Your leaping to conclusions has you looking more Swiss mountain ram than human, wool tossing in the Alpine air as you pluck sure-hoofed, rock to rock.

Be still.

It's indeed an interesting concept and it's informed by admirable precedents. Goya and Hart Benton and Warhol and that's just for starters.

I think the vulture is insulting; why do we need this blatant symbol of death when the astounding shroud on the car is so much more interesting a conveyor of that same sentiment? I get it, already.

As to well-executed, I am also inclined to agree. My sense is that it's impossible to judge the artistic skill from a shrunken head of a .jpg, but it would appear to be well north of average.

My comments were squarely (and, I thought, clearly) aimed at the price and, by extension, the self-aware cache graduates of prestigious (and god knows, not so prestigious) schools carry to the pricing discipline.

Based on my own brief research into the artist, my own understanding of the ink-on-paper market, and my belief that while interesting it is no "Disasters of War," I feel it is aggressively priced.

But of course price is a silly thing to debate. If it gets $4000, it's worth $4000. Simple.

I wish the artist good luck, and many sales.

You, though, bjank, are a churlish numpty. I'm not old, I'm not at all jealous of Mr. Chernick, and the only bitter in my life suffuses a sugar cube in the base of my too-often-filled Champagne flute.

As for "my artwork," I'm afraid it's only a representation of others' output. I'm a collector with a point of view.

Good day to you, sir.

And Goya did 17 ink on paper studies for Disasters of War. We're both right.

Shoo, fly.

It's "THE Disaaters of War".

The flies are drawn to the shit coming out of your mouth.