The problem with such criticism, however, is that it fails to
address the clear distinction between professional skill and craft.
Admitting that this difference exists is crucial. Before the 17th
century, it can be argued, there was little difference between the
master craftsman and the professional artist. The work of both was
created for, and judged by, society as a whole. However, during the
age of European expansion a class of professional artists gradually
emerged. Their work was not aimed at, or designed to be under-
stood by, the ordinary citizen. It was created to suit the tastes and
experiences of the ruling class. The "language" they used in their
paintings was the language spoken by an elite. Only the elite could
"judge" a work of art. Only they could "read" it properly. For
over two centuries, therefore, craft-that is, self-taught or local
skills-became the poor man's art; it was not considered worthy
of discussion by the rich and powerful.
