> I looked up the word "one" in the dictionary and one of its definitions -- way down the list, mind you -- is the one I'm talking about: "an unspecified individual; anyone."

I don't think being "way down the list" in a list of dictionary definitions is a very strong argument to desist its usage.

The use of the word "one" *can* sound pompous, but (1) a language that isn't flexible enough to *allow* one to sound pompous when one wishes to is not very flexible at all, and (2) it can also be used elegantly and in cases where rewordings are insufficient, as in the example you kindly provided. "One can appreciate the colors and artistry of the Van Gogh painting" is indeed superior to your rewordings, at least if that is truly what one means: your rewordings are not equivalent. Not even "The colors and artistry of the Van Gogh painting can be appreciated" is quite equivalent, although at least that one *means* the same thing. The passive voice is called the passive voice for a reason: it's passive. "One can appreciate..." is the stronger statement, which may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be called for.

> If anyone would like to volunteer to lead the way in this revolution, I will be happy to follow behind, raising the flag and shouting battle cries.

Fight to make the English language weaker? No thanks.