I was told by one friend years ago about 'the game'. I've never been much for games so it's always been difficult to understand formulas and such when it comes to anything let alone in the Photo 'biz'/world. A friend (art major at an 'accredited school'), commented on how art can be judged on how it relates back to what art came before it. Who cares what came before...isn't it about what you feel now? It's not natural for me to think about what people want to see or how they want it explained and what not. Isn't art supposed to be expressive from the artist? If it is the artists intent to pay homage to a previous artist or previous piece, then great, that artists should mention that in case people don't know what he/she is referring to. Kind of like a someone referencing an old tv show to an audience who has never watched tv or too young to have seen the show they are referencing. The last thing crossing my mind is how one project relates to another..because that shouldn't matter. Each project should stand on it's own for what it is totally unrelated to what other projects came before or projects to come after. Art shouldn't be about how it reminds you of other art, unless that IS the art. Ex: some of the sculptures in the Trenton NJ sculpture garden (Grounds for sculpture) are exact replicas of art from centuries long gone. Famous pieces that were originally 2 dimensional paintings are now totally recreated as 3 dimensional sculptures in a forest. Nice. But that IS the point in this art, though not original at all except in it's execution...it's still art. But, if someone wants to paint something 2 dimensional but not related to any previous style except by only coincidence and not purposefully done in the style of or directly influenced by etc. That too, is art. so what if it 'has been seen before' or hasn't. Art is what you feel, not what you go to school for. Art doesn't need to be studied in order to be felt. And the art that does need to be studied in order to be understood......... is THAT really art?