Of course! I think the problem is my too brief expression. No wicked intention to "push buttons" beyond what is necessary for meaningful discussion. :) My apologies for using "churned", it seems to imply a carelessness I thought I had denied by saying "if each one is individually finished". And of course there is nothing wrong with camels. What I meant is that when the subject is immutable and expected to be realistic, the skill is in the detail, not in an impossible innovation. I do not see anything controversial in that.
I am sure that "in terms of the journey of art-making" Clare is able to make horses (or camels, for what matters:) ) like Picasso's, but I am also sure that she will not sell them as rocking horses. If you can prove me wrong, Clare, I am happy to stand corrected.
What we were really discussing here, I thought, is to what extent the tool defines or qualifies "art" as distinct from "skill". When we were talking about carving, it appeared that a self respecting "carver" does not use sandpaper, while a "sculptor" can use anything that will produce the desired result. My point is that, if innovation is not an issue, a pantograph is no different from a bandsaw.
I tend to believe (and again, Clare, there is absolutely no criticism intended) that the "I have done all this with hand tools and took me 500 hours" is only necessary to justify the price tag for a certain type of client. The type of client who is prepared to pay $20,000 for a rocking horse, maybe?:wink: