I'll just repeat what I said in a previous thread:
"
I see that once again the argument descends into each individuals exact definition of words, not realising that their definition is biased to what they wish to believe is the truth. As far as I'm aware, the issue has been ruled by the moderators in that it is the nature of the forum that it doesn't have a "no edit" flag.
It is much the same with photographers and their images. We learn a few simple rules, invent a simple logic to order them and make sense of them, but do not realise that our viewpoint then becomes a slave to what we wish to believe."
What you are doing in this argument, (nearly all of you), is trying to define a precise meaning to *C&C* to define what people can and cannot say about your images before you even post them. You grab at assumptions, invent facts, even evoke ethics of decency and how people should behave *politely* to control what they can and can't say about your images. To preserve what?
"
...and the images we post are far from "works of art". So what are we trying to protect here? It certainly doesn't seem to me to be honest appraisal."
Mike, you glance and assume here. The check box in the forum actively invites C&C, there is no corresponding *No-Edit* check box. You assume and attach your own meaning to the assumption that someone has made a deliberate *act* when they didn't select it. The meaning that's attached is simply what it suits some posters to believe, and they simply don't want to believe that their images are anything other than works of art.
The trouble is that people do it with their images as well, they glance and jump to an assumption that there is a meaning to a specific act. So they attach a label when they move the slider and their understanding is linked to the act of moving the slider and the definition of the word used to label it. People stop looking at the images, they instead look to find the same labels in other posters images that *
support their own viewpoint, or the one that gives validity to their own images*.
We teach ourselves to see what we wish to see and we fight to protect our right to believe it...
"
I think we're losing sight of the ball here. Photography doesn't produce "unique" works of art. By it's very nature digital does the reverse, it produces millions of copies of the same thing.
In many cases we all buy the same cameras and go to the same places and point them at the same subjects to take versions of stunning shots that we've seen before. Your "unique" work of art is often just repeating somebody else's idea anyway. This is not always done from the standpoint of an investment in learning any of the basics you would in an Art College, there is nobody standing over your shoulder explaining the finer points of colour theory. In fact many photographers are armed only with a splattering of You Tube videos, some of very dubious learning value.
We do this because photography is a hobby, something we enjoy in our spare time and not something we invest years of hard learning on.
I think that a lot of this talk is more about protecting our illusions and intellectual rights to label ourselves artists rather than a considered examination of the true nature of the medium, the true nature of the images posted, or the best way to proceed with learning what for most is just a hobby."
Sabrina is right, there is no *No-Edit* flag here for right or wrong. What it means is clearly defined already. What you lot are trying to do is redefine it to suit how you think people should respond to your images.
P.s> I know your mind is far more open than this Mike and that you're only trying to highlight a contradiction. ;-)
--
https://timtuckerphoto.smugmug.com/Bloghome/Blog
