Of course an artist in common with a doctor ought to expect to make a living from their profession. A doctor needs to reach a particular standard of competence in order to practice medicine and hence make a living – perhaps this needs to be so of an artist?

Or is there a sense that a doctor performs a public service and therefore should be free of market forces while an artist does not and therefore should be subject to market forces?

So in one instance (where public safety is concerned) the standard is regulated, while in the other (where only a poor investment is at stake) the standard is not regulated?

Christine, I 100% agree about me and the chimps while also thinking that mercenary artists tend to treat the public as chumps.

Tom, I would hope your talent threshold in the three areas of art, music and math was a little higher than a chimpanzee! I suppose the question becomes with equal training and equal practice do you arrive at an equal talent threshold in art, music and math?

The comparison with music and maths is appropriate, though I can’t be a spokesman for Eric Gill. I would not categorize myself as an artist, mucisian or mathematician, though I have talents in all of them when compared, for example, to a chimpanzee! So I suppose we are talking about thresholds, and that the the commercial criterion ‘listed in an exhibition catalogue’ is just one way of defining a threshold for a painting being a ‘work of art’. We should also remember the comment that:
– the aim of ninteeenth century art was to explore the nature of Beauty
– the aim of twentieth century art was to explore the nature of Art
– the aim of twenty-first century art is to make Money

When you say a ‘special kind of artist’ do you mean like Linda McCartney was a photographer [ http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3KGUme0aF3k/TbhOMx9S3TI/AAAAAAAABK0/0Ut45-_GsQU/s1600/FS_11552.JPG ] while Paul McCartney was a musician [ http://images.starpulse.com/AMGPhotos/pic200/drp100/p144/p14455d6lg0.jpg ]?

Yet Linda also became a musician? [ http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/552022/Linda+McCartney.jpg ] And Paul McCartney a photographer?
[ http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/32031801/Paul+McCartney+64camera.jpg ]

Yes, commercial activity IS a criterion of who is an artist, but it is an unreliable test and it is not the only test.
Re Eric Gill’s remark: I like it but it is only in the back of my mind. On the whole, yes: I suppose that most people have a sufficient level of artistic creativity in them to conclude that ‘every person is a special kind of artist’.

Tom do you think all persons are artists? And what do you mean by this?

‘It makes use of plants and it has an aesthetic quality, but it does not have the traditional garden roles (producing food, a place to sit, beside a house, etc)’

However, I don´t see the biggest problem there. The problem is the garden´s main feature – two black depressing shades on the ground. Even though there´s an idea there, it´s way too gloomy for a garden. Both, traditional and contemporary garden´s are places of peace and harmony where one can rest and enjoy the beauty of nature. The idea here is obvious, however, it´s not suitable for a garden.

I like Eric Gill’s remark: ‘The artist is not a different kind of person, but every person is a different kind of artist.’ But the work of an artist falls into a different (commercial!) category once it has appeared in a recognized exhibition catalogue.