There is a guy i've met on another forum, and whenever just about anyone posts pictures, he totally ravages them and says they are un-aesthetic and cliche. and everytime you ask him what he means, he's either really broad or very irate in what he says. it gets frusterating. but my question is, do you think art has changed so much that photography and other forms of art are only considered 'true art' if they are completely inventive (it should be), and that's it? Back in the day, art didnt have to be strange or vulgar, like most of the 'art' today is. Like say poetry for instance. It used to be a more strict system, and the true art was the talent required in filling and morphing the 'system' or guidelines into something beautiful and entertaining, no matter how boring the 'rules' were of that day. I think art has totally slidden back from talented minds to just weird minds (or even lucky ones). Do you think any of this applies to photography?