Actually I didn't wish to get ever involved in exactly this kind of discussion. Well - now it happened anyway. I am not looking down my very nose on those people. To look down on someone, you have to feel yourself above them. This is, where I think that some people misunderstood my point of view. I do respect those people for their abilities with Poser, Photoshop, Painter and whatever programm they use to create their images. I respect the ability to use such programms. I consider myself an illustrator - and there is nothing negative about this. In some areas, an illustrator ist far more capable than an "artist". An artist by the very definition of the word, creates "art" - whatever that may be. An illustrator creates illustrations. Illustrations are informative graphics, carrying a message, but no artistic idea. When I was 18 years old, I also liked the idea of being an "artist" and I was very shocked when my grandfather commented, that my drawings were more illustrations than artistic drawings. It hurt me at first, but it grew on me. I tried to create "art"... And it was pure junk. Not worth the paper it was drawn upon. It took me about 2 years to realise, that there was nothing bad about being an illustrator. I created sets of tarot based on art nouveau-styles or bauhaus-concepts. I created computerized versions of ancient books, mimiking the illuminations of 11th-century monks. I developed my own style at illumination, combining 8th to 11th century illumination with art nouveau-vegetabile patterns. Today, I have no problem with not considering myself an artist. Artists create art - I create things that look good and make a page or folder or whatever, pleasant to look at. I earn money with my illustrations. So why should I consider myself an artist? Is it necessary to consider oneself an artist? Does it help me to consider myself an artist? I think not. "Artist" is a word I would use for people who lived for the art they created. Picasso, Dali and comparable people are artists. I am certainly not, because Picasso certainly had a very different approach to image-creation than I have. His approach was expression - my approach is information. He expressed feelings, I try to convay a certain information. Can you imagine Picasso doing business-graphics? I cannot. (Well, he probably would have been able to do business-graphics - but I doubt that their informational value would have been acceptable.) Can I imagine myself doing something like "Guernica"? Well, certainly not. Maybe this explains why I do not consider people here to be artists. I consider most people here to be illustrators. Many of them far more capable than I am. But not artists. And I do not see anything bad about this. Both have their places. Why would I not consider someone doing a pin-up an artist? There is a simple reason for this: Respect. As a piece of art, most pin-ups aren't really much. As an illustration, I need not rate a picture by it's creativity and artistic content, but by the abilities of it's creator. If I call someone a gifted illustrator, I respect his abilities. If I call someone an artist, I respect his artistic abilities. So, if a picture seems not to be overly artistic to me, should I call the person creating it an ungifted artists? Or should I rate the picture by the excellence of it's execution, calling it's creator a gifted illustrator? being honest, I guess it would be better to view that person as an illustrator. Why is it so important for everyone, that they create "art"? Do you really wish to be compared to such standards as Rembrand, Dali, Manet or Van Gogh? I guess this is a comparison most of us would loose. But compared to people like Vallejo (Who I despise for his endless repetitions of the same basic theme.) or Frazetta (Whose pictures I love for his great personal style and weird ideas.) and numerous other fantasy-illustrators, some of the images here at Renderosity are really good. To bring it all to a point: I did not wish to insult anyone. For me, artist and illustrator exist on an even level. Calling someone an illustrator is as much an honor as calling someone an artist. But I would rate an artist by other standards than an illustrator. I can respect many people here as great illustrators. But like I asked before: Would you yourself call an endless repetition of the same theme (In this case "Nude vicky in a temple") "art"? This is no rating - just a question. Admittedly, I was somewhat shocked by Blackhearts aggressive reaction after my first posting. His reaction made any further discussion with him useless - and instantly polarized and poisoned the atmosphere of this discussion. Thanks a lot, Mr. Blackheart - aggression and insults are just what a discussion needs to become really useful. This also caused my admittedly somewhat stupid remark about vain people, calling themselves "artists" - that wasn't really helpful either. Please excuse this. I hope you can understand my position from my current "drivel" and that not accepting some people here as artists is not mean't to disrespect those people but is - in my way - a sign of respect. Joerg