Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Brant Gaede]

Since OL is about ideas, Michael is playing the ironic role of a troll, maybe without knowing it or wanting to.

Brant,

I disagree.

I haven't seen Michael do any trolling. I have seen him ignore hostility in the purest sense of the word--not even acknowledge it.

Other than that, he has presented positive feedback to comments he has liked (sometimes without much substance, like "great comment" and similar, but still positive) and has presented his ideas.

How on earth is that trolling?

Michael

Michael, that's for anyone to figure out for themselves--or not. I consider it to be implicit but only important to any who might come to the same conclusion or, as in your case, not. It's essentially trivial as such. I found it mildly interesting. It's not classic trollism of course, the nuance involved is too subtle for easy analysis. I'd have to write three difficult additional paragraphs and not even get a Nobel prize pork chop in return.

--Brant

now, you're entitled to tell me to shut up for mealy-mouthism, something I occasionally like to indulge in

(pissed off you didn't get my brilliant insight: can't you feel the seething hostility and unexpressed anger--see the smoke coming out of my ears?)

[Jonathan]

About criticism of artists, when I taught Foundation year students at Otis College of Art and Design, I changed the critique format. The standard format is that student's line the walls with their project, and then students criticize each work. My opinion was that the format didn't work towards helping the student learn anything new or grow as an artist. There was also the element of neophytes putting other artists down, and not knowing what they were talking about - their aim was simply to be nasty. The change I made was that each student could introduce his own work, mention what didn't work, what they would change if they had more time, and tell us what they thought they did well. And no one could negatively criticize another's work. But as the teacher I sometimes had to point out a negative, if the student didn't mention it, as it would affect the student's grade.

That may seem naive, but it is not - anyone can do negative criticism, but it does not tell us how to make an art work better. Da Vinci as been said to be surprised that peasants could see what was off in an ongoing painting, which of course doesn't mean they know how to solve the painting's problems. The change in critique format elevated the discussion from what doesn't work to what and why the work was successful. Understanding what makes something work is 100 times more creative and intelligent than negative insights.

I totally agree with that! And my agreeing with it is why I went to the trouble of demonstrating an example of poor facial anatomy and taking the positive feedback approach of illustrating how to correct it! I think that such methods are very valuable teaching tools, and not just for artists, but for non-artist viewers as well. I think that there were probably several people here who aren't very interested in visual art but who gained some valuable insights into the aesthetic effects of misaligning an eye by a half inch, or of skewing a portion of the skull, or of making a mouth and chin off-center and 20 percent too small. The ability to see such structural problems, and to envision how they might be corrected, will help them to become more aware of what they are looking at in paintings, and to learn to judge them for their actual merits rather than based only on subjective feelings, or affinity for the artist's professed ideology.

Qualifier: practicing artists are not students, they are busy expressing themselves with the tools they have. There doesn't seem to be many options for the viewer to comment other than they like or dislike works and why. Suggesting how they can improve doesn't really address how art works, its a little like rewriting a page in another's novel - no one has the ability to direct another's soul, no matter how appealing that might be to some people's fantasies.

Ah, a qualifier! And one that you don't practice yourself! In other words, Newberry, as a professional artist, should not have his work criticized as a student would, and his critics especially shouldn't take the positive step of illustrating how to correct his mistakes, but yet it is perfectly acceptable for Newberry to criticize professional artists who are significantly more experienced and successful than he is, and to speak of them as if they were his students. When others offer objectively valid, constructive criticism of Newberry's work, they are being hostile and rude and disrespectful and mean, but when Newberry offers professional jealously and subjective snarling and sneering about others' work, with no positivity whatsoever, then he is showing good manners and being nice!

Ha, I am guilty of negative criticism of the two Chinese artists. I thought for 26 million dollars I should be blown away by talent of extraordinary genius! I was disappointed.

Yeah. "Ha."

"Oopsy! Innocent, well-manered, little me made an oopsy! Isn't it cute that I did what I complain about others doing? Isn't it just adorable and forgivable that I did it first, and then, when others applied a much more constructive and objective method of criticism to my work, suddenly I was opposed to criticism, and very judgmental about those who do it?"

As far as negative criticism directed at me.

We didn't give "negative criticism." We gave, positive, constructive criticism. Good, honest, objective feedback!

