Clercx In reply to mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm [2004-01-23 01:34:06 +0000 UTC]

I think you are missing the point here.

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.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm In reply to Clercx [2004-01-23 02:18:24 +0000 UTC]

>b>The photograph was iindeed removed for miscategorisation.
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.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Clercx In reply to mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm [2004-01-23 14:56:41 +0000 UTC]

As, I said before, I think you are missing the point.

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.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm In reply to Clercx [2004-01-23 16:12:42 +0000 UTC]

if you were to sum up you're complaint in one line or two, what would it be. please, just sum it up




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

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Clercx In reply to mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm [2004-01-24 14:37:17 +0000 UTC]

If you can not even spend the time and attention to read a reply to your questions on which I spend my time because I feel it's worth to not just anwer in catchy oneliners, it's more difficult than that, how could I ask you would even think about the matter?

So, I won't bother: everything you've asked and everything I could say to take a stand, has already been said by myself or others (check the forum thread in photography or the last submission I made, which sums it all up in a way, there are the pro's and the contra's as usual, but in one way or the other I touched a sensitive issue, otherwise it would have been just ignored (I've seen that the protestimage has now gone over 550 downloads in less than one week time).

But to sum it up, ask you ask:

ART IS ABOUT LIBERATING BOUNDARIES
NOT ENFORCING THEM

Meaning the way, Deviant Art wants to establish a database with very tight categories may work for pictures with no artistic intention, but forcing art into categories is in contradiction with the nature of art itself. Deleting work which is a cross art form, is a offence against the development of art itself. This site should not be called Deviant.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm In reply to Clercx [2004-01-24 23:31:49 +0000 UTC]

See ! this is why you have a problem. I didn't tell you that I didn't read all your replies. so why did you think that ?

I didn't ask you to sum it up in one or two lines because I didn't read all your replies cause I DID read all your replies. All your replies are so full of misinformation that it is hard to weed through it all and get just the facts.

you keep saying so many thing that aren't true mixed in with things that don't make any difference that I was hoping that 2 lines would let me understand enough to help you. I have been an admin at this site for more than a year now and if you want some help I can give it to you. I just need to cut through all the crap to understand the real issue

using Photoshop had nothing to do with anything. you really must stick with the facts and quit saying what you think other people's motivations are, those aren't facts and they are really weakening your argument

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Clercx In reply to mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm [2004-01-25 02:23:33 +0000 UTC]

Well, I try and make it short, but this is not easy when you want to go to the core of things:

When DA admin delete a work that is obviously made to question the borders between fotomanip and photography as I intended to do, than they are making an offence against the artistic intentions of the author.

To give an example:

When somebody for instance sends in a picture of his or her cat, and puts it in 'familypictures' (just to give an example), the DA admin could at least read the comment before deciding: let's delete it should be in pets. May'be it was exactly the intention of the author to show that he sees his cat as his only familymember.

May'be this seams trivial but if you want to be a site about art, than deleting the above work is an offence and even abusive.

I mean: is this a database of pictures, or a site about art? There is a big difference between the two, and it seams due to it's sheer magnitude (which has become obviously a negative point) the option has been taken to become the first. That's ok, but then it's not about art anymore.

What I am fighting is also the obvious discrimination between categories like 'collage', 'experimental' (which are in photography) and 'fotomanip' (which even is not under photography).

Just go to any progressive photoschool today, and you'd be amazed what students do to their pictures but they are still called 'photography.' as long as the source material are photographs.

I've worked with Photoshop, Illustrator and a camera for three years now and it's obvious that certainly more than 70 % of the submissions in photography are manipulated in Photoshop. (Because otherwise you would need a fortune of lenses and darkrooms from what I've seen there, which I doubt the most members have here).

The image was deleted after a member called Paul Budzen stepped in, said it was 'photomanip'. I tried to debate him with rational arguments (look at his gallery, certainly much Photoshop going on there, in some cases even more that I used), but when he saw he could not cut it, he obviously complained to a DA (or one of his buddies who started flaming me and tried to make it personal by writing insults on my userpage) and it was deleted.

I filed an inquiry but this wasn't even answered by DA.

Then I brought it into the open.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm In reply to Clercx [2004-01-25 09:51:45 +0000 UTC]

Well, give me a day or two. Can I please have a link to the art that was deleted ?.

