(grins at Len!) I'm a STORM dragon, not a fire dragon, my friend... I guess that to me, artwork is a big thing because it takes "work". When dealing with digital art, people often ccuse us of not doing any "work", and having the CPU do all the work. My deal would be that if I'm up for ten hours modeling fake water in Rhino, then test-rendering over and over and over, then to me that is considered "work"; it's tedious, obnoxious, and very reminiscent of some of my hand-drawn images which have taken me 50 to 100 hours to draw. And therefore, artWORK. Paint-rolling a canvas with black paint is not "work", and therefore, not artwork. Artistic? Maybe... Can any single one of us reproduce that? Yep. Piece of cake. And in regard to Bryce itself, when I look at galleries and see something that I could match almost exactly, in mere minutes if not seconds, receiving massive praise for being wonderful and imaginitive (shiny spheres, "surreal" images, etc.), I tend to become angry. Any one of us could reproduce some of those images. Then, you'll see stuff by Englewolf and Ornlu which is similar in nature, but loaded with technical beauty and obvious energy spent... I see images from people, where it's obvious to me, being familiar with the medium (Bryce), that the person slaved over the image in some way... And regardless of how smooth or beautiful or nice the image is, I know that it meant a lot ot that person and helped them grow. Look at Hobbit's pictures, and you'll see what I mean. There are plenty of others, and I mean PLENTY! You'll see stuff by Englewolf and Ornlu which is simple in nature, but loaded with technical beauty and obvious energy spent... countless test-renderings and refinations. So in regards to digital "art", if the CPU is doing all the work, or Bryce itself godforbid, then how is it artwork? (not trying to sound elitist, although it's difficult when using a ridiculous screen name...!)