The distinction between making art and thinking and writing about itshould imply neither a

The distinction between making art and thinking and writing about it

should imply neither a mutual exclusiveness nor a hierarchic differentiation of

these processes. Leonardo demonstrated that producing art and theorizing about

it need not be antithetically opposed activities and that meaningful contributions

(5) can be achieved successfully in more than one field. Inexplicably, few theorists

have built as memorable architectural structures as his and even fewer artists

have been entrusted with the directorship of an influential art institution.

Unfortunately, as theory and practice became more specialized in the modern

era and their operational framework clearly defined both in the cultural milieu

(10) and the educational process, their independent paths and boundaries have

curtailed possibilities of interaction. The creations of categories and divisions

have further emphasized highly individualized idiosyncrasies and, by exposing

differences, diminished the value of a unifying artistic vocabulary. The

transformative cultural process of the last decades has critically examined the

(15) artificial separations between theoretical and studio practices and disclosed

viable connections between making, writing, thinking, looking and talking

about art. The recent dialogue between the various components of the artistic

discourse has recognized the common denominators shared by theoretical

analyses and artistic production, one of which is clearly exposed by the

(20) argument that the central objective of the theorist and artist is to unmask and

understand artistic meanings in painting or text.

The notion that "true" art is the product of individuals who are incapable of

in-depth understanding, in stark contrast to erudite, restrained and controlled

scholars, is an outdated model. The assumption that artists make art but cannot

(25) or do not have to talk or write about it and that theorists rarely know anything

about the creative process, has been consistently refuted by the many texts

written from Leonardo da Vinci to Mary Kelly. Even van Gogh, a martyr of the

stereotypical "misunderstood genius," whose artistic career has been distorted

by scores of films and books, wrote with lucidity and insight about art and his

(30) work. Apparently, the "mystery" of the creative process, jealously protected

by artists but also selectively cultivated by some art historians has been both a

fascination and frustration for those extrinsic to the process and artists have

exposed the intimacy of creativity while acknowledging the role of cognition in

creativity.

(35) Even the ironic and subversive demise of authorship of the post-modern and

electronic age acknowledges, at least indirectly, the value of the artist's

individual participation. However, many contemporary artists have abandoned

the hierarchic segregation of the inner realm of the creator and, by combining

theoretical and studio practices, brought a reconciliatory tone to the processes

(40) of making art and analyzing it. Their works, which are often simultaneously

artistic productions and critique of the artistic discourse, make use of visual and

textual forms to expose the connection between looking and thinking as the

essential attribute to both creating and understanding art.

According to the passage, the specialization of art and theory has tended to

A．reduce the level of control artists have over artistic institutions

B．increase the usefulness of creating a unifying artistic vocabulary

C．permit a greater level of development of knowledge concerning both

D．curtail interactions and establish false boundaries between the two fields

E．complicate the educational process of artists in an unfortunate manner