The conclusion of this article is that Pollack's paintings are "art" because he decided that they were, and thus "Pollock taught us how to see art in a new way."

Nowhere does Ms. Fineman dare to say that she can tell the difference from a "Marla" or an elephant painting from a Pollack. Suppose Ms. Fineman were shown a group of paintings and was asked to pick out the Pollacks. And suppose she picked out a painting that was actually by Marla (or an elephant). Suppose it wasn't just Ms. Fineman who was fooled, but a group of "leading critics." What would that say about art? Anything? For Ms. Fineman, art is something to be talked about, not something to be looked at.

Sorry, but there's no way in hell a sophisticated critic wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Marla, a Pollock, and an elephant painting. What do you think they do, sit around and play video games until they're called upon to pontificate? They don't. They sit around looking at art all day, very closely and very carefully. That's why they're experts. At least the ones who are worth a damn do.

Which is why Ms. Fineman's article isn't worth a damn. Ms. Fineman's claim of similarity between the canvasses produced by the elephants and Marla's, other than the superficial similarity of both being "abstract," immediately discredits her as a credible source about art. Just scroll through a sample of the elephant paintings and a sample of Marla's work. They bear little resemblance to each other