I've just externalized my internal viewpoint. Poorly, but by the above criteria, it doesn't matter. It's up to the audience to determine whether or not I'm artistically successful, even if I know I put no thought into the piece

Yes and no. You've successfully externalized your idea and the audience may internalize that idea but that doesn't make it good or art. What makes art good is when the audience has to go through a process in order to internalize it. During this exploration process they take in what you have created and make it their own. They see things you may not have intended, they relate it to their life, their emotions, their unique experiences. Then it is their own and the art has evolved and has been successful.

Good art also creates new experiences during this process. When you watch an excellent movie, you are not only watching it and taking it in, but you are also creating some new emotions or thoughts while you take it in. Sort of like the journey, not the destination. Same with paintings. They create emotions that vary between different audiences. Some people may look at a painting and find it full of elation. Some may find the same painting to be morbid and a bit awkward.

The barrier to entry for understanding and devouring art is what makes art truly complicated. In your Kinkade/Close example, Kinkade's barrier to entry is quite low. You see him on puzzles and calendars and everything in between. It's just there and it is pretty and that's okay. Not much effort is put into looking at a puzzle. He's an artist and he has created some beautiful pieces that (for me) are pretty and calming and soothing. However, because the barrier to entry for viewing his works is so low, and the environment that we often seen Kinkade in is on a puzzle, not in a gallery, the value and satisfaction I (the audience) receive from seeing his art is also low.

I've found the same is true for music. You could hear a fantastic song after diving for hours through soundcloud and your experience listening to that song is going to be magical. You are going to feel and have a deep appreciate for the melodies and the lyrics and all that greatness. You could have heard that same song for the first time on the radio while driving and you would never have that same level of appreciation for it. Even though it is still the same, magical, fantastic song. The atmosphere is different, the level of attention you are giving the song is different, the level of internalization is different.

So why do you think that the whole process is teachable whereas I believe that the fundamental ability can't be bestowed but only inherited?

I think that everyone is capable of having ideas and learning how to convey those ideas in a great artistic form. Art is really only about the idea. The rest is pretty technical. If one has the inclination to explore and dive deep into their ideas, and enough desire and time to dedicate to learning and perfecting their craft, they can do it. Very few people have both the inclination and desire and the time.

Because they just don't have the requisite intellectual equipment.

Right. Well, not every one has great ideas nor the inclination to take their ideas and make them something worthwhile to be shared. I still stand by the fact that everyone has ideas. Some people's ideas are initially better than other's ideas and this has to do with life experiences and reflection. Some people naturally soak a lot of information and experience from the world around them and then take that information and reflect on it. lil has probably had more insight in life and love by the time she was 25 that I'll have during my entire life. kleinbl00 has had a variety of life experiences - from strippers, to deserts, to engineering, to audio, to parenthood, to planes. Even though these things are all pretty different, they all connect and come together and thus, the scope of ideas (and arguments) are impacted by his knowledge about these things.

Other people may grow up in a single place with a single group of friends. They may not be well-read. They may be satisfied by simply being told an answer and never asking why. They may not reflect on their choices or actions. Their ideas are going to be affected by this. They have an idea ("work is useless") and that's the end of the "conversation" in their head simply because they have never experienced anything different. kb's arguments / ideas are initially more fully formed not just by his experiences, but by the arguments that take place in his head in a split second. This instant circling around an idea makes it grow into a bigger, stronger truth. He may say "work is useless" and another part of his head comes back and says "no it's not, work is useful in XYZ cases." By the time he writes a post on hubski, the idea is a massive beast, grown from a million microscopic arguments that he's already had with himself.

If we take the person who just had the idea "work is useless" and moved on and we teach them how to pull apart the idea, connect the idea with similar ideas, create arguments to fight the idea, and circle around it, the idea is going to be much stronger in the end. The only advantage some people have is that this process happens naturally while other people need to force the process more.

I hate what I just wrote. But I refuse to take it down. Somewhere in there is what I'm trying to convey. Not sure I can. No natural ability? Huh.

Don't worry about it and thanks for leaving it up. I do this all the time. I'm still 50/50 on this post in fact. Too many ideas to get out.