The distinction between making art and thinking and writing about it
should imply neither a mutual exclusiveness nor a hierarchic differentiation of
these processes. Leonardo demonstrated that producing art and theorizing about
Line it need not be antithetically opposed activities and that meaningful contributions
(5) can be achieved successfully in more than one field. Inexplicably, few theorists
have built as memorable architectural structures as his and even fewer artists
have been entrusted with the directorship of an influential art institution.
Unfortunately, as theory and practice became more specialized in the modern
era and their operational framework clearly defined both in the cultural milieu
(10) and the educational process, their independent paths and boundaries have
curtailed possibilities of interaction. The creations of categories and divisions
have further emphasized highly individualized idiosyncrasies and, by exposing
differences, diminished the value of a unifying artistic vocabulary. The
transformative cultural process of the last decades has critically examined the
(15) artificial separations between theoretical and studio practices and disclosed
viable connections between making, writing, thinking, looking and talking
about art. The recent dialogue between the various components of the artistic
discourse has recognized the common denominators shared by theoretical
analyses and artistic production, one of which is clearly exposed by the
(20) argument that the central objective of the theorist and artist is to unmask and
understand artistic meanings in painting or text.
The notion that "true" art is the product of individuals who are incapable of
in-depth understanding, in stark contrast to erudite, restrained and controlled
scholars, is an outdated model. The assumption that artists make art but cannot
(25) or do not have to talk or write about it and that theorists rarely know anything
about the creative process, has been consistently refuted by the many texts
written from Leonardo da Vinci to Mary Kelly. Even van Gogh, a martyr of the
stereotypical "misunderstood genius," whose artistic career has been distorted
by scores of films and books, wrote with lucidity and insight about art and his
(30) work. Apparently, the "mystery" of the creative process, jealously protected
by artists but also selectively cultivated by some art historians has been both a
fascination and frustration for those extrinsic to the process and artists have
exposed the intimacy of creativity while acknowledging the role of cognition in
creativity.
(35) Even the ironic and subversive demise of authorship of the post-modern and
electronic age acknowledges, at least indirectly, the value of the artist’s
individual participation. However, many contemporary artists have abandoned
the hierarchic segregation of the inner realm of the creator and, by combining
theoretical and studio practices, brought a reconciliatory tone to the processes
(40) of making art and analyzing it. Their works, which are often simultaneously
artistic productions and critique of the artistic discourse, make use of visual and
textual forms to expose the connection between looking and thinking as the
essential attribute to both creating and understanding art.

The author's primary purpose in mentioning van Gogh is most likely to（）