THAT A PAINTER IS NOT ADMIRABLE UNLESS HE IS UNIVERSAL.

Some may distinctly assert that those persons are under a delusion
who call that painter a good master who can do nothing well but a
head or a figure. Certainly this is no great achievement; after
studying one single thing for a life-time who would not have
attained some perfection in it? But, since we know that painting
embraces and includes in itself every object produced by nature or
resulting from the fortuitous actions of men, in short, all that the
eye can see, he seems to me but a poor master who can only do a
figure well. For do you not perceive how many and various actions
are performed by men only; how many different animals there are, as
well as trees, plants, flowers, with many mountainous regions and
plains, springs and rivers, cities with public and private
buildings, machines, too, fit for the purposes of men, divers
costumes, decorations and arts? And all these things ought to be
regarded as of equal importance and value, by the man who can be
termed a good painter.