No, what I mean is that producing great art usually has a high cost. A particular work of art might have been created just in the spur of a moment, but the artist getting to that point usually had a cost, too.

Consuming art often is free indeed, but this should not be confused with the cost of producing it, and I had the feeling that the comment I originally answered to did just that.

No you just believe art must have a value either from the artists skillset or materials and this is just not true at all.

You could listen to what auggierose is saying instead of just repeatedly telling him what he really means. Then this exchange might have value.

We seem to talk past each other. That's ok.