Aye, I was being more than a bit elitist. And considering NONE of my pictures will ever make it into the Hot 20, I guess I don't really care. But alas, Fuzzy. I wasn't talking about professionalism. I've never made a penny off of any of my images. I was only agreeing with Striving, and others. It's been an ongoing topic around here. The problem isn't so much what they produce, FuzzyShadows, it's that other people aren't honest in critiquing them. My problem is that people are LYING to other people, and I think that is wrong. I don't care how bad a picture is, lying to someone about the image will only convince them to produce more garbage, and to never progress. There are many, many different styles of Computer Generated Imagery. One thing that is NOT a style at all, but a complete lack of humanity, is the types of images that actually LOOK computer generated. Hell, these newer processors could nearly make some of the crap in the Hot 20 right now without any human intervention at all! The point of CGI isn't to let the computer do ALL the work, it's to use it as a tool or brush. It's to express one's self. The images and "style" we are talking about aren't even remotely art, because computers do not have emotions or the need to express them. The computer did all the work, and in some cases, there wasn't more work aside from three to ten quick clicks. I would go so far as to say it took more clicks to upload the images than it did to make them. So, Fuzzy, until the Renderosity banner at the top says, "Computer Generated Art Community Only - No Human Assisted Art Will Be Allowed", then I will continue to analyze and hold other artists to my human standards. Dali's remains are certainly not at rest, tonight...