Ron/Doug, I think the biggest problem is that we can't distinguish between "art" and "craft". It's like we think "craft" is second-rate somehow, when compared to "art". And to that, I say balderdash. I'll take the work of a good craftsman over that of a pretenda-artist any day. I don't even consider my own work "art"; it's craft, and I'm very proud of that. Ron: If a man picks up a stone, and places it on top of another stone and declares it art, then it is art in his mind. It may not be in mine or yours, but it is Art. Is it? According to whom? Some one-size-fits-all definition of Art? Sorry, no. Unless that stack of two stones is saying something to the viewer, it's not Art -- it's an "artist" standing in a corner masturbating. Granted , sometimes we have to work a little to figure out the message, such as in the case of Warhol's work, but that reminds me of another long-standing discussion from my commercial art days, when the line became hopelessly blurred between "illustration" and "art". I know many illustrators who would kick you in the teeth if you declared them "artists" -- they illustrate, and to them that's a craft, not an art. It's only been in the last ten years that illustrators have decided that they can scratch out a few lines (and anyone who's seen the latest Communication Arts Illustration Annual can attest to that asessment) are suddenly "artists". Again, balderdash. They're illustrators -- and some of them not very good ones. But to return to the point, a lot of what we have here is craft, not "art" -- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that label. It's not some poor second cousin. It is a proud statement all its own.