"It's not art, because it threatens our livelihood." That's what's really at the heart of the whole thing, whether it's Epilogue.net or some deconstructionist artiste snubbing his nose at anything enhanced / colored / painted in Photoshop or in any other way touched by a computer. You'll even find so-called "artistes" who'll decry Vallejo and Giger on the pretext that their work is mainstream pop culture and therefore doesn't "express" anything. However, a big empty square canvas with a couple of triangles to discretely cut the letter "M" is apparently "art." The world of museum-level high art has turned to this kind of empty deconstructionist tripe or other more ludicrous projects (rotting meat dresses, goldfish in blenders... I even remember an article about an overflowing trash can which became an exhibit). The art world is threatened. If society begins to accept the fact that a really talented kid with Photoshop can make "art," then there will be fewer $250,000 paycheques made out to the "artistes." That's what it all boils down to. Chas