That's right. I was forgetting that artists don't actually have to make art these days. They just have to be idea men and someone else or a machine can do the work.

Call me a visionary, but I think the future of art is not only to avoid wasting time producing the artwork by hand. Of course, a machine or assistant can do that for you. But true genius would be to have another person come up with the idea as well. Artists of the future will only need to groom their mustaches and have pretentious conversations in coffee shops. As long as their persona is esoteric enough, they deserve vast accolades. Definitely lots of direct comparisons with previous masters.

Apologies for the cynicism, but as an artist myself, I have a hard time seeing how we're saying much different by comparing Betts (who has a provocative and interesting idea) with an artist who had an interesting idea and then put as much legwork and hard-earned representational skill to task creating it as Seurat did.

Not knocking Betts, but the two are apples and oranges.

I've got to agree with gtron. The results are interesting, but saying he's a modern day Seurat is exactly like saying someone who records audio through a vocoder is a modern day Beethoven.

Seurat was classically trained and spent his life to learn how to draw academically before he built from his foundation and did what we call pointillism.