I think that this thread has expanded into something I have been tempted to discuss here for a while now: what is the difference between 'good' and 'bad' art? Or art and non-art? This I know is a very delicate topic, but something we all have ideas about. First I'd like to comment on the "anyone who makes art is an artist" idea. And following on: "If the artist creates a 'work of art' who's to say it is not good? Anyone who does so is being cruel and arrogant." Well I agree that all personal expression is 'worthy' so long as it is honest. But is it art? or good art? Not necessarily, says I. There's got to be vision, and a certain amount of technique, and other things that would be good to discuss. My background is in music, particularly improvisational music, call it jazz if you want. And I will tell you all that some people can make a horn screech at the right pitch and timing and it will cause the hair on the back of my neck to prickle. (I mean that in a good way!) Art for sure. But there are very few who can do this. Most of those types are just screeching. Horribly screeching. Definitely not art! But the great improvisational musicians can do wonderous things with their instrument, some melodic, some rhythmic, and yes, sometimes very rarely screeching, but definitely art in the most honest form - that of expression of a facet of the human condition that others can then feel. Improvisational music is not planned, at least not anything more than the overall vibe and the chord pattern behind it. It is in this that I disagree with the link that was supplied earlier in this thread. There is no requirement for a philosophical component in art. Those who choose to put one into their art can do so if they like, and if it helps to convey a feeling then this has advanced their art. But philosophy is just that - philosophy. Not necessarily art. And not a necessary component for things that comprise an artwork. This is why I have no objection to the 'looking for seashells' approach to fractal art, or photography for that matter. To some a certain shell may contain a glimps of heaven that can be honed and presented to convey this vision, and to others it is just a shell. One type of artist is one who can use a raw natural material and create something that enhances or even transends the basic idea, be it stone or seashells or musical tones or paint or fractals. And another will have the vision to spot a wonderful thing and simply present it. An Ansel Adams landscape photograph can almost bring tears to my eyes, and nobody can tell me that because he doesn't create the image himself it doesn't constitute art. That's arrogant snobbery. But not every seashell or landscape contains a 'glimps of heaven' (if I can use this hackneyed expression). And here is where I'd like this thread to go, if possible. What makes one artwork more valuable(?) than another? Surely there is something there. It's not just technique. I've heard some incredible musical technicians who couldn't make a work of art to save their lives. There has got to be some spark of inspiration, some vision, some artistic sense, and thinking about and defining that would be a useful thing. Tim