> I agree, but I'll go further than you - I don't think this essay is confusing at all. It's simply nonsense - the kind of thing someone clever writes when they

> I agree, but I'll go further than you - I don't think this essay is confusing at all. It's simply nonsense - the kind of thing someone clever writes when they're discussing a subject completely outside their area of competence. Whilst I know a little about art, I'm not confident enough in my own experience to put it so strongly. > because the arts are not primarily about technique Agreed. I think your subsequent definition of art is a brave one! It's difficult to define, but I get where you're coming from. As you hint at in the subsequent paragraph. > What's left is usually neither rigorous nor beautiful. A bit harsh! But yes, there's a large body in the middle that just gets things done. Sounds like you may be immersed in the arts world, and I've already cited these before, but you may enjoy the Grayson Perry lectures if you haven't listened to them already. I found them refreshingly straight-talking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00729d9/episodes/downloads http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00729d9/episodes/downloads