Is “I know it when I see it” the New Fair Use Test?

Here’s a nice little tidbit from Blawgletter.

The Second Circuit wrote something like that when it ruled on April 25 that Artist A’s reaping in Artist B’s garden, where Artist A had not sown, counted, as a matter of law, as “fair use” under the Copyright Act of 1976.

Not sure where Blawgletter actually stands regarding this disaster of a decision, but we are very curious what they mean when they say, “…while we don’t disagree with the substance of the majority’s reasoning and decision[.]” Really? What’s there to agree on? The Second Circuit pretty much said that they “know fair use when they see it.” What’s to agree with that ridiculous statement? Does Blawgletter actually like the fact that the Second Circuit just rolled back art history 200 years, not to mention that they relegated artists to the idiot savant bin?