This paper focuses on some of the issues from a study that questioned the validity of the proposal advanced by the influential North American curriculum movement referred to as "Discipline-Based Art Education" (DBAE); that the methods and understanding of artists, art critics, aestheticians, and art historians can be represented in a model of artistic knowledge that is framed as a coherent and integrated system of naive to sophisticated performances. The interpretation of data focused on the pedagogical dialogue about the authentic representation of artistic practice, specifically the role of the journal, or process diary, as an example of the way in which answers to empirical questions are more often than not counterintuitive. It reports that the study's two respondents are at best intuitive in their meta-representations of their performances and at worst misrepresent what they do, albeit in an unconscious and therefore concealed way. It finds that the manner in which the two produce their works, including process diary use, is sophisticated in ways that do not align with the characteristics and categorizations set out in DBAE. The paper elaborates on these findings and on the two respondents' methods of producing art works. Contains 18 references. (BT)