I have been away for a few years, and when I came back I read through many of the aesthetic threads and saw with some of the posters either negative patterns, or nothing redeeming in their opinions; I blocked them. About half the current posters on this thread I've blocked so I am getting a kind of fragmented view of the whole discussion. And I enjoy that. I noticed Scherk making some negative comments, but his depth of research is definitely appreciated.

When you say "nothing redeeming in their opinions," do you mean something like all of the factual information that I've tried to get you to consider about Kant's notion of the Sublime? Blocking that kind of stuff -- or as Rand would say, "blanking it out" -- makes it go away? And that's somehow virtuous?

I'm sorry, am I being "hostile" now? Is it extra naughty of me to agree with Rand that blocking out reality isn't good?

J

[Jonathan]

Michelle Kahmi's book Who Says That's Art, might well be one of the most important books on the nature of painting in this decade.

Which other books from this decade on the nature of painting have you read?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Best of luck with the house issues. Dealing with leaks and water damage really sucks, and I don't envy you.

Thanks. It could have been a lot worse. Fortunately, I caught it early. Plus, most of the books and papers in the basement are up on cinder-block-supported shelves and platforms. The tiles are a mess, however.

...instead of chasing the (basic issues) "electrons" which Jonathan finds tedious and irrelevant.

Heh. Which "basic issues" were those?

1) Your not understanding what kind of "meaning" is possible for paintings to express. This misunderstanding has been a feature of taunts you've leveled at Objectivists, asking them to identify meanings. Also of your taunting Roger over Becky's "Give me a break!" remark. I'm not sure if you've realized the impossibility of the "meaning" you attributed to two "abstract" paintings. However, with one of those two, you subsequently altered your statement without mentioning that you'd done so.

2) Your continued attempt to categorize music and "abstract" painting and sculpture as of the same type - thus legitimizing the latter.

(I'd like to see a good case made for "abstract" painting and sculpture, but I think that the attempt to ride those into town on music's coattails ignores basic differences between music and visual art.)

The ones where you misremembered and misrepresented my positions, resisted being corrected, and then finally realized that you were wrong? Or the ones where you imported your own personal meanings of terms, rather than going with the long-established ones, and then resisted being corrected, and then finally realized that you were wrong? Or the ones where you couldn't see what I was talking about because didn't want to see and hadn't read what I was referring to? Or the ones where you came up with a theory about what past thinkers mistakes were prior to knowing anything about them, and then went out intentionally misinterpreting them so as to confirm your theory? Those "basic issues"?

Likely you won't be surprised by my having a different viewpoint on what happened.

Meanwhile, I did read part of the "About Painting" section of Kandinsky's Concerning the Spiritual in Art, and I'm wondering where the "quite rational" material Jonathan spoke of in post #815 begins.

You read part of a section, and now you're wondering where the material is that I spoke of? Hmmm. Maybe it's in one of the many parts or the sections that you haven't read? Since you're trying very hard to not find it, what do you think the odds are that you would recognized it if it jumped up and bit you in the face?

Concerning the Spiritual in Art has only two sections. I'd already read the first section, "About General Aesthetic," as of my post #986 from March 3. The book is 57 pages in the edition I have (Dover). I've read through page 35.

Would you like to say where the material you spoke of is?

Maybe you mean in Kandinsky's later work, Point and Line to Plane.

I've ordered the Dover edition of that. Also the original German version (Über das Geistige in der Kunst) of Concerning....

Ellen

[Selene]

Perhaps it's interesting just to plumb the depths of Jonathan's depravity...

This thread has become the dog fight pit of OL.

[Adam throws in another piece of meat...]

That's funny. Jonathan is too shallow to be depraved. As for me, deep down I'm shallow too.

--Brant

Your use of balanced antithesis enveloped within a pun will be little noted nor long remembered here, but we cannot forget what you've done here.

[Brant Gaede]

Shudder

[william.scherk]

I don't know why Michael keeps sticking his ideological head into this meat grinder of a thread or the why of Jonathan's bad manners... Michael's good manners, however, is not an argument against logical and factual criticism...This means the criticism is accepted even sanctioned for not being countered as such by Michael.

Brant, I thought it would be obvious why I post on the thread, but I will state that here. Michelle Kahmi's book Who Says That's Art, might well be one of the most important books on the nature of painting in this decade. There is now a quite vibrant figurative art movement that is robust with hundreds of exceptionally talented artists.

[...]