It is one of my jobs here at DA to clean-up the photo gallerys. I don't know the gallery director that you dealt with on your picture. But I think I can help you with this. There is a good chance that this was a big misunderstanding. I know that in the process of helping to keep the sections clear of gross miss-categorized photos I will have to click on, leve notes on, reply to notes on, re-reply to notes on hundreds of photos in one day. many other gallery directors will just delete it and assume that the owner will just re-submit it in a more fitting section. They do it that way so they can work faster and clean-up more sections in a day, or they have slow connections and can't make every picture a 3 click deal. They have to make t a one click deal. So , please be a good sport and leve me a link to it.

thank you - kendall, DA Gallery Director

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

Clercx In reply to mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm [2004-01-25 18:32:48 +0000 UTC]

Dear Sir,

Today a member of which I had no contact with before this incident send me this comment: [link]

This concerning the deletion of 'Love Hurts' for not being photography.

Regards,

Ronald Clercx

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Clercx In reply to mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm [2004-01-25 16:32:44 +0000 UTC]

Dear Sir,

Please refer to my former reply first, (in that reply I forgot to paste the link in the text to the original photograph that was submitted)

[link]

Please, before judging and deciding take the time to read my defence as an artist and the artistic intention (because this is what's at stake here) in the former reply I send you.

Friendly regards,

Ronald Clercx

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Clercx In reply to mmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmwm [2004-01-25 16:11:07 +0000 UTC]

Dear Sir,

May I first thank you because it's sad to say that you are actually the first DA admin who is really trying to be helpfull and is trying to see this from an artistic point of view. All DA admin who replied in the forum (or may'be they were just posing as DA admin, I don't know), refused to really going into matters, further than saying, hey according to our definitions this is photomanip, while this was actually the very artistic point I was trying to discuss with them. And be sured, I tried very much so.

Before clicking on the link below to the originally submitted piece, please consider that I originally submitted this under photography > erotic > mature content . So actually I was trying to avoid that people would be offended by the nudity. I know that nudity and erotic are not the same, but probably some other DA Admin probably would have found they are, and would have deleted it if I submitted it in the photography > collage OR photography > darkroom section which was my original intention.

The two shots were taken with a Sony Cybershot 72, the one beneath being a photograph of my head, the other is a photograph which I shot in an Amsterdam fetish exhibition. I can send you the originals of both files if you would want me to. So there is no question about copyright enfrigment in this case what so ever. (I also made this clear when making a formal objection to the removal).

Unfortunately the original comment (and the long tread of comments which followed starting a debate between so called 'photomanip' and 'Photoshop real photographers' started) has been lost due to the deletion. This I found the most offensive, because it triggered a debate between members who insist in calling them photographers (in most cases using Photoshop) and members who felt discriminated because there work got filed under Indyart, being not photography anymore.

I went to my former teacher with this in the academy of arts in Oostende, Belgium and he said: this is a debate which obviously is illogical because 'all photography IS manipulation from the very moment you decide to take a shot'. Photography is not a depiction of reality, nor never will be, because the device at itself, the framing, the depth of focus already distorts reality. His device to this students was always: feel free to use any technique you feel comfortable with to get the final image you had in mind. As long as the source material are photographs it remains photography no matter what you do with it. When I joined his class, I saw students burning photographs, distorting it by software, scrathing dies, putting dirt and fat onto it, but it remained a subcategory of photography as long as you can see that the original material were photographs.

Here's the link to the originally submitted work: (as said before in the comments I from the beginning admitted to the techniques I used in Photoshop being: transforming, cropping, collage by layering, and a blur (equivalent to a softener lens) and a blue color layer on the Asian (equivalent of using a blue colorfilter on the lense). And it was exactly by being so open about this what triggered the debate and the piece got a lot of attention.

I see it as it was just plain envy from the member Paul Budzen (or one of his buddies), who also has a photograph called 'Love Hurts' (but totally different in intention) who probably asked for a removal at the DA admin, after he was unfit to cope with the rational debate I was trying to start. The DA admin in question should at least have gone true the energy of reading the early comments before thinking 'hey this is this, that is that' because it was my very intention to question the boundaries.

I know you guys must probably go thru a lot of images each day that are filed without any artistic intention what so ever, thinking how is it possible that someone puts a cat in family, but at least if you want to remain an art site which isn't just shuffing pictures in draws, caution should be taken, certainly when somebody in the comments is questioning the very category which I tried to do. I understand that much of the DA staff are volounteers and I congratulate them for doing this, but they must understand that they actually have a very great responsability.

