Phoon....actually....with the eternal plethora of rating threads I'm likely to exhaust my supply of natty quips and one-liners...
Po' ...thanks for #32 ...it helped explain this art/rating thing people always seem to want to ignore/deny as a reality.
Of course all of this thread [and the squillions like it that have come before and will likely follow] presupposes that it is the 'art' that is being judged, not the entity that is a 'wallpaper'.
Almost always these threads are by/for/about wallpapers and wallpaper 'makers', not specifically skins at all.
I for one really do not look at a submitted wallpaper and think "OMFG!!! the pathos...the angst...the raw emotion captured in every tortured Bryce button-press...a brilliance of visual expression!!!" as I cup my face in both hands, mouth agape in a silent scream.....
It's [they're] supposed to be wallpapers...you know, those things you put on a desktop and cover with icons and assorted effluvia. They are therefore judged for function, form, appeal, and technical skill. Why 'technical skill'? In a wall? Because if it's really simplistic and non-technical anyone would be more likely do it themselves than bother to download a 'flea in the distance' wall.
Now the new direction Wincustomize.com is taking with wall moderation means that if you have one rejected you will 'know' it was deemed to be PARTICULARLY POOR or it failed 'function' [a 16x16 pixel icon never works as a wall], or it violated policy [rip/porn/racially discriminatory/etc].
Once it IS 'approved' it is approved as a 'wallpaper', not as 'art'.
Whether you wish to debate the semantics of 'art' and what it constitutes, or not, bear in mind that it is the WALLPAPER suitability being judged/rated, not whether it was Post-Coital Impressionism of the Nihilistic Period or Pre-school Finger-painting 101 for the digitally challenged....