As far as negative criticism directed at me. I have been away for a few years, and when I came back I read through many of the aesthetic threads and saw with some of the posters either negative patterns, or nothing redeeming in their opinions; I blocked them. About half the current posters on this thread I've blocked so I am getting a kind of fragmented view of the whole discussion.

I am curious about the blocked accounts. I'd guess you allow yourself a peek-a-boo at some comments left by those tagged with Ignore status. If you cover half of the current posters with a cloak, the discussion must seem bizarre.

I have two or three people under a cloak. I still peek in at their comments if anyone else I respect has interacted with them. I put some on ignore because I can fairly safely assume they haven't contributed greatly to the discussions, cannot reply intelligently to queries or criticism.

So, Newberry does not ignore Ellen, Roger, Brant, Moralist, Tony and perhaps me. Who are the other six silenced entities?

Since OL is about ideas, Michael is playing the ironic role of a troll, maybe without knowing it or wanting to.

Brant,

I disagree.

I too disagree. MSK has given Michael Newberry a place of distinction at OL as an artist and a thinker on art -- for a time there was a lot of Michael Newberry/OL interaction. Trolls aim to disrupt and provoke reaction, anger and ugliness. The only things Michael Newberry wants to disrupt are the success and acclaim of artists he considers depraved or otherwise squalid in subject, theme, goal.

I think he fails to hit the mark a lot of the time, but his aim is higher than a troll's, all things considered (this doesn't mean I find him easy to communicate with effectively).

I guess you block Jonathan, or why any others? It explains why he complains and you don't explain and for the little actual substance from this last post. I'm not slamming you by intent to slam you but from the import of all you really aren't dealing with and your extensive blocking makes you a worse de facto troll than I thought and discourteous to everyone else here.

I don't get the blocking pattern or its utility without knowing who he is blocking. As he likely peeks at things he'd rather not see, it probably isn't important. If he chooses not to respond to technical critiques, its the critiques that stay in play.

Maybe it's time for another palate-cleanse.

Edited March 27, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

I agree these images tell us a lot about you. I'm not sure what but I'm sure Greg is sure.

--Brant

distasteful

[Jonathan]

Maybe it's time for another palate-cleanse.

We've covered the topics of Saville's work in the past, and of very shallow, eager-to-condemn Objectivish interpretations of it. Here, for example:

Wallowing in despair congers up, for me, people who enjoy being pathetic, who want sympathy for their self-inflicted scars, or who mourn getting caught at trying to get away with something.

Here you have shifted to the ungenerous, not-so-nuanced method of interpretation that you typically reserve for art, created by others, which you want to judge negatively.

Scars could imply the hardships that life has imposed on the figure, just as a hardship has been imposed on the figure in your Rend. They could imply social impositions or expectations which the figure rejects and wishes to confront the viewer with. I find it odd that you would post an image of Saville's Branded as an example of wallowing in despair, being pathetic, or wanting sympathy. I see the figure as confronting the viewer, refusing to be ashamed of her form, and perhaps refusing to accept current social definitions of what it means to be a woman, or of what form a woman's body should take. I see it as defiance and self-acceptance.

Aside from that, I'm wondering how we would determine what constitutes "wallowing"? Some artists deal with agony much more frequently in their art than you do. Does that make them more wallowy than you? I'm all but 100% certain that I've experienced more devastating losses of loved ones in my life than you have, going back to my father when I was about 2 years old, yet I've not dealt with the issue of loss or agony in my art anywhere near as much as you have. Does that make you more wallowy than me?

J

I also faced similar frantic and hateful attitudes from the children over at OO:

'brianleepainter', on 10 May 2011 - 5:44 PM, said:

Jenny Saville is a painter that uses skill and understanding to create purposefully ugly paintings. Notice how her works are representational and ugly.

I don't accept your assertion that Jenny Saville's paintings are ugly, and neither would she. From what I've read of her views, and from what I've heard her say in interviews, she doesn't accept the traditional, collective notions of beauty. She seems to prefer women of substance -- both physical and intellectual -- and rejects the idea that waif-like models are the ideal of beauty. She seems to think of femininity as being represented by the bulk and sturdiness that she grew up seeing in the mothers, aunts and grandmothers around her, as opposed to the popular physical ideals which are based in nothing but shallow sexual allure. Isn't that an "objective" point of view by your standards?

