The distinction between making art and thinking and writing about it should imply neither a mutual exclusiveness nor a hierarchic differentiation of these processes. Leonardo demonstrated that producing art and theorizing about Line it need not be antithetically opposed activities and that meaningful contributions can be achieved successfully in more than one field. Inexplicably, few theorists have built as memorable architectural structures as his and even fewer artists have been entrusted with the directorship of an influential art institution. Unfortunately, as theory and practice became more specialized in the modernera and their operational framework clearly defined both in the cultural milieu and the educational process, their independent paths and boundaries have curtailed possibilities of interaction. The creations of categories and divisions have further emphasized highly individualized idiosyncrasies and, by exposing differences, diminished the value of a unifying artistic vocabulary. The transformative cultural process of the last decades has critically examined the artificial separations between theoretical and studio practices and disclosed viable connections between making, writing, thinking, looking and talking about art. The recent dialogue between the various components of the artistic discourse has recognized the common denominators shared by theoretical analyses and artistic production, one of which is clearly exposed by the argument that the central objective of the theorist and artist is to unmask and understand artistic meanings in painting or text. The notion that "true" art is the product of individuals who are incapable of in-depth understanding, in stark contrast to erudite, restrained and controlled scholars, is an outdated model. The assumption that artists make art but cannot or do not have to talk or write about it and that theorists rarely know anything about the creative process, has been consistently refuted by the many texts written from Leonardo da Vinci to Mary Kelly. Even van Gogh, a martyr of the stereotypical "misunderstood genius," whose artistic career has been distorted by scores of films and books, wrote with lucidity and insight about art and his work. Apparently, the "mystery" of the creative process, jealously protected by artists but also selectively cultivated by some art historians has been both a fascination and frustration for those extrinsic to the process and artists have exposed the intimacy of creativity while acknowledging the role of cognition in creativity. Even the ironic and subversive demise of authorship of the post-modern and electronic age acknowledges, at least indirectly, the value of the artist’s individual participation. However, many contemporary artists have abandoned the hierarchic segregation of the inner realm of the creator and, by combining theoretical and studio practices, brought a reconciliatory tone to the processes of making art and analyzing it. Their works, which are often simultaneously artistic productions and critique of the artistic discourse, make use of visual and textual forms to expose the connection between looking and thinking as the essential attribute to both creating and understanding art. The author’s primary purpose in mentioning van Gogh is most likely to（）.

A. cite the case of an artist whose intention was to increase the mystification of the artistic process
B. discuss an artist whose life has been consistently distorted by biographers and filmmakers
C. give an example of an artist depicted as incapable of comprehending his own art work but able to do so in fact
D. provide an instance of an artist whose work can scarcely be understood without the assistance of art critics
E. mention the example of an artist whose critical faculties were rightly overshadowed by his artistic abilities`