In this case, the task was plainly daunting when you look at the numbers: 387 artists submitted 922 works. Of these, however, only 23 artists were selected; the guest juror proudly pointed out that 12 are male, 11 female. Many artists are represented by more than one piece. Only original work created within the past two years and not previously shown in a juried exhibition in Hawai'i qualified for submission.

Selected from O'ahu, together with the number of their pieces, were Edward Aotani (2); Elsha Bonhert (2), Arnold Bornios (1), Chris Campbell (3), Peter Hirsch (2), Paul Hosch (2), Jeeun Kim (3), Tad Ling (3), Shuzuko Mansho (1), Tamara Moan (1), James Niimoto (1), Laura Ruby (1), Hee Sun Sagitis (1), Joseph Singer (1), Reiko Trow (1) and Marc Thomas (2).

The selected artists from Maui are Lynnie Marie (2) and Christy Vail (2).

Finalists from Hawai'i are Gerald Ben (1), Steven Garon (3), Jamie Lynn Gilmore (3), David Reisland (1) and Trudee Siemann (2).

Missing in action — either because they didn't enter or weren't selected — are any artists from Kaua'i, Moloka'i and Lana'i.

*"Spin Doctors, 2005," by Arnold Bornios, is oil, acrylic and graphite on found wood panel. Bornios is this year's winner of the Reuben Tam Award for Painting. Honolulu Academy of Arts

The question assumes greater proportion in the face of the fact that this particular exhibition, now in its 55th year at the state's arguably most prestigious cultural venue, is THE show for aspiring as well as established artists, given the few opportunities that otherwise exist here for exposure.

In the museum's own words, the exhibition "is the state's longest running, all-media juried exhibition which showcases the quality and diversity of Island artists and provides exposure for their work."

To give an idea of the magnitude of that exposure, featured artists are honored at a private, members-only reception at the academy.

Selected works are considered for special purchase by the academy for its collection representing artists of Hawai'i, one of the largest collections of its kind in the Islands, as the museum proudly announces.

Other works are considered for selection for the collection of the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, a longtime underwriter of the exhibition, and the Hawai'i State Art Museum.

Each year, an out-of-town juror is invited to select the works for the show. This year, the academy invited Miami gallery owner Bernice Steinbaum to do the honors.

Steinbaum perhaps suggests an explanation of what's gone wrong: "It is a given that all artists make 'magic.' This juror selected those potions that worked for her. My selections were limited to my particular taste or, if you will, peculiar taste at this particular time in my own personal history of art."

OK, so far so good, certainly a refreshingly candid admission that reflects the inherent subjectivity of any judging, be it artistic, legal or other.

But is this adequate to serve the stated purpose of the exhibition, assuming it is to showcase the best of Hawai'i's contemporary artists and art production?

And what do we know about Steinbaum, her credentials or her gallery?

The academy describes her as "a leading member of the nation's art community."

According to its Web site, Steinbaum's gallery is "the only mainstream gallery making an effort to show the best art made in a democratized culture, represent(ing) 50 percent women, and the only mainstream gallery whose roster of artists includes 35 percent artists of color (African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino-Americans, and Native Americans)."

All this seems to suggest that Steinbaum is particularly fond of statistics, and, apparently, quotas.

Based on these clues, we can surmise that her personal "peculiar taste at this particular time in her own personal history of art" is reflected in art that furthers women's issues and multiethnic diversity.

Here lies the heart of the reason why this exhibition is ultimately unsatisfying, at least in this writer's opinion.

Agitprop — art with a political agenda, whether to validate existing institutions or to reform them — is diminished art, a kind of single-focused pornography, as thinkers from Thomas Aquinas to James Joyce well understood and articulated.

Add to this the fact that, visually, the two-thirds of the gallery only partially filled with the mostly newly anointed artists' works looks vacant, empty and undercooked.

Crammed into the gallery's cramped smaller space are the works of the fully anointed and well established, invited for the occasion — it is unclear on what aesthetic or political grounds: Sean K.L. Browne, Fred Roster, Frank Sheriff and Shige Yamada.

While there is no question that these are accomplished Hawai'i artists at the top of their game, why their work is paired with that of the rest of the artists is not articulated, although this part of the exhibit might be interpreted as validating the Island's dominant and interlocking directorate institutions. We are only told that these "leading Hawai'i sculptors are being recognized for having made significant contributions to the visual arts of Hawai'i."

The exhibition project director has said the show is not about which art is "best," which simply amounts to misguided cant, worthy of the gibberish that emanated from the 19th century French Salon and Royal Academy.

Indeed, the museum's own Web site boldly states that the show is "an important statewide event that is designed to highlight the best work of Hawai'i's artistic community."

This is to take nothing away from the many accomplished works on display, especially the award-winning pieces such as Chris Campbell's "Fly Like a Butterfly," which received the Melusine Award, and Thomas' "Untitled," winner of a Honolulu Academy of Arts Director's Choice Award.

But the nagging question persists: Is the fundamental problem here what choices Steinbaum made, or the academy's choice of juror?

From a larger perspective, whatever the answer, the error will not be fatal to the exhibition's mission to both artist and community: exposure of artists for the most part new to our community.

After all, we've been graced with this vitally important exhibition for the past 55 years, and hopefully we will continue to enjoy it at least that many more.

New artists will still be given the opportunity to emerge, if not all that easily.

As with our imperfect legal system, although a particular judge or jury or institution may commit grievous errors in an individual case, we can only hope that, across the breadth of time and space, and viewed as a systemic process, justice will prevail.

The 94 percent excluded from this exhibition no doubt fervently hope so.