@pluton  Than perhaps that is the largest source of our friction. ^^

@PLUTON said: now that Danny Phantom wasn t made for commercial purposes at the first place... thats why I wrote the frase...: ''  This has nothing to do with  the true call of an artist to express himself through a cartoon video''    immediately after which you said  " Its smth different…it’s a job and the TV series is actually a product… " Which leaves the impression that you don't care that ...

@pluton  I did read your reply carefully. Five times. To make sure I was understanding what you were saying. And I'm confident in my understanding of it. And I'm confident that you are continually contradicting yourself.  Also, Danny Phantom wasn't made for commercial purposes. It was made because some guy wanted to tell a story and the Network picked it up and it became a fun cartoon series. Same as ...

@Pluton  I was pointing out that there is a "definition" of art. Does it answer the philisophical question "what is art"? No.  But that is a different debate, one that you seemed to be confusing and using to contridict yourself when you first defined art as one thing (abstract paintings) but not another (cartoons) and then said  "art has no definition".  We weren't debating the artistic merit of cartoons vs ...

telepathic seahorse FTW

@pluton: You keep saying "Art has no definition" and then following it up with "But I know what  is art and what isn't art and your definition of art is wrong."  If truly has no definition, than attempting to define what is and is not art for everyone is both narrowminded and contradictory. You cannot have it both ways. If you truly believe art has no definition, than you cannot ...

@pluton:   I also have an art degree and know what I'm talking about.  You are taking a very narrow view of art. And frankly, if that's how you teach, I'm glad I didn't go to your classes. Trying to contain art into one narrow view and excluding forms of expression that don't conform to your personal views is appalling to me.   You are a fine hand at drawing and coloring ...

@PLUTON said: "  Danny Phantom can be art.  And Abstract can not be art.It is entirely up to the person viewing the two to decide. If Crazy finds Danny Phantom emotionally stirring, then it is art. If Crazy gets nothing out of Abstract, than it is not art. And that is how Crazy is allowed to perceive the world. If Pluton gets nothing out of Danny Phantom, than it is ...

i like the soul patch. The AoA hair isn't working for me.

Sinister always worked for Apocalypse. AoA Sinister did it openly.

the problem with mr sinister and marvel is that marvel isn't really using him correctly as a villian. he's a mastermind manipulator and most of the stories he's in he doesn't really show that off. you hear about how he did all this stuff but until messiah complex, he hadn't really gotten a good focus on him. then they decide to kill him off, make a female version of him ...

thank you!

I'm really not familiar with Captain Marvel or anything... and searching for other images is hard to do on this site. Because it took me a good ten tries to get anything other than the DC version to pop up on the search menu.  Could someone direct me to the entry with the black girl as the captain and/or where I can find more images of her as reference?

@PLUTON said: " @Crazy Pan said:  I don't like abstract paintings that look like 3 year olds did them but that doesn't mean they're not art. "Ahhh.... and here is the question... WHY its art?  If u find out why abstract is art then u can understand why I said that  Danny Phantom is not...    (take it as a chalenge) "  Danny Phantom can be art.  And Abstract can not be ...