I happen to love fine art. I'm talking about the real things--Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, , Monet, Van Gogh, Seurat, Toulose-Lautrec, Dali, Goya. Therefore I have created this thread for all those who do not necessarily consider comic book pictures to be the epitome of artistic ingenuity, and for those who would like to share their appreciation of true art with others who feel the same. i also love art. however, i take issue with the division you're making between "fine art" (or, as you put it, "the real things") and everything else. it's not a distinction that really makes any sense anymore, in the wake of the past 40+ years of art history. the Pop Art movement, postmodernism, etc etc etc. have left their mark on the art world and you can't just jump in the Wayback Machine and pretend it's still the 19th century and still claim to appreciate art in any sense that it exists in 2003. you can add to the list of usual suspects mentioned above (Johns, Warhol, Lichtenburg), you can add Keith Haring, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Barbara Kruger, and Jenny Holzer onto a list of artists who are collected seriously, treated seriously by art historians, displayed in museums, and definitely blur the boundaries between pop culture and "fine art." you can't cover your eyes and pretend they aren't there, unless you want to treat visual arts as a dead language like Latin or something. you might also want to consider Toulouse-Lautrec, who painted on cardboard in the cabarets and clubs of the time, making posters and documenting bohemian Parisian nightlife. he was definitely not considered "fine art" at the time. he's really in many sense the equivalent of a graphic designer making posters and club flyers for raves and such today. also, neither Seurat nor Toulouse-Lautrec are Impressionists. they are post-Impressionists.