'brianleepainter', on 10 May 2011 - 5:44 PM, said:

Jenny Saville is a painter that uses skill and understanding to create purposefully ugly paintings. Notice how her works are representational and ugly.

Quoting Saville from the link that you posted:

"I'm not painting disgusting, big women. I'm painting women who've been made to think they're big and disgusting..."

J

J

[anthony]

"I'm not painting disgusting, big women. I'm painting women who've been made to think they're..."

I have to wonder. To dedicate one's artistic mastery to carefully paint in such fine aesthetics - not beauty, not simply "big" women - they can be beautiful and have beautiful character - but to endeavor to present a visually offensive body in an offensive style and arrangement, or seen as frozen meat, then frame it and put it out for appreciation...

I mean, the first question I try to satisfy, viewing a picture is: What is important here? (and what was important to the artist?)

She answers tellingly, she's a social worker who is also an artist, who doesn't like women much (or anything as compassionately as she pretends) and wants to shock people with her visual, social statement.

[Jonathan]

"I'm not painting disgusting, big women. I'm painting women who've been made to think they're..."

I have to wonder. To dedicate one's artistic mastery to carefully paint in such fine aesthetics - not beauty, not simply "big" women - they can be beautiful and have beautiful character - but to endeavor to present a visually offensive body in an offensive style and arrangement, or seen as frozen meat, then frame it and put it out for appreciation...

So, your theory is that if someone wants to reject your notion of beauty in her art and in the human form, she should do so by complying with your notion of beauty? Heh.

I mean, the first question I try to satisfy, viewing a picture is: What is important here? (and what was important to the artist?)

She answers tellingly, she's a social worker who is also an artist, who doesn't like women much (or anything as compassionately as she pretends) and wants to shock people with her visual, social statement.

She defiantly wants to reject your and society's collective notion of beauty, and to stand up for her own individual view. That her doing so is so shocking and upsetting to you validates her point.

J

[Brant Gaede]

"I'm not painting disgusting, big women. I'm painting women who've been made to think they're..."

I have to wonder. To dedicate one's artistic mastery to carefully paint in such fine aesthetics - not beauty, not simply "big" women - they can be beautiful and have beautiful character - but to endeavor to present a visually offensive body in an offensive style and arrangement, or seen as frozen meat, then frame it and put it out for appreciation...

I mean, the first question I try to satisfy, viewing a picture is: What is important here? (and what was important to the artist?)

She answers tellingly, she's a social worker who is also an artist, who doesn't like women much (or anything as compassionately as she pretends) and wants to shock people with her visual, social statement.

Nothing wrong with your experience as such. It's close to mine.

--Brant

I like many of her faces done only as faces

[Jonathan]

Would you like to say where the material you spoke of is?

I've quoted excerpts from some of the material many, many times. Here was first time on OL that I quoted it (scroll down to the section titled "Kandinsky being very objective in describing the 'language' of color"). I've also reminded readers each time that I've quoted it that, about a hundred years later, Newberry independently made some of the same objective observations about the effects of color in his inaptly titled tutorial, Transparency - A Key to Spatial Depth in Painting, (Part 1, Part 2). (I say "inaptly titled" because Newberry misidentified the issue as being one of objects becoming more and more transparent the farther they are from the viewer, when it is actually an issue of the opacity of the density of more and more particles in the air existing between the objects and the viewer.

I've also praised Newberry <gasp!> for taking the observations further than Kandinsky had by recognizing that the effects of the "movement" of color are contextual -- they are dependent on the color of the background.

J

[anthony]

"I'm not painting disgusting, big women. I'm painting women who've been made to think they're..."

I have to wonder. To dedicate one's artistic mastery to carefully paint in such fine aesthetics - not beauty, not simply "big" women - they can be beautiful and have beautiful character - but to endeavor to present a visually offensive body in an offensive style and arrangement, or seen as frozen meat, then frame it and put it out for appreciation...

So, your theory is that if someone wants to reject your notion of beauty in her art and in the human form, she should do so by complying with your notion of beauty? Heh.

I mean, the first question I try to satisfy, viewing a picture is: What is important here? (and what was important to the artist?)

She answers tellingly, she's a social worker who is also an artist, who doesn't like women much (or anything as compassionately as she pretends) and wants to shock people with her visual, social statement.

