FINAL ARTSUBMISSION from the author of 'LOVE HURTSIn the process I made this final artsubmission. [link]
As it is actually inspired by the deletion of my work for being miscategorised, I decided to submit this work to the members who need it.
Censureship, banning, deleting is not only preventing that somebody would see your work, it's also about saying which techniques you could use or not use to be called a photographer.
THANKS TO ALL WHO STICKED WITH ME AND WANTED TO EXCHANGE IDEAS
Ronald Clercx,
Oostende, Belgium
Please refrain from flaming the administration of this site or the rules and etiquette via the forum, or Devious Comments sections.
Thank you.
::mike
--
::
Michael Den Beste | Photographer – Entrepreneur
Former Artistic Nude Gallery Director: deviantART Inc.
Former Alias: firelite-photo | My Nude Photography
The photograph was iindeed removed for miscategorisation. The orignal picture I submitted came with a lengthy comment why I considered this to be photography, and I will not go in detail here as you can read the arguments under the 'artist comments' of the protestpicture.
Censureship is not only about avoiding that people would see the content of your work, censureship is also insisting that traditional artvalues should be protected, and there for removing a work out of a category. If you look at the original picture you can see that it has different elements to it, but non were drawn nor painted.
The debate is really about that traditional photographers are to vain to admit that they also use Photoshop to retouch, alter, distort their photographs in more or less a way after the shot has been made. And that's fine for me, I would not consider that photography anymore, but the same goes when you use Photoshop to combine two photographs instead of using scissors, glue and chemicals.
And what the whole fuzz is about is that I did not misinform people from the beginning when the original photograph (that was deleted, when it started to get noticed) was submitted: I honestly admitted that I used Photoshop.
And if you know something about art history: a once very progressive photographer like David Hockney even used to cut, combine, mingle, whatever, after the shot had been taken. But nobody would say he had seized to be a photographer, no they would say he made 'photography collage'.
I do not know if you noticed but the photomanip section is not even under photography, and it has only one category. But certainly more than 50 % of the photographs that are now being submitted under photography should not be there, because as I've used Photoshop for over three years now in combination with a digital camera, it's sometimes very obvious to see that a photograph has been altered in Photoshop.
But this is really about snobery: you should have a darkroom to be considered a photographer.
this is the only paet of this that is really true
The debate is really about that traditional photographers are to vain to admit that they also use Photoshop to retouch
This and everything like it is total bullshit and you know it. people admit that they use photoshop all the time and has nothing to do with you're miscategorisation .
And what the whole fuzz is about is that I did not misinform people from the beginning when the original photograph (that was deleted, when it started to get noticed) was submitted: I honestly admitted that I used Photoshop.
No it's not. No one ever said anything about you using photoshop being bad, you made that up to help make your point. you haven't been here long enough but if you were, you would see that everyone uses photoshop and everyone admits it with no problem. All this crap about "traditional photographers" is just you trying to pump-up the drama for you're self. there is more than one section you could have submitted to. One, off the top of my head was "collages" and I'm sure there are others. I know plenty about art history and I know you're issue is more about you, than it is your art.
I submitted my original file in photography > erotic > mature content, to avoid fuzz because otherwise I could have had the problem who were offended by the nudity saying 'this should be in erotic' As you may know, when you submit an image as 'mature content' it doesn't even get seen in the preview thumbnails of the gallery you submitted it to.
After a day of so Paul Budzen, a member, commented this is 'photomanip'. I went over to see his gallery, and if you have been using Photoshop for three years now, it was easy to see that some of his work (which I actually find quite skillfull) had been altered in less to more a degree in Photoshop. I debated with him, and went into this topic: he considered his work to be 'photography', but surely not the photograph I submitted because it had been collaged in Photoshop. Non of the techniques in Photoshop I used for this photograph could not have been reproduced the traditional way.
So why did he still consider his work to be 'photography', while it was clearly to see that alterations and manipulations had been done in Photoshop (otherwise you would have the need for a professional full blown kit of lenses and darkroom equipment, which I doubt if your still his age).
Well, it was a vain attitude, after all, the point being that my work carried the same name 'Love Hurts', as one of his which was totally different to mind. And after my photograph started to get noticed, because of the comment thread that was getting longer and longer, eventually it was deleted. This is found the most offensive: stopping the debate, not because there was swearing going on, no because some valuable arguments were given that the moment you use Photoshop to alter, enhance, manipulate you are also changing the original. There for as a logic conclusion, all originals that were changed should be called 'photomanip', or not.
The only difference here, was that I informed people from the beginning on this was done in Photoshop and still I consider it to be a photograph because otherwise you can delete certainly more than 80 % of all submissions in photography.
It is not my opinion that they should be deleted, I am against any form of censureship, being avoiding that somebody would see the content of your work, being deleting because judging: you can not use this technique if you want it to be called photography.
And hey, I followed three years of art course, so don't lecture me about history. If you would have payed attention you would remember that when Pollock started throwing paint at the canvas (action painting) instead of throwing it, you also got the traditonal wing who were offended and said 'this is not painting anymore, this man is crazy'.
Actually it's the same here: when you manipulate a photograph, even when you could reproduce the alterations the traditional way, it becomes 'photomanip' which isn't even under the photography section anymore. The deletion I consider to be a kneel down from the DA admin in question for the traditional wing. And if the DA admin (which didn't even to bother to a formal complaint) knew anything about art history, he would not have done the deletion in the first placing, knowing my original photograph started an interesting line of comments if this had to be considered photography according to the above arguments.
Deleting cross art forms is an offense. Having category's is about convenience but tolerance should be in place here, if you know anything about art history, and certainly when your site is called 'Deviant'.
It was after the deletion, and after I did not get a reply to an objection I made, I brought it into the open starting the forum thread. And you can read there I'm certainly not the only one who underwrites the above arguments.
PS. just because someone thought you using Photoshop was an issue doesn't mean it was an issue. like I said , when you tell people here that they don't like to see Photoshop used, they wont understand you anymore. cause they know that they do use Photoshop on every shot and admit it freely. so please quit saying that DA doesn't like seeing Photoshop used. The person that told you that does not represent the site at all so you are just confusing people that misinformation
Previous Page1234Next Page