Passage Summary: Because we only call an artist 'great' based on what they've already done, the argument claims that the label 'great' is useless for guessing if their next work will be good.

Conclusion: An artist's reputation for greatness provides no information regarding the likely quality of their future or undiscovered work.

Reasoning: The label of 'greatness' is entirely derived from an assessment of works an artist has already completed.

Analysis: The flaw here is a refusal to acknowledge that past performance can be a reliable indicator of future results. The author treats a summary of the past as if it is strictly confined to the past, ignoring the possibility of a consistent underlying trait (talent). In abstract terms, the argument claims that because a status is earned through past actions, it has zero predictive power. Look for a parallel flaw where someone argues that a track record tells us nothing about what will happen next.