Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TerraDave" data-source="post: 4983922" data-attributes="member: 22260">I am not sure I agree with anything in this post, and it remains a strange and confusing analogy. I expressed my thoughts on the gaming bit above. And seriously, the term is literally being used in the wrong way. (Birth is not re-birth). But thats not the weakest part of the analogy. You portray renaissance art as somehow being primitive in a way that is essentially the complete opposite of what is true. Renaissance artists had teachers and did apprenticeships that lasted many years. Being an artist was already an established profession (as it had been for centuries). The only reason art from that period does not sell for as much as the impressionists at auction is that it is in museums and never comes up for sale. Only a hard-core of pretentious critics and academics would say that contemporary art is as good. Da Vinci, the quintessential gifted amateur (in fields other then painting) did a ten year apprenticeship starting at the age of 14 in a highly organized workshop that was typical for the time.</blockquote>