SO this is a response to Misty's question, Are there many cases where someone spends a ton of time on a piece and it turns out awful looking?

YES. I really think there are. Well actually, since art is soooo incredibly subjective, i think it depends on the viewer and the artist themselves. I can say that from personal experience, there are pieces that i have worked on for an extended period of time, like 3 moths, and i do not like them nearly as much as a painting which took maybe 3 hours. So in these cases, it is determined by my preferences. However, i am not saying that pieces which take a long time, like years, are not all as good as if they had been made in a shorter time. Because so much maticulous care is put into them and time and blood and sweat and tears. I believe it also matters if the artist cares about what is being made. Becuase if it is something that they do not love, then it may still be great, but it does not live up to that potential that a beloved work of art may have. And the artist may think it's awful. But the audience may love it. So one really never knows. I know, thats a very unsatisfying conclusion.

My question for this is, is time relevant at all? or is there some sort of added value to the time which a piece was made in?