You're right, Jeremy. Since
1) a page and a half of this discussion thread is about "art" (and the difficulties in defining what that means)
2) the latest post right before mine quoted an explanation abut how knowledge, background, etc, doesn't mean anything but that the final image is the only thing that counts
I responded "out of context" by giving examples of where it is NOT the case in the "art world" that the knoweldge, background, etc doesn't mean anything.
(there is irony in there somewhere... around word number one and two)
I understand that a lot of the arguments in this part of the forum is somewhat akin to people arguing for the fun of arguing rather than to explore subjects. And given that this apparently is a discussion that several members have had many times before and are tired of listening to (according to some of the posts in the thread), maybe that's not surprising. But as Ken said a month ago, "LuLa gets new members all the time who may not have had this conversation, and having it is a different and more useful activity than reading an old thread".
Maybe I am confusing things here. If so, it's probably because I'm trying to combine a couple of different threads of input into something that makes sense. Or at least exploring whether it is possible to do so.