On the moralities of accomodating financial enticements over the need to produce original works. The supposed reward on offer - a lifetime of copying Dekoonings for a 100 million dollars.

A 100 million dollars for copying DeKoonings for the rest of one's life!!! Sure, even Vincent would've pounced on that offer (who knows!). His brother did earnestly try to sell Vincent, didnt he? Selling pictures for money should never be an issue.

We need money to buy paint, if not food. The point is, how far should the transaction proceed? What should be the price for happiness? How long would one continue to do that? Could one die happy in a million dollar mansion, famous for his Dekooning copies, having never been given an opportunity to express one's true self on the canvas? These queries are hypothetical, and irrelevant to the original subjecthead of this debate (which sought to define an artist). Whether you like or dislike Eminem/Shakira/Norah Jones/Pavarotti/etc.. is purely subjective. The logic inherent in these fields is still WYSWYG - what you see(or hear, or taste, or wear, or live in..) is what you get. You decide your likes/dislikes.

Contemporary art establishment, with its shrill lobbying for the ordinary has actively discouraged talent. A painter, to be called a painter, must be uncommonly gifted in his chosen medium. Not just masterful technique, not just a passionate intelligence. Either both, or not at all. A true mathematician is not just one with a degree in mathematics. Same applies to one with a doctorate in art theory. But this is how visual art has been promoted over the last century. Picasso didnt go against this trend, he was smart enough to have gone along with it. He openly embraced the hypocrisy of a market driven evaluation of quality. And it made him immensely rich.