By every way of defining an artist he fails. So Sam here clearly feels by calling you absurd for saying so somehow makes you absurd and negates his need to understand your arguments and prove that they’re wrong ..... if he can.
He then says, “Who are you to pass such naïve judgment....” You are somebody highly educated with great experience and considerable accomplishment who has thought about these issues for decades.
Just because you say “who are you” in a derisive manner, Sam, in no way makes that person someone of low importance or knowledge who should not be judging art. Then to add the epithet “naïve” is again no more than petty name calling someone with whom you disagree. Saying he’s naïve doesn’t make it so.
But it does make you someone lacking in intellectual rigor who is not capable of arguing your points and therefore resort to ad hominem derision.
Calling Brian a hypocrite and superficial also does not make it so. Where have you offered any evidence of that?
“You disgust me”……. more ad hominem names.
This goes beyond most incompetent debating I’ve seen. Just an endless stream of baseless invective spluttering from an inept writer.
Actually Brian has every right to dismiss Picasso, and he has mounted some very cogent arguments as justification “silly 14 year old boy”…. a far more apt descriptor of the writer of this dis-missive.
The name calling continues “one track mind”, “immature and absurd and biased” … but not one argument has he put forth.
All of his epithets are…. well…… let me put it in a way more befitting his tone and intellect:
"I know you are, but what am I?"
