I do think, however, that we can only see what we know. And we understand according to concepts. Thereby, those who have theoretical concepts in mind, and then draw out from nature the concepts they wish to express will always make better work. And these concepts, though derivative of theories of nature, are rarely "natural" as implemented. Harvey Dunn would often say that if you only try to copy the model you will never end up with a good looking thing. His notion was to go for the illusive character of a thing, only looking up at the model for reference. Put another way, if we were just meat cameras (as the saying goes) we would all pretty much do the same work from life. Yet, look at Richard Schmid do a landscape versus Edgar Payne versus John Twachtman versus Arthur Matthews versus Maynard Dixon versus David Curtis versus Stevan Dohanos, versus John Clymer (etc.) ... and you will have all sorts of essential conceptual differences. And it is these conceptual approaches which make for the variety of greatness found in the best artists. Art is not journalism.