She defiantly wants to reject your and society's collective notion of beauty, and to stand up for her own individual view. That her doing so is so shocking and upsetting to you validates her point.

J

It's the nuances you have to see, that she's not merely choosing 'the ugly' - or less-than-beautiful models, to paint - it's additionally the ugly fashion or situation she paints them in.

You have to ask yourself Why?

There's nothing very wrong with straight, 'mirror to life' Naturalism. I think it can be very good and at least honest sometimes, warts and all..

So the world is over-obsessed with surface beauty. I can appreciate that. This artist 'could' have depicted plain, big women in a sympathetic light - aiming to show their inner strength and courage, perhaps. Rather, Saville descends into ugliness as a mantra, showing them to BE ugly, as well as helpless victims of other people and of Fate.

Nothing in art shocks me, though I can get repelled by artists' views of man.

Anyway, her "individual view" is a cheap trick for politically correct fame, I fancy. She's about as collectivist as they come.

[Newberry]

I put some on ignore because I can fairly safely assume they haven't contributed greatly to the discussions.

Exactly.

"The only things Michael Newberry wants to disrupt are the success and acclaim of artists he considers depraved or otherwise squalid in subject, theme, goal."

You are giving me too much credit. I have no power to disrupt what other artists do. Indeed I like that artists express themselves even I don't like what they express. I prefer that by 100 times compared to hacks or commission artists - I would prefer to have a Jenny Saville (which you should btw credit), than to a Maxfield Parrish or Norman Rockwell. There are a couple of exceptions like Rembrandt, da Vinci, and Michelangelo - but the latter are credited with championing that true artists are not craftsmen and beholden to the patron.

[Newberry]

You have to ask yourself Why?

There's nothing very wrong with straight, 'mirror to life' Naturalism. I think it can be very good and at least honest sometimes, warts and all..

This artist 'could' have depicted plain, big women in a sympathetic light - aiming to show their inner strength and courage, perhaps.

Perceptive post. I think you're right that is possible to show great human characteristics in average looking people. But it does beg the question you asked above, why would anyone want to paint humans as pathetic and subhuman?

[Brant Gaede]

I put some on ignore because I can fairly safely assume they haven't contributed greatly to the discussions.

Exactly.

"The only things Michael Newberry wants to disrupt are the success and acclaim of artists he considers depraved or otherwise squalid in subject, theme, goal."

You are giving me too much credit. I have no power to disrupt what other artists do. Indeed I like that artists express themselves even I don't like what they express. I prefer that by 100 times compared to hacks or commission artists - I would prefer to have a Jenny Saville (which you should btw credit), than to a Maxfield Parrish or Norman Rockwell. There are a couple of exceptions like Rembrandt, da Vinci, and Michelangelo - but the ladder are credited with championing that true artists are not craftsmen and beholden to the patron.

I'd rank Parrish and Rockwell and craftsmen and patrons quite highly and Saville somewhere else for sure. Also, I put commission artists not so low on the ladder speaking of the latter.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I once came across an observation that made me stop and go, "Woah."

I'm trying to remember where it was. I think it was in a book on writing and it was by a lady who is a recent non-famous author. A surprising source. I can't remember her name, though. I'll try to dig it out later.

She was talking about the difference between art and craft. She said that craft is something you repeat with skill with the same results. Art is what you do with skill that results in something unique.

I like that thought so much I adopted it into my own thinking.

When artists are called craftsmen in a derogatory manner, I get the impression people are saying they produce predictable cookie-cutter works that show a degree of skill, but are so similar they do not display anything special or unique. That other people can learn how to produce the same results by learning a simple (albeit not always easy) system. And that the artists called craftsmen can show a high degree of craftsmanship, but that does not make their works good art.

Michael

[moralist]

Brant writes:

Doctor to patient: Have a good attitude or the chemo won't work.

God to man: Have a good attitude or your life won't work.

Greg

[moralist]

In response to the prospect of getting kicked in the balls by a cancer patient...

I guess I'm the one who has to break this to you. That's a fantasy that only exists in your own mind. You talk about cancer just like the liberals do... as if it's sacrosanct, the ultimate uncaused cause... when in reality it is just an effect.

Greg

[Newberry]

This one doesn't look like a Saville to me, I know the bottom one is a Saville, and the one of the row of women I haven't seen before but I would guess it's a Saville. This one I think it is yours, it has a similar fragmented style as the transsexual painting, and this one is a theme of Medea. If it's yours, you have/had a lot of talent. I thought you were a rocker turned bureaucrat? But this is a work of a painter. I like the transparency and color nuance.

