Art is nothing without the audience just like art is nothing without the idea.

This, if I remember correctly, humanodon, was the basis of our first interaction about art, wasn't it? It's an idea I'm still processing. Certainly not yet ready to make any more assertions about it, because I'm not certain enough of my answer anymore.

As for art just being about externalizing the internal... I'm not entirely sure. Lemme see if I can dig around at why. Keep in mind that I'm tired tired tired and supposed to be working right now, so I'm not sure of the value of what I'm saying. Feel free to pick 'er apart. Basically, though. If art were just about taking something internal and making it external with no other preconditions, would we have any people we consider artistic heavyweights? In other words, if I have a feeling: "Work is useless," and then I paint onto a canvas a stick figure with a speech bubble saying "work is useless..." 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. Or else yeah, I can practice and study and work out my ideas and hone my art until, on a canvas, I can use the most exquisite oil paints to paint in painstaking detail a guy with his head in his hands... with a speech bubble saying "work is useless." And it's up to the audience to do the rest.

This example is ridiculous, I know. I'm actually kind of embarrassed to have used it, but again, tired. But it gets at something: sometimes you can practice and practice and practice and put something out that's technically well-rendered... and it still won't strike an emotional chord because a) maybe you just don't have any good ideas (you addressed this above) and/or b) you have, for all of your technical skill, no natural talent for effectively expressing your views to any audience. Which I guess gets in a roundabout fashion to the first thing I mentioned, which was the role of the audience in effective artwork. So blah.

I guess the best I can do is provide two examples- Thomas Kinkade (God rest his soul) and Chuck Close. Chose them because they both focus on the representational, both paint as realistically as they can (okay, that's an assumption), both use the same media. Other than that, arbitrary. Kinkade did landscapes, Close portaiture. They're both concise in realizing their ideas. Is Kinkade on the same level in terms of cultural value as Close? That's not rhetorical- it's a hard question. Kinkade probably has more total market value and access to popular culture? But Close's stuff probably goes for more per square inch and is more highly valued within circles that pride themselves in valuing such things. I can say that looking at the two side by side objectively as I can, Close's stuff is just incredible while Kinkade's stuff feels cheap and saccharine. But if they've both desired to convey something as much as they possibly could, and both practiced and toiled and created these works, but one retains more value than the other, doesn't that mean that there's some kernel that is totally up to natural ability, and can't be taught? That, in my mind, is the seed of artistic expression. Not impeccable technique, but an inbred ability to not just externalize the internal, but to compel a culture to empathize with your internalized thought/emotion. Which, I guess you get at above as well. 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?