James Elkins: A short course in forgetting chemistry

Elkin argues that painting in a distinctive medium. In what way does he believe it to be distinctive and would you agree with his definition?

Elkin believes that a painting is created without thought, something that the artist can just do distinctively without thought or knowledge of the medium; and that a kind of 'magic' is created through the artist's hand and the paint. He believes an artist can paint without previous experience, like they have never had to be taught how to paint, that it just comes instinctively to them, he calls this 'alchemy', the act of producing something of substance by which no formula can be described.
In a sense i can agree with what Elkin is saying because i do think the act of painting or art in itself, be that drawing or generally being good at creating something comes naturally to a lot of people. For example in a literal sense, i have always been able to draw well however i dont know how i aquired these skills, like Elkin says, i guess it just came naturally to me as a child, and which has been something i have pursued and studied into later life.
I do however feel there are aspects of art you cannot teach yourself, but i do think that art is always an ongoing process of learning and development, i don't think you will EVER reach a stage where you would say to yourself "i know ALL there is to know about art" even the great masters will have died not knowing EVERY single aspect of art or painting.
From studying art at degree level, i know within myself i have been taught things i never knew before, even though i thought i knew everything to know about painting, skills wise, i was suprised to realise there was so much more to learn. Even though the process of painting comes naturally to me as it is what i want to be doing, you realise there is so much more to learn, either from each other, off tutors or by studying other artists.
Painting is a distinctive medium, as the artist creating the painting will have in some way a connection to the painting by that, emotional or physical, and their mood, thoughts or feelings will be reflected through their fingers as they begin to lay the paint. Even the process of actually painting may cause the artist distress, annoyance, confusion or happiness but i feel that whatever they are feeling will always be reflected in their work..if of course it is something they are painting which bares meaning to them.
Elkin's example of Monet is an interesting one as he describes Monet as only being interested in the technicalities of creating a painting, showing the process with vivid brush strokes, and treating figures like "coloured dolls instead of friends or relatives" hence, meaning his paintings had no emotional attachments and his subjects were just another cog in the mechanics of his works. I can't say i am a fan of Monet's work really, and i do tend to like artists who portray meaning into their work. I can't say i have one DEFINITIVE artist who does it for me as everyday i find new artists whose work will grab my attention.....i am not particularly interested in seeing the mechanics of how the painting was made. Far enough, if that is the style of the artist but i prefer my paintings to have meaning, i want to feel something when i look at a painting.....
Not just see how it was made.