"Anybody can tell the difference between charcoal and watercolor no matter what the skill levels were involved in creating artwork with those media."

(OK - I said I wouldn't re-post in this thread - except if something caught my attention. It did..)

Just wondering....
If somebody created a watercolour picture that looked like charcoal - would that be art? (It would certainly be difficult to achieve, and would require a very considerable expertise.) Would anybody criticise it as "being charcoal"? Would the artist be congratulated for being able to manipulate the medium to emulate a different one? Or would the artist be castigated for using the wrong medium in the first place?

Yup, some Poser pics are obviously Poser. IT DOESN'T MATTER. What DOES matter is the way the tool is used.. With wit, imagination and a bit of thought, Poser can create some great images. Or it can be used as an adjunct to other programs. It's the result that counts, not the tool..

At least, that's my view on it (my best ever images, long ago, where done in school art class, using pastel crayons + watercolours... - alas, the school kept them and I've lost them. They weren't important to me at the time)

Cheers,
Diolma