i'm really puzzled by this idea that someone has to be as good as or better than the artist whose work is being critiqued in order to have or express an opinion on it. everyone has an opinion (or two or three), and everyone has the right to voice it. i'm not a movie director, but that doesn't mean i have to like every movie i see just because i can't make a better one myself. i can't sing worth a damn or write the great american novel, but there are still plenty of writers and singers out there whom i don't like, and i'll say so. and it's not even just a case of whether the artist is good at what he/she does. . . i think still life paintings are boring. the artist may use great technique, but it's still put to use in a genre that i don't like. so, in the end, great technique or not, i just don't like the painting. art is more than just becoming proficient with the tools of the medium. i've seen bryce pictures that were very crudely done, obviously by someone very new to the program, but which i still liked just for the idea behind them. on the other hand, i've seen pictures that technically were outstanding, but were otherwise empty. maybe the guy who didn't like the marble picture just doesn't like pictures of marbles. maybe he needs more in the way of subject matter in order to give a picture an overall great rating. anyway, as i'm rambling a bit here, i'll shut up. i don't have many pictures in my gallery, so my opinion doesn't count anyway :-)