I agree with you, Aldaron, to an extent. But even your argument falls down if you push it too far. When talking about mainstream art, I think you're 100% correct. But venturing into the realms of "modern" and "concept" art I don't think your argument holds true. A guy fills his ass with paint, squirts it out onto a canvas and charges $44,000 for it. A woman stands in the corner of an empty room, facing inwards, and people pay 20 each to see her whilst exclaiming "wow, great art!" And a million and one other examples. I don't care what anyone says, this type of stuff isn't art, it's talentless sh#t (sometimes literally). So I guess in a way I'm agreeing with Draculaz, the only difference being exactly what level of talent I'm targeting. You have to draw the line somewhere. Maybe Draculaz's line is drawn low enough to encompass a hasty render of a few Bryce primitives set off against a cheesy Mills & Boon backdrop. I don't think there's a right and wrong answer, it's just a question of degrees. Everyone has to make their own judgement and I think we should all reserve the right to say what we consider to be art and what we don't.