized that No. 2 was like a Mondrian, but it seemed to lack the sense of balance which good modern art is supposed to have.

I look (thoughtfully) at a lot of True Abstract Masterpieces, but still only scored 6, getting some right with conviction and some wrong with conviction... Could someone with superior judgement have selected poor geniuses and serendipitous fakes for the test?

I gave this test to my oldest son who is teaching sculpture at The Finnish Art Academy. Much to my chagrin, he could not only separate the art from the chaff, but also name all the artists.

I got 92%, which is a relief since I write about art.

I don't usualy pop my head up but I just had to gloat a little I got 100%. I confess I am guilty of being able to recognise Mondrian, Klee, Kandinsky, Rothko etc...and yes...I do like their work very much.

I am a vandal ... I scored 25% ... Hopefully, some of the rest of those dudes are lying through their teeth. If not, whatcha gonna do?

I'm definitely a philistine as they all look like crap to me. However I am good at guessing. 83%.

I enjoy taking tests like this. In a way, it's a no-lose situation; if you get a lot of the questions wrong, you can feel smug and superior to those charlatanistic artists whose work is indistinguishable from anyone else's doodlings. If you get a lot of them right, you can plume yourself on your superior eye for True Artistic Quality.

Artistic establishment recognizes something if it was exhibited in an art gallery. So by exhibiting things on the web site you mark them as "true art". This is a quantum effect.

Go fuk yourself and your bullshit academic quizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Dear Mr. Simkin, just continue with this.

The only thing which irritates me more than political correctness is contemporary “art”.

I got 100% in your quiz. Why? Because I could tell immediately which were created on a computer and which were created on canvas ... no art critic would claim that your images were not art - just that they were not good

some of your fakes are rather good art.

I think you should start to immortalize some of those

I think the main issue is randomness. The true art looks like it was done on purpose, whereas the fakes look randomly put together ... The black circle ... appears to be placed in its location on purpose. A black circle centered would seem fake to me, or a black circle at a random location on the field. As it is, the Black Circle is centered in the north east corner of the field, which conveys a certain direction.

Now, is Simkin a nazi? I don't think so, he's just another creationist, simple-minded, logic-hating, religious right Kincaid lover beating a long-dead horse into a pulp. But hey -- he can dream, right? Maybe one day he'll be able to be a real Nazi, with his own jackboots and tiny mustache. And when that day comes, I'm sure he'll write a new quiz for us, all about how great the Nazis are and how everything else in the world is inferior to them. I just can't wait! --lynnxe

[Translated from Russian. The original here.] I guessed 58%. What is true art and what is fake? If Kandinsky had painted one of fakes, would it be true art? And may be under favorable circumstances one of fake paintings could be accepted as ingenious and sold for millions of dollars. Even paintings of apes and elephants find their buyers. So were is the border between art and fake? There isn't any. All pictures can be graded "true", even if they were painted by the author of that site. Who said that he is not a genius? --kin

[Translated from Russian. The original here.] ... here comes a philosophical question: if the purpose of art is to awake feelings and emotions then why Kandinsky and Co are bad, when their "art" awakes in people hate, envy, and irritation? May be it is good that these feelings come out during viewing such paintings, rather than in life? "Release of negative emotions" so to say. --sportsman