I wouldn’t think it would be difficult to do work in the style of Mondrian or Warhol (rather than Van Gogh) or any number of other well regarded artists and pass your “test” of being able to “tell the difference.” The fact a style is easy to reproduce doesn’t make it generic. Just adding “your twist” can be superficial or it can create a deep resonance that wasn’t there before. Would the Obama Hope poster have been the same with the original photo rather than Fairey’s “twist” (as you call it). I find it hard to believe, and even you acknowledge Fairey’s work is appealing. I don’t think you have to be “revolutionary” to be transformative.

And the fact is we’re going to have to begin to locate creativity somewhere else other than the skill of a Renaissance painter or a master musician. Machines are giving skills to everyone that were once reserved for a select few. Photography did it over 150 years ago. You’re not suggesting photography can’t be creative, are you?

I dont find anything revolutionary or new about shepards work, It is appealing and I can see why its succesful today.

At my school ive seen work of students who were “influenced” by sheperd fairy. Theres nothing really distinctive, you coulda told me they were faireys work and I would have believed it.

On the otehr hand ive seen people paint in Van gogh style, or make logos a la Sal Bass. But you can stil tell the difference.

Work all looks the same now because its made by machines, even thou we give it the instructions it still a machine, we arent allowed the freedom or uniquenes that traditional painting would give us, thats why its so had to be original or fresh now we are limited by the capabilities of hte program, unlike in traditional painting where the skys the limit and hters a more direct conection to your imagination and creativity.