This is a link to the original piece, which was deleted from the photography > erotic > mature section. Please consider the above before going into the category category thing which seams to be a very big issue with the DA admin, not even questioning the intentions (by the way, I intentionally cropped to about the size of a Polaroid, referring to the photography debate I've described above).

[link]

Please also read the comments of my last submission 'Art is about liberating boundaries, not enforcing them' [link] submitted in prose > philosophical. This is a draft of an article I wrote inspired by the whole commotion that can be raised when somebody questions matters indepth and takes a stand for this. Isn't this what being an artist should be about? The example I gave you about the cat submitted in family was an example I actually got from a member who wrote me he felt offended, that although he stated in his comments that his cat was his family, got deleted. A grave error, and I was sorry to say I had to be actually as a member be the first person to say to him: you are actually very right, this belongs in family.

Below you'll find an exact copy of what of the few members who actually understood the point I was trying to make (and this wasn't even someone I knew when coming to Deviant) said about all the personal attacks that were thrown at my head.

COPY of comment made by member Booradley on the last submission I made: (can also be find in the comments to my last submission)

'I find it incredibly unsettling how all of you out there who claim to be artists are so ho-hum and complacent about what happened here. we are not accountants, we are not fucking lawyers or whatever. we're ARTISTS. we're supposed to break the rules, we're supposed to be the ones that whine and complain about stuff and start the revolutions. god all your damn creativity and talent doesn't mean shit if you don't believe in something, and the fact that so few people are outraged and that so many people are saying "stop whining, leave, put it in the right catagory" makes me sick to my stomach and ashamed to be associated with the lot of you. this is a sad sad place for art. don't forget what that means. art. fuck catagories. art transcends that entire notion.

clercx, if it makes a difference, you're a martyr to someone here. i wish you well and congratulate you on leaving da and moving on to better things.'

As you can obiously see and read I spend a lot of time on this, I tried to conquer narrow mindedness with reason, for a small minority I believe to have made a difference and this was worth it. Why? Because I really love art. I saw the power of it, only by standing up and questioning peoples believes. Categories should be about convenience, but the moment they start to prison artistic intentions, something has gone very wrong in the process, especially for a site called 'Deviant'.

The demand I made is (which I also stated in the formal complaint) that I can resubmit the original image in one of the following sections and have the right to announce this resubmission in the photography forum, (because it's not really such a big deal about the exposure -on the 28th of february I will be performing in a venue called 'Liquidrom' in Berlin, doing a photography projection during three hours) but in the first place of making members think, which they surely will do if Deviant decides to reinstate 'Love Hurts' after it got deleted (actually this has become a very cynical title indeed, because it was my love for art that got me into this)

Categories I am proposing:

photography > collage OR
photography > darkroom OR
photography > erotic

Because from the beginning on it has been my intention to question as an artist the discrimination according to techniques used between 'photomanip' and photography, being photomanip is tucked away under Indy Art, only having one section and photography (more than 15 subheaders). The dividing of these two as being two different headers is really saying photography is not manipulation, and as I stated above this is an error as well from an artistic as logical point of view.

Well, sorry this probably took a lot of your time reading this, but think of the time I decided to put into this issue writing this.

It's the time to decide for Deviant if they want to be a database with pictures that can conveniently be browsed, or take an artistic viewpoint in this matter.

This wasn't even what I considered to be my best work, but in an ironic way members of Deviant made it that.


Friendly regards,

Ronald Clercx
Oostende, Belgium



























[link]


[link]

[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

notec In reply to notec [2004-01-27 18:11:41 +0000 UTC]

boo hoo. pussy DA.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

alteredreality In reply to notec [2004-01-21 16:57:06 +0000 UTC]

Watch your tongue or face the consequences.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

hivewasp In reply to notec [2004-01-21 12:17:45 +0000 UTC]

Notec careful he might think of reporting harasment with that kind of behaviour. Can't you try to be nice?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Clercx In reply to Matonvy [2004-01-03 16:03:29 +0000 UTC]

Hey Matonvy,

I've just joined Deviantart today, and I've been browsing for hours now.

Yes, I especially liked the blue nightmood atmosphere of your 'Station', very nice composition as well. Also your 'Cups' photograph, shows the artist eye developing. If you're now only 17, and keep this effort up, your definitely in for a digital imaging career.

By the way, if you ever take a photograph of a highway by night, surely let me know. For one reason or another the atmosphere of cars passing by on the highway by night always fascinated me, but I've seen few photographs that could capture the atmosphere.

All the best,

Ronald

👍: 0 ⏩: 0