Joerg (sorry about the mis-spelling, my father's name was George, got used to "eo") Maybe it was your "vain" comment or maybe it was the way you seemed to be looking down your nose at the very people you are trying to sell to that just rubbed all my fur backward. Probably should have put a smiley after the "ashamed" comment as I usually use the particular turn of phrase in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Your arguments (I mean that in the mildest sense) are articulate and to the point and you are indeed entitled to your oppinions, just as others are entitled to theirs. I can still think it's drivel, just as you condsider most art and I use this term loosly--->"modern artists"<--- drivel. In a majority of cases I would agree with you. As for CGI, who has created a standard for this medium? It IS a medium just like paint and canvas, pencil and paper, etc. The very people you are discussing this with (in certain circles) could be considered trail-blazers of a sort in CGI. I have seen these and many others take a program that has been described as a "grown up version of paper dolls" and do amazing things with it. Is it "art"? I guess that's where I tuned in. I choose think it is. Does that make these people "artists"? As I don't follow any criteria for being an artist other than "one who creates art" I would say, yes indeed.