It seems the whole world has a difficult task of defining art. See the URL for a "rant" against the prestigious Turner Award. Following the above explanation by petereed, I suspect all photography would be de-classified as art. After all, one didn't struggle for weeks and months to produce it. Another analagy for you: If DaVinci did the Last Supper and, buy some strange twist of fait, someone did the same thing in Poser to the point it looked darn close (view from several feet away)...are you saying DaVinci would smirk at the other? What would be the reasoning other than, "Hey, I toiled for weeks making this and you did it in a day! That's not art!" The final product is, well, the final product. Does it make it art because it took longer? Does it NOT make it art because of how it was accomplished? What I guess I'd like to know is why others care about how person "A" created what s/he created? Sounds petty to me.