"...But, I hate to tell you, you're not normal (you actually think about what you see -- and apparently that's just weird ;)"

But your comment is rude because it suggests that those he was debating it with don't think about their art, and that's just not true.  Not to point out the obvious here, but the piece you're all debating but seemingly mocking too, is the one that caused the most discussion, it's the one I had on my wall.

You see the irony?

The way Shane speaks about such things is that it's just stuff for horny little boys to drool over, like there is no artistic value in it for an adult.  So far, the artistic value in it is so high that a mere copy of that image sold for over 75.000 dollars in auction, that's just a copy, not the original negative, so it's not as if the purchaser intends to make a quick buck selling copies of it to hormone-filled teenagers, is it?

You don't half talk some nonsense sometimes, hah, and I tell you what, if Shane ever comes across the supersized version of that image in a gallery somewhere, he'll feel the real reason why I like it, and I'm guessing he'll feel pretty idiotic for what he said.  Standing in front of it is a totally differerent thing to seeing it on the screen.  The large version looks good, but the supersized version is something else, it's really impressive.  Bottom line is, it's an elegant peice of work that has proven (even here) that it can spark a discussion; Shane's comment about such things is way off, and your supporting his comments is equally ridiculous!

Right, time for tea and a bloody good sulk now ... peasants!