A SYNTHESIS OF PREVIOUS ESSAYS

Using their inferences as premises:

1)  An individual has a legal responsibility to act as a law enforcement agent because inherent in
individuality  is a power to prevent wrongdoing which by its nature, no law enforcement agency can have.

2)  Forms that are characteristic of art, in its connotation, occur naturally in the process of becoming
aware of a context of stimuli and relating it to one's present state of mind.

3)  From 2), any inexplicit art form obtains meaning when its formation simulates the process of becoming
aware, as in 2), so that its formation is natural, and this occurs most likely when the artist creates for the
enjoyment of creating.

This first premise has the following implications for learning about artistic creativity:
    The present cultural habit of classifying people according to their occupations and their services to
society has yielded the belief that artists form a separate subsociety of their own.  Plato clearly espouses
such a concpt in his Republic, and as the Renaissance period was an age of new classicism, we can see
that the Renaissance property of giving credit to the artist is a symptom of that classical reaction, because
it is an important step beyond conceptualizing the artist subsociety toward actually listing it.  This has the
following two effects:  First, the added interest in the artist deemphasizes the work of the artist and as a
result, the function of the art must be grammatically declined to be a function of the artist.  From this point
on we recognize the importance of schools of art, or classifications of artists based on style, rather than classifications of art based on function.  Second, the credit to the artist has emphasized the artist/
nonartist dichotomy, encouraging the belief that only those with the vocation to artistry, or perhaps those
who can be classified in a school of art, can perform the function of the artist. . .
     On account of these two effects, the concept of art itself must undergo a transformation.  As my
second premise indicates, art forms occur naturally in all people.  If most people are no longer capable of
producing art, these naturally occuring forms can no longer be the substance that characterizes art.
     If this transformation of the concept of art is inappropriate,we recognize that, as in the case of law
enforcement, in which individuals have a power that the body of law enforcement agents lacks, the
individual has a creative capability that the artistic community lacks.  Furthermore, if we have a
responsibility to ensure quality in art, we have a responsibility to identify and untilize that capacity. . .
     First, however, we must conquer all effects that the difference between the forms of law enforcement
and artistic production has on this last assumption, because it still seems possible and perhaps sensible that
artists, people who are trained to produce art, have a technical skill that laymen, if they don't lack, at least
don't exercise with as much force or efficiency. . .
     Putting this, and all other arguments of the inappropriateness of this simile aside for the moment, or
forever, is I am to show, withoutregaring them, that the simile is appropriate, I will search for the key
element that completes this simile.  Now, completing this simile entails the discovery of a capability that the layman has that the artist lacks, or at least in whom it is not as strong.  This calls our attention to the
fundamental question. . ."What is the difference between the artist and the nonartist?", since the
development of this argument suggests the paradoxical case that the artist is somehow a better artist than 
the trained artist.  . Well, what is it that makes an artist?  Or is an artist born?  It may be the case that
some people find it easier to produce art and better art, but even in these cases, the artist undergoes some
period of training.  If this is the only difference, however, it must be the case either that lack of training is
a capability in the layman (doubtful) or that in the process of training, an overlooked artistic capability
atrophies in the artist.  What could that capability be? . . .
     I do think that the key to the artists' deficit is enjoyment, as the third premise describes.  Since
nonartists who produce art generally don't get paid for it, they likely are creating for enjoyment, and while
the artist often does enjoy his work, the correspondence between enjoyment and quality suggests that it is
not his motivation.  As my essay leading to this premise suggests, the motivation is the expression of 
virtuosity.  It is virtuosity that training provides and that leads an artist to neglect enjoyment.  Virtuosity is

expertise in technique.  Technique is the set of fine skills involved int artistic production such as
brushstroke, modality and allegory.  Believing that technique is important for artistic production shifts the
focus from enjoyment to virtuosity.  It leads the painter to believe that the process of painting is applying
the brush to the canvas, instead of , as I have been suggsting, being aware of one's mental state. 
Brushstroke, modality and allegory occur, naturally so, from the natural choice of medium as a
resemblance of the form of one's position, motivated by the enjoyment of being aware of that position.
But creating for the brushstroke, the modality or the allegory ignores the fundamental motivation for
creating at all.