Context: The traditional interpretation of "Cubism", formulated post facto as a means of understanding the works of Braque and Picasso, has affected our appreciation of other twentieth-century artists. It is difficult to apply to painters such as Jean Metzinger, Albert Gleizes, Robert Delaunay and Henri Le Fauconnier, whose fundamental differences from traditional Cubism compelled Kahnweiler to question their right to be called Cubists at all. According to Daniel Robbins, "To suggest that merely because these artists developed differently or varied from the traditional pattern they deserved to be relegated to a secondary or satellite role in Cubism is a profound mistake."

Question: Understanding who's work was the tradition meaning of Cubism formed on?
Answer: Braque and Picasso

Question: Who suggested that the artists other than Braque and Picasso's relgation to a distant role in Cubism was a mistake?
Answer: Daniel Robbins

Question: What other painters were not thought of as being as Cubist as Braque and Picasso?
Answer: Jean Metzinger, Albert Gleizes, Robert Delaunay and Henri Le Fauconnier

Question: Understanding whose work was the tradition meaning of non-Cubism formed on?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: Who suggested that the artists other than Braque and Picasso's relgation to a close role in Cubism was a mistake?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What other painters were thought of as being as Cubist as Braque and Picasso?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: Who said "o suggest that merely because these artists developed same as the traditional pattern"
Answer: Unanswerable