Leonardo di Vinci Sucked Compared to This Artist

While you all were arguing... did anyone go to the "Vanessa" site mentioned in the article?
=)

:op

Art is the selective re-creation or conversion of reality by the human mind into concrete imagery according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments. Real or imagined concepts are filtered and altered through the human mind to the artist`s hand to create an image or sound that did not exist before. The reason photography does not qualify
as art is that the process removes the filter of the human mind as an interpretative element. Although photography requires technical skill, in the final analysis it is only a mechanical recording of reality. "
1. Photography IS art. Ignorant asswipe. It is the art that helps you fool minds into believing your crap, sadly.
2. Concrete imagery? Ever heard of, hmmm, KANDINSKY or POLLOCK? They painted their own view on life, a diverse and beautiful, never-before-seen art.
3. And, by your definition, you just classified yourself as being as creative and unique as a blank piece of pape

"Against:
1) This is probably better than what Da vinci could have done with an Airbrush.
2) Da vinci didn`t dedicate his career to Airbrushing techniques in photorealism."
You moron, that didn`t even exist during his time! He couldn`t possibly have done that! Plus, how do YOU know about what da Vinci could or could not have done with an airbrush, you prick?