----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Ok, fine. Look at something 5 years after the fact and decide that gee-this means "______" or that means....absolutley nothing at all...but it looks SO COOL..... You were correct to stay away from defining an artist, you should also stay away from defining art though...remember art is only ion the eye of the beholder....yeah, so I liked "Ishtar" ;) THAT's art...and I thought "Citizen Kane" sucked...all those low angles made me dizzy...what'd he do, cut a hole in the floor or something?... alll I'm saying is this (again). Can't something, anything be conceived of as art WITHOUT being analyzed to death? Can't something that looks great and tells the/a story well just be considered good, and leave it at that? It makes it so much more enjoyable.... arteest-at-large scarasm gleefully accepted.... ************************************************** It was reported today that Bill Gates is buying 1995, saying "since we can't deliver Windoze '95 IN 1995, we'll buy the year and let it carry over till we finish the program." Gates also filed suit today agains god, saying that it is a monopoly and should be broken up, as Gates says, "like AT&T". **************************************************