No problem, we don't have to agree for me to be right. ;) As for arrogance - being objective isn't arrogant. Lording the aforementioned superiority over non-western traditions would be arrogant. As for cultures, well, you're expanding the idea beyond the frame I gave it, but yes, I do think western cultures are, or at least have been for nearly an eon, superior to non-western cultures in virtually every area. I disagree with the "none is superior" "each is just different" meme. Take perspective as an example. Western traditions recognized and implemented it; non-western traditions didn't until the west blazed the trail. Realism is another example. "I can't make head nor tail of Australian Aborigine art, but that doesn't make the art inferior, nor the tradition behind it. It just makes ME inferior, for not understanding it." Rubens, Vermeer, and Rembrandt are superior to Australian aboriginal art, just as Bach and Orff are superior to Amazonian tribal music. "But I suspect you and I are just going to have to agree to differ. Anyway, I'll shut up now." It's no problem; I come off as a know-it-all, I know. As I said before I certainly don't know a lot about art, I just have a very minimal education in the basics. What I do know is, there's no shame in calling a symphony superior to banging on drums, just as there's no shame in calling a Boeing superior to a paper airplane. Of course, context is king - the paper airplane is no doubt superior at flying around my living room - but I don't see the point of neutering the word "superior" vis-a-vis art or culture just to spare people's egos. No offense meant or taken. :)