> The common understanding of an "expert" in any
> field is of an individual who is recognised by
> others in their profession, working in the field,
> as an authority on a particular aspect of the
> subject. It is commonplace for an "expert" to have
> published or lectured widely on their specialised
> aspect of that subject.
Agreed. Scott recognised me as an expert in the field of art in particular painting. The application of paint.
I made no comment on the message that the cartouche purports to convey.
Not my field.
My analyses was totally based on the application and the physical relationship of the materials used.
If you do not care to accept that analyses then that is your choice.
Others may or may not. I have no control over that.
I am not aware that anyone else has approached an analyses of the cartouche using this methodology.
Therefore it could be argued that I had the "expertise" that enabled me to recognise the potential of the use of this methodology in the analyses of ancient artworks.
I doubt that you would deny that, as it is a major factor in the perpetuation of these discussions.
Drips and Splashes.
It would be interesting to see more.
> With no disrespect to you, being also educated to
> post-graduate degree level myself, a Masters
> degree is a commendable personal academic
> achievement but the qualification alone does not
> even begin to suggest that a person ought ever to
> be considered an "expert" in their field.
Agreed. However whether one is recognised as an expert or not is entirely down to the client.
I recognise my local mechanic as an expert in all things cars.
> I would never refer to you - or indeed
> myself - as an "expert" in our subjects simply
> because we possess a post graduate level
Neither would I, but again it is down to whoever would feel the need to recognise that expertise.
> Philip's PhD suggests an even more "specialised"
> area of study than an M.A. - but on the subject
> matter he has been consulted for Creighton's
> latest publication, he ought never to admit or
> declare himself an "expert" for he has not been
> recognised by others working in that field
> (Creighton notwithstanding) to be an authority on
> that aspect of Egyptology.
I doubt that he ever did declare himself an expert. Again it is a matter of recognition.
Expert is a relative term. Maybe Scott was declaring that I have more expertise in this field, (Painting), than he.
Which is true.
As Karl Marx said. You are what the world recognises you as. Not what you declare yourself as.
(or something similar).
> Given this, I'm surprised that you think so.
> If you maintain that you are indeed an "expert" in
> art then the expectation is for you to disclose
> where and what you have published and whom others
> might consult in your field to determine that this
> is, indeed, the case.
I did not declare myself as an expert in art. See above. I declared that I have studied and am highly qualified in the field of art. What's the problem?
Visual art is a performative discipline, akin to music.
So therefore one would expect an expert in art, an artist, to have a track record in the discipline and production of art.
I would say that my "expertise" in both engineering and the visual arts provides me with the intellectual, analytical and physical tools that are responsible for and allow me to produce things such as this. Which I find incredibly interesting, and by all accounts so do many others.
Leonardo Da Vinci introduced himself to the Duke of Milan as "A Military Engineer",
Which I find both ironic and amusing.
Hope that helps.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 26-Jun-16 13:26 by Jon Ellison.