</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David Hall @ Feb 9 2003, 07:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Jorge (and others),

Just because you wouldn&#39;t put something on your wall doesn&#39;t make it Not Art, does it? I go back to what I said originally...isn&#39;t art supposed to make you feel something, as it evoked emotion for it&#39;s creator originally? Maybe not the same emotion or feeling, but emotion nonetheless?

dgh </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Absolutely, but just because the images are unusual and concerned with the morbid and purient side of our nature does not make them art either.

If we follow your reasoning then the body by the side of the street that has just been run over is art. Most people slow down and try to look, out of morbid curiosity, but I bet not many would like to put it in their front lawn.

Like I said, is not that he has done this. But that he has done it and keeps doing it without his work evolving. See one of his pictures and you have seen them all....The first one might have been art, the rest are just morbosity dressed up as art..