I'm comming down from a sugar rush . So please excuse my typos and lack of coherentness. Peter- did you mean Benign or malignant-RE: The comment about photography. I think I sould say it makes plenty of sense for there to be a photo gallery. 3D medium frequently reguires photographs for use as textures. I suppose one could create the textures by painting but that is I believe VERY difficult. I'm amazed how few people seem to attempt their own textures from pictures. Cartoons are a form of animation. I'm not sure I understand Taltos's point. Assuming I did understand how animation and cartoon's are different I would say both are a form of art. Which brings up the question of when is a creation NOT art? I don't think photography has been undermined. If one believes Pure photography ( IE film only. ) has been lost as a medium by computers I think they are placing the cart before the horse. The use of film as a medium to create has simply been supported through the use of computers. I would think many early photographers would be quite pleased to see what can be performed. To say photography has been lessened by computers is like saying "pure painting" has been lessened by mixed media. Is photography less of an art because there are movies? I think not. Is photography less of an art because there are color pictures not just b/w I still think not. ect ect. Peter-While I agree with you, one should know what they are doing. The progress of techniques does not lessen the medium. It does make it more prevalent. I suppose my sentiment is that "Now everyone can be an amatuer photographer". As opposed to there are now less photographers. Bsteph