No, Moriador, "uneducated" is something you just demonstrated perfectly.  Those types of discussions (including the one you just made up) come about whenever hypocritical nonsense is spouted with no way to back it up.  Just like Shane is doing and just like you are doing.  You "get" nothing about me, and the only reason you can't show me anything regards the feet, is because it's nonsense, likely something he plucked out of thin air to look clever - and something you fell for without even looking into it.

"Educated" is knowing that the work of Vallejo is superior on every level to that ... um ... stuff ... Pollock produces (stuff I reckon a blindfolded chimp could pull-off).  I'm guessing the reason he gave up trying to name the stuff is because there's not really much you can give the same peice of crap time and time again, is there?

And "Educated" is being able to tell the difference between the "Classy" work Avedon produced and something "tacky" designed to "turn you on".  I think most people can see that the Avedon image with the Serpent is designed to be elegant and aesthetically pleasing, not erotic or pornographic, and I'm pretty sure our friend, Mr Devil Snake, wasn't posed as perfectly as that if all Avedon intended was to "turn on" a bunch of teens.  Those things are going to be obvious to most people (excluding yourself and Shane I mean).  What you need to realise is that something intended to be commercial, doesn't mean it's designed to turn people on - even if it happens to do so - and for me, it doesn't - as I already pointed out.

Don't try to belittle people just because you're out of your depth, and get over the fact that some of us couldn't care less about whether what is said is what people want to hear.  I prefer to say the facts rather than pull nonsense out of thin air, and I wonlt be changing the way I discuss thing no matter how you interpret it.  You just did what most people do when they can't explain themselves, you tried to find something that actually, is of your own imagination and switch the situation.  You seem to forget why those "discussions" you speak of, pop-up in the first place, they're usually brought about by the hypocricy I see and hear, and I seem to recall that on the previous occasion it was caused by a simillar hypocricy:  women going around flashing their breasts, and tying themselves to a freaking fence in public is supposed to do something for their cause I suppose?

Why on earth you think I need to "tell people I find women attractive" is pretty hilarious, I'm a bloke, of course I do, but you're clearly not educated enough to understand why the discussions go the way they go - I can't help you there.  You could not have said a more childish thing than you just did.  Now, if you can manage it (and I doubt it), go and find something to back-up what Shane said (and you are happy to agree with) - or I'll just have to assume it's because it's nonsense and can't be backed-up.

If I'm out of order here then I'm sure glad I am, because like it or not, I'll stick to lusting after women, I'll stick to not believeing in anything religious whatsoever, and I'll stick to having an "Education" ample enough to tell me that anyone who would put a "Pollock" on his wall is not fit to comment on other artists work in the way he did.  Where I come from, Shane would likely have been stoned after a statement like that, and I think he'd have got even worse for suggesting that the art he referred to is for litte boys to get excited over.  Grow up, either one of those artists Shane dismissed as "little boys stuff" could do a "Pollock" with their bloody eyes closed, and so could I, so could you, and so could a blind-folded chimp with a couple of tubes of paint to splatter around.  Turn the situation around though, and I'm pretty sure Pollock couldn't produce what the other artists produced, even with his eyes wide open!  I mean there's deep and meaningful discussion, and then there's nonsense like has been posted here.

I'm off to bed now, and tomorrow will bring one thing for sure:
-You will not have backed-up this nonsense with any links to any facts whatsoever, because it's nonsense.

I never saw symbolism in the cropping of the feet, Clarkie never saw symbolism in the cropping of the feet either, and by his very admission, it's only the comment Shane made that put that apsect into his head.  Clarkie was right the first time, he never saw because there's nothing to see, there is no symbolic gesture in the cropping of the feet, and as you're into photography yourself (as I am), you should know that if it were a specific crop to the feet, he'd have to have cropped the image directly below the ankles (not knees) to successfully symbolise such a thing.  It's hardly surprising then, that I just don't see the symbolism, it's cause there isn't any other than the power of suggestion (something I tried educating Shane about earlier with it's link to BDSM) - AKA nothing to do with telling people I find women attractive sacasm intended.

Well goodnight then, it's getting late, and being a teenager and all, I'd really like to get a quick fapp in before I fall asleep.
Bloody hell, you know it's times like this I really wish I had that Avedon still hanging on the wall to help me along.

You realise how idiotic both your comments are now?
I hope so.