It seems a little strange that we find this sort of argument in the CG environment. While there is a great deal of snobbery to be found in the mainstream art world, if you speak to many artists of today, there is a lot more freedom in what they will call art - and a whole debate over the legitimacy of plagarism in the creation of new art. If it is used to create something new, even by just giving it a new context, why is that not art?

It is also all very well saying that you are utilising something made by someone else but that completly ignores the challenge to identify, non-arbitrarily, at what stage composition stops creating art.

Honestly, I do think it a mugs game to declare something isn't art - but what bothers me is that people do it without even attempting to engage with the challenges of doing that. They seem oblivious to them, either because they are not interested or that they are ignorant of them.

If they won't engage with the debate properly, why do they bother judging others? In what possition do they think they are in to do so? But perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps those concerned are aware of the arguments and can put forward a reasoned case of their own. Sadly, they tend not to share their insights, instead making such declarations that someone is a producer or director rather than an artist, while making no effort to explain why a producer or director is not an artist.

It gets boring quickly.

And now I'm bored.

 

...but invoking Godwin's Law would make it fun again - but I'm damned if I can see a way to do that in this debate.