If it is yours, you have enough art knowledge to be respectful of my work. So what gives? It would make more sense to me for you to see what I have done right on my path, than wasting time on putdowns.

[Added:]

I was a little confused by the middle work you posted a few posts above, I only knew of a couple of Saville's works, here is her drawing, a variation on da Vinci's Mary and Jesus:

Which has the overlapping lines, so did I give you too much credit?

[Newberry]

She was talking about the difference between art and craft. She said that craft is something you repeat with skill with the same results. Art is what you do with skill that results in something unique.

When artists are called craftsmen in a derogatory manner, I get the impression people are saying they produce predictable cookie-cutter works that show a degree of skill, but are so similar they do not display anything special or unique. That other people can learn how to produce the same results by learning a simple (albeit not always easy) system. And that the artists called craftsmen can show a high degree of craftsmanship, but that does not make their works good art.

I can understand why you incorporate this concept, it's beautifully put.

On facebook there are lots of figurative art groups, and over time one sees the tracks that certain artists are on. Some look for a niche which produce a wow response, but sometimes they just stay there, repeating. Some are constant explorers, never settling in. One thing I don't like about art world marketing is that try to force the artist into a marketable niche. Instead of the artist finding their true path they gravitate towards the style of the works that were "hits." But an artist like Van Gogh, was pursuing a way of looking, deeply rooted in him, so his style evolved in a unique way. El Greco, Goya, Vermeer, Monet I think these artists and many more were on similar paths.

[Brant Gaede]

I once came across an observation that made me stop and go, "Woah."

I'm trying to remember where it was. I think it was in a book on writing and it was by a lady who is a recent non-famous author. A surprising source. I can't remember her name, though. I'll try to dig it out later.

She was talking about the difference between art and craft. She said that craft is something you repeat with skill with the same results. Art is what you do with skill that results in something unique.

I like that thought so much I adopted it into my own thinking.

When artists are called a craftsmen in a derogatory manner, I get the impression people are saying they produce predictable cookie-cutter works that show a degree of skill, but are so similar they do not display anything special or unique. That other people can learn how to produce the same results by learning a simple (albeit not always easy) system. And that the artists called craftsmen can show a high degree of craftsmanship, but that does not make their works good art.

Michael

Craftsmanship: Low____________Not so low______________Not so high______________High (degree of)

All artists are craftsmen: they craft and to craft is to create.

You can create a painting high in subject matter and the juxtaposition of same and demonstrate mediocre craftsmanship or even worse.

You are confusing craftsmen with tradesmen. In any case, quality of craftsmanship has nothing to do with whether you are an artist or not. A good or bad artist, sure.

If I try to fix my plumbing and I make a mess that's not me a plumber--that can be objectified--but me a mess maker (or an idiot). If I go get some tools and paint and start slapping it on a canvas then I'm an artist (or an idiot). Whether I'm an artist or not is between me and what I'm doing. (No idiot knows he's an idiot [are there any women idiots or is that just a man thing? (In any case I've never met a woman idiot)] much less call himself one except in pain or in fun). It's just an opinion; doesn't matter whose, for who is an artist and what is art can't be objectified enough for there is more in heaven and hell than is dreamt of in your "art", Michael.

--Brant

both whom you read and you went off the tracks on this one--fortunately, no one was killed or injured (news at 11)

[anthony]

Overlap, they can do: since an artist is also a craftsman - but the reverse? And is there exact equivalence?

Objectively it's not true - but this topic is finally back on point (for a while).

"Who says that's art?"

I liken it to "capitalism" in a "mixed economy". The boundaries and identities have become so blurred along with the definitions, that many can hardly tell which is which any more, or choose to.

[Brant Gaede]

Overlap, they can do: since an artist is also a craftsman - but the reverse? And is there exact equivalence?

Objectively it's not true - but this topic is finally back on point (for a while).

"Who says that's art?"

I liken it to "capitalism" in a "mixed economy". The boundaries and identities have become so blurred along with the definitions, that many can hardly tell which is which any more, or choose to.

You seem to have a way of nuancing yourself into and out of difficult positions which you don't really manage to defend or object to.

--Brant

or maybe it's just the way you use the high-stepping language