I know about Reneissance man, but this isn't what I had in my mind when writing it. With Reneissance men, you expect them to be extraordinary creatures who don't only have breadth, but also depth.
What I meant by generalists, it was a lot of breadth without depth. Like knowing one city from every country, but not knowing more in any. Like knowing one painting from all major artists, but not knowing second and third from anyone. Being able to paint a dog, but not a cat, a man, a castle.
Being such a generalist would not be practical. In fact, it would be useless. Even Leonardo da Vinci was a painter, student of anatomy and engineer. He wasn't archeologist, expert on India, or circus acrobat who can juggle with torches. Da Vinci was specialized too.
What I see in generalists today, are very often general managerial/entrepreneurial skills mixed with some level of expertise in one or two fields. And calling this generalist seems as bad naming practice.
There must be another, better name for this.