I see this on posts from time to time. I don’t recall seeing the converse, that it not ok, but perhaps I’ve just not noticed it.
It puzzles me slightly. Placing your work on WC is, by its nature asking for comment if not for criticism (isn’t it?). It can be awkward to discuss visual imagery in words alone, especially if criticism is invited. It would be much easier and more exact to illustrate by adding arrows or such to direct attention.
My puzzlement comes from why anyone—having placed a JPEG of their painting on the site—would be offended by someone making a screenshot of that JPEG or copying the file in order to better explain their comments. I know I’ve done this once or twice and I really don’t recall whether or not the poster gave permission; it probably wouldn’t occur to me that there could be any objection. Because it isn’t actually altering the work at all is it? The painting remains entirely untouched. All that has been altered is a copy of the JPEG, which is itself a (poor) copy. Even the original JPEG in the original posting is not touched—I know of no way that it could be.
Some years ago I read, on a British based discussion site similar to WC, a post claiming that the writer was almost mortally offended that someone had posted some classical painting with added graffiti (I forget what it was but it was in the same vein as the Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa). The writer’s offence puzzled and amused me. It’s always possible I suppose that he (it was a he) was simply feigning offence in order to provoke responses, but I don’t think so.
Perhaps someone reading this, someone who would not like another WC member to illustrate their remarks by amending a copy of the JPEG, can explain why they find this objectionable. I don’t mean to imply that you would be wrong or weird in some way; I just don’t understand the objection.
PLEASE how do I make these dreadful yellow things go away?
www.instagram.com/john_humber_artist
www.instagram.com/john_petty_letterform
.
