Hm, yes, that was what I referring to. However, I do apologize for not considering the fact that there are those kind of editors around. I take full fault for having missed such a possibility in stating my opinion. You are correct there.
Though if I may, I wish to direct you to the title of my page, labeled as 'indefinite hiatus'. I don't expect you to know how long I've been on hiatus, but if you click on my edits and check the date of the last piece of work I've edited, it's December 17th, 2012. Then for further vouch, if that's truly necessary, you can scroll down my blog and see that a wide majority of my activity on this blog has been vents under read mores, random half-assed roleplaying, and miscellaneous reblogs. uwu
This theme is as recent as my last edit, and I hope you don't need much more proof than that.
I haven't bothered picking up this blog as an editing one.
I can gladly strip my theme into one much more simplistic.
Also.
Have I ever claimed my acts to be noble?
No.
I merely stated that it was ironic, because thinking in the narrow-minded way that I was thinking, it truly was, and still is if you only take the artwork editors into account.
You assumed that I said it shouldn't be done.
What I implied is that people shouldn't call an art edit theirs in all possessiveness. It's all thanks to the artist that they had such material to work with in the first place.
ed¡itÂ
/Ëedit/
Noun
A change or correction made as a result of editing.
Yes. A simple change as drawing out the saturation of an image and adjusting its brightness and contrast, and occasionally tinkering with its levels for further light and shadow adjustments is still considered editing. Perhaps it isn't a very commendable one nor is it exactly the most time-consuming activity, but it still is an edit.
Based upon the implication of your words, it's safe to say that one who has drawn a simple stick figure over the course of two minutes has no right to call it a drawing. Only the true artists who break their backs and drop their sweat and tears for something can call what they've done a drawing-- as if you only qualify for such a title if you've produced something worth being called one under your own, personal standards. Isn't that rather arrogant? You have as much right condescending another's sub-par work just as much as I can call something ironic. We can both still do it though, no?
There are no such requirements. Effort is still effort, no matter how much or how little. Step on a cat's tail purposely and it can still be considered animal abuse just as it would if you'd tortured that cat and skinned it if you use the word generally.
...It might be vexing, but hey. That's how things work.
gummygunk
areudirty
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
2087
prguitarman
yousharknotpass
kianamaiart
snowghoul
romaincrisis
