I appreciate the author's viewpoint, but I think he does not make an argument persuasive to opposing viewpoints. He does not address values, assumptions, and reasoning used by such opponents. The Wally quote and the talk of admired past painters using aids are helpful on a subconscious level, as they are appeals to authority and accomplishment. It would be much more persuasive to directly attack the naturalistic values of opponent. I would challenge the author to develop a more persuasive essay. If it is reasonable to extend the author's argument to cover music, then what sort of argument would he need to offer to convince others that Skrillex has the same artistic merit as Frank Sinatra, which in turn has the same artistic merit as Mozart? Going beyond even that, I would like to hear the author's opinions on algorithmically generated art, like the Mandelbrot set.