Just as normal human behaviour can be defined as behaviour displayed by the majority of society so can a working definition of art be defined for the majority of society. Set rules for "what is art" will not work for everyone, but it can work for most people. And there will always be artist who will challenge those rules, successfully and unsuccessfully. I don't care it a homocidal pedophiliac considers pictures of tortured children to be art. This type of creature is marginalized in society and therefore those pictures are NOT art. To be considered art, it must be considered so by a good many people and not small sectors of society, namely art critics and the so-called intelligentsia. Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions. Unfortunately, those of you who have disagreed with me have not alterted my opinions on the matter. That being said however, only a society of leisure would apply such weight to the subject of aesthetics.

<strong>bandolin</strong><br />
[Former 3DS Max forum coordinator]<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php">Homepage</a> ||
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/sitemail/">SiteMail</a> ||
<a href="http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=70375">
Gallery</a> || <a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestuff/index.php?username=bandolin">
Freestuff</a>
<p><em>Caution: just a hobbyist</em></p>