Ken wrote:

> Is the quantification of art really that important?

No more or less important than quantification of politics, religion, pop 
culture, or other favorite topics.
> 
> What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is into
> the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for many
> people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the technical
> thrill of it all.

We are interested in attracting those who are interested in discussing 
it.  It is something that I have thought was missing for awhile but 
didn't have the guts to suggest.

  If the disucssions really lead to the promotion of better art
> then it serves a purpose. 

No guarentees.

If the discussions are for discussion sake alone they,
> to me, serve no purpose. 

This is always true no matter the subject, considering "conversation" as 
something different.  The question of whether serious dicussion has 
intrinsic value would be an interesting discussion perhaps?

I can easily appreciate art as it is presented without
> having to discuss it 

True, but I have found that I get lazy unless I try to formulate my 
thoughts into words, and better still, a sustained arguement.

> 
> And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot painted on
> a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being too
> stupid to deserve to live.
> 

I'm guessing you wouldn't mind getting the 17 mil for it though.

Post a reply to this message