Just to clarify, I did not say the image was offensive, I questioned whether the image was art or a political statement.

What renders this "un-art"? Your reaction to it? It's (apparent or interpreted) sentiments?

I had no reaction to it, other than somebody lined up someone else's photos in 2 rows on a white background, overlaid a quote by Rumsfeld and threw on some text. It's sentiments did not have to be interpreted, they were stated on the image in black text over a white background.

I personally have no problem with it's sentiments, I have a problem with the fact that IMHO it's a political statement and not art. It's not even as creative as some of the propaganda posters from WW1.

If the childs intent is to be creative, then yes.

There is art...and there is ART. While a 2 year olds finger painting may be art as creativity, it has as much to do with ART as a McDonalds hamburger has to do with haute cuisine. According to Richard Wollheim "children do not make art. They make pictures, drawings, paintings, collages"

I hold to Scott McCloud's definition of art - anything pursued that is not directly intrinsic to survival or reproduction.

I am not so broad-minded. By MCloud's definition, the painting made by the elephant qualifies as art...I am not willing to include that in the same category as works by Michaelangelo or ToxicAngel or even Chuck Jones.

You can choose to avoid the pin-up gallery or the political gallery or the fantasy gallery.

There is no way to eliminate a gallery when viewing "What's New". To avoid any gallery you would have to view 1 gallery/genre at a time...a tedious and daunting task. That makes it extremely difficult to choose to avoid a gallery.

If you do it as self-expression, then it is art...

Expressing one's self does not equate to art. While all art might be self-expression, not all self-expression qualifies as art. Andres Serrano's crucifix in a bottle of his own urine certainly is clearly self-expression of his feelings about religion...that hardly makes it art, and those that think it does are operating under a delusion.

A large part of the problem with ART, is that we have grown complacent in what is accepted as art. Like those that wish to tout "political correctness", there are those that define ART so loosely as to include everything that anyone creates to avoid hurting anyone's "feelings".

A picture is still a picture, and not every picture is ART, and we need to stop being afraid to separate the two.