Passage Summary: Some people dismiss abstract art in favor of realism, but the author points out that if realism was the only goal of art, cameras would have replaced painters long ago.

Conclusion: People value things in paintings other than just how realistically they depict a scene.

Reasoning: If realism were the only thing people cared about, photography would have made painting obsolete by now.

Analysis: The author employs a logical strategy often called 'reductio ad absurdum.' They take a premise (that realism is the only thing appreciated) and show that if it were true, it would lead to a consequence that we know is false (the death of painting as an art form). Since the consequence is false, the original premise must also be false. When looking at the method of reasoning, focus on how the author uses the continued existence of painting as a counter-evidence to a specific theory about what makes art valuable.