I believe in economic freedom. If someone has ten million dollars to spend on an empty cardboard box with birdcrap on the outside of it, thinking it's some meaningfully artistic statement about consumerism and our reliance on logistics in the globalized economy, then so be it. I also believe strongly in freedom of expression, so if I see someone in the news spending that kind of money on that kind of bullshit, then I will exercise my right to call the buyer a numbskull for doing so. I'm also a capital opportunist, so if it's my shitty box up for auction, then please buy it, and spend as much as you'd like. Art is about as subjective as anything gets, I suppose, so you like, you don't like it, or somewhere in between, then either you don't get why other people like it or don't get why other people don't like it... something like a comic book, though, - I don't think most readers buy them solely for the visual art, even if they are buying it over the alternative, for the fact that it has visual art in it. It's about gripping plot, compelling characters, and then the visual aesthetic. Do you agree? An artist for a comic book is likely hired or not based on deadlines and work ethic as much or more than it is about the artist's level of realism or knowledge of human anatomy. If you ever question that, think of South Park, a show which has been tremendously popular, which uses a style of artwork that is distinctive, yet laughably rudimentary, but because of such rudimentary artwork, the creators can exercise more autonomy over their creation and still crank out an episode per week in real time. Then you have things like this, which make me shake my head: ...or maybe it's just a fun slapstick joke?!