What ordinary people want in art

• signs of a special talent
• lots of evident labor
• nonabject materials
• realism
• noble (or at least not ignoble) content
• political correctness

According to Mary Kelly, of the UCLA School of Arts and Architecture, in an art symposium On the Ugly speaks of the ugly:

The minimal definition is that the ugly is an object in the wrong place and that it is not merely a question of taste

and seems to suggest that the abject is

work that uses bodily fluids or refers to bodily processes or deals with things that might seem base or horrific

The Tate cites Julia Kristeva:

...the abject consists of those elements, particularly of the body, that transgress and threaten our sense of cleanliness and propriety. Kristeva herself commented 'refuse and corpses show me what I permanently thrust aside in order to live'. In practice the abject covers all the bodily functions, or aspects of the body, that are deemed impure or inappropriate for public display or discussion. The abject has a strong feminist context, in that female bodily functions in particular are 'abjected' by a patriarchal social order.

So I guess abject materials are things related to "female bodily functions in particular". Hmm, I'm guessing that many people would object to materials related to male bodily functions as well. And it's not just the materials; it's the subject as well. I don't believe most people would like what Kelly calls "the ugly", either, or Kristeva's "refuse and corpses". I suspect that part of the problem is that artists are pushed to be creative, and some feel that the social order has an agenda to conceal these things, while many average people want to see art that is pleasant, and don't want to be reminded of things like filth, disease, and death.