"Traditionally, for the longest time, the purpose of art was to convey what things looked like" an addendum to mickmca's post... There are (of course) at least two ways of looking at this. "Art" did not exist for the "longest time". "Art" (in the sense is is now used) did not really arrive until around the time of the Renaissance. Up until then, (from cave painting through Egyptian to Byzantium), what we now call "Artists" were considered "craftsmen" (on a similar level to carpenters stone-masons, weavers etc.) That's a far longer time than since the Renaissance. OTOH, nowadays, the "Artistic world" tends to group all that old stuff under the "Art" bracket... Art CANNOT be classified. It's subjective. It's a way of thought (either by tuition, upbringing or genetic tendencies, maybe more), and nobody can decry someone else's work and say "it's not art". They are perfectly entitled to say "I don't like it"..... More, criticising anyone for the METHOD by which they arrived at their product is even less productive or meaningful. I'm not going to post in this thread again. It's a waste of time... After all I'm not using pen and ink to write this post, I'm using a (gasp! shock! horror! ) computer keyboard!!! Cheers, Diolma (Which is why discussions like this are pointless....)