“Really,” he said. His tone of sarcasm was clear enough. “In that case, tell me what it does contain.”

“It’s a landscape watercolour, that’s all,” I said. “It’s also very beautiful, very accomplished and very life-like.”

“You seem to be stating that it’s worthy of merit because it’s a painting that portrays what’s there already.”

“I suppose I am,” I responded.

“Representational art?”

“Yes. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s as valid an art form as expressionistic or surreal or futuristic art. More valid in some cases.”

“Let me just mention a few basic principles of art,” he said. “First of all, the word “art” is another way of describing human creative skills and their application, in other words, a creative activity concerned with the production of the imaginative expression of ideas. You okay with that one?”

“A very accurate description,” I said.

“Do you agree with it?” he insisted.

I nodded.

“Of course.”

“Right. Secondly, the artist’s function is always – and only – to create something new and original. Otherwise, they’re not an artist, but a copyist. Agreed?”

I nodded again.

“Yes.”

“Thirdly, new and original means something never seen before. Not a copy, not imitation, not mimesis. Agreed?”

I nodded reluctantly. I could see where this particular line of questioning was going.

“Fourth, all art should have a point. Agreed?”

“Not necessarily,” I argued. “Spontaneous expression is as valid – and as moral – a form as pre-planned expression. Art is, after all, artifice. Even if it only represents what’s there to be seen.”

“So Nazi art, which represented what was allegedly there to be seen, was moral, was it?”

“No.”

“Nazi art, advocated by Hitler, which often depicted pastoral scenes similar to this one – is a valid form of art, is it?”

“No,” I said. “But you’re using an extreme example to make a point. It’s unfair to the work we’re discussing.”

“Your endorsement of that picture means that you’re a champion of the naive-pastoral style of painting. It’s a painting that deliberately and very calculatingly pretends to hark back to a golden era of natural beauty that never really existed at all. Look at it carefully,” he said.