1. Has photography killed painting, as Paul Delaroche suggested? Or did photography free painting from the need for realism?

-If photography is seen as a standard for representation, then any stylistic deviations from photorealism in a painting are even more important.
-Photo realistic painting is still valuable as a skill. Photography is limited by what exists in reality, but painters can still create the illusion of photography with subjects that exist only in the artist's mind.

2. Where is the line drawn between ready-mades and assisted ready-mades? Is it possible to create art that is not in some way a ready-made?

-Painting generally involves the use of technology, the paints, the brushes, the canvas are all created by people not credited in the final work of art. What about artists like Andy Goldsworthy who only use "found" tools? His work is entirely created with natural tools, but is it still a form of the ready-made, made by natural processes rather than technological ones? If no artist can escape the ready-made, why is Duchamp's work so offensive?