Your right VirtualSite. Funny, I'd forgotten about the crucifix. The point I was making is that art is subjective in all it's forms - what does it mean or express for the artist and what does it mean or express to me? Some art is very memorable, but whether it is good or bad isn't the point, art just is. In this particular case, the artist didn't make the jar or the crucifix as far as I know. As for the urine, yes he made that as most of us do freely and regularly. It was assembled and envoked a reaction from viewers, the artist included. It is art. So why question whether work done in poser is art just becase it is assembled? The trickier part of the question has to do with the ability or inability to profit from the assemblage of freebies as artists usually can do. If credit is given and the copywrtten parts are not accessable, I don't see the problem, particularly if anyone can download for free the same parts. Maybe those who don't want others to profit from their work with out some payment to the creator should charge upfront. This would surely cut down on the avaiable freebies, but would end the issue of when free isn't really free. I don't know, just a thought.