The mention of Vermeer reminded me of something I read of Caravaggio - it seems that research and experiment has revealed that he may well have employed the technique to project images onto his canvas, long before Painter and it's clone brush. This in turn reminds me how I've read posts at 2D galleries, where the painter claims to be the better artist because he/she doesn't use a reference image.

It's all a bit daft. People need to create images and artists & illustrators have always been putting bread on their table by doing whatever it takes to produce the image. Art is one of those words that just doesn't admit of a definate definition, when people try to pin it down they fail - it's a waste of time trying. Sadly, I must admit that Damien Hirst is an artist. That's not to say that we can't discuss the merrits of art, it just means that we have to discuss it in the right context relevant to it.

Keeping with the example of Hirst. With conceptual art, what matters is not the aesthetics, nor the practical tallents of the artists (most of them don't pickle their own sharks!). What matters is the idea behind it and how it is conveyed. Is it an interesting idea, has it been done before and could it be done better by other means? Does the presentation make us care?