The first think that struck me when reading Kubler's piece is the idea that today we butcher the timeline of the history of art. By referring to the lives of specific artists, we break art history into blocks by style, instead of understanding they all happen on a single continuum. It is much more interesting to think of different artistic styles this way because we are then made to see the connection between periods and types of art. The way Kubler compared style to a plant was a way I had never thought about how style functions in society before. That all parts are connected by something constant and universal but may vary based on environment is a much more wholesome way of thinking about , again instead of simply looking at styles as blocks that structurally make up art.
When Kubler argued that talent is much less a determinant of how successful an artist will be than luck, I fully agreed with his point. Today, it is a common assumption that it's "hard to make it as an artist" and most people in general become famous through random luck. The time in which an artist lives will have a great impact on how the world sees and reacts to his work regardless of his personal intentions. Someone could be the most talented artist to exist, but if their work isn't popularly liked or even given the chance to be seen, the talent is pointless. I think this is true for anything, and serves as a reminder that being smart doesn't guarantee a job, or being fast won't automatically grant a spot on a sports team.
Overall, I thought that all of Kubler's arguments provide interesting and original ways to reevaluate how we see art and the timeline of artists and styles and how they should be seen fluidly instead of broken into pieces.
