There has been a large number of articles and editorials on devArt's "guide of good manners" lately, basicly about the way of thanking, commenting, about art and not-art, about popularity and promotion. But it's usually easier to look at other people's mistakes than to ours.

An impeccable art community would suppose supporting and constructive comments and critique. It would also suppose hiqh-quality and attractive works and decent acting members. But when it comes to such a large community as deviantArt it's impossible to control all these aspects. Though, as for the community to keep working, we should each do our best to be respectful to us and to others.

That for, before criticizing other people, one should take a look at himself. Why claim the site's politique of showing popular works on the front page, so that widely known deviants could only become more popular and the less known just stay hidden ? It's not somebody's fault that his work was so faved. He didn't pray for it (unless he really did, which is another aspect I'll be touching later). Hundreds or thousands of favs are not really given to every crap webcam snapshot. Of course, each deviant has the right to approve or disapprove with that, but not by adressing bad words to the author. Here is where I get to one of the main points.

Commenting. There was a lot of rumours about comments over favs. Yes, comments actually show somebody's opinion over a work. But they should be the more constructive possible. A fav is equal to "Beautiful" of "Lovely" etc. One should say -why- he likes it, should spot what he finds the main center of interest etc. Suggestions for improvement are welcame whenever, but to be in the position to critique quite hard somebody's technique or idea etc. means you should have some pretty good portfolio to show and feel secure on yourself.
That's why people who claim that favs should always be followed by comments shouldn't feel offended if they get a fav without a comment. It just means that the person simply likes the photo without having a special spot on something, or he may as well just not be able to comment properly in that moment. Tons of "beautiful" can become boring usually and one wouldn't feel the passion to answer them anymore.
Answering to comments, whichever type they's be, is a nice thing to do, in my opinion. This way the connection between people is more lively. Excepting the case when You get lots of messages each day or from time to time, when it's not humanly possible to answer them all. In this case, the ones that really reveal something (a point of interest, a new interpretation of an idea, a somewhat unusual and sincere compliment) are the ones that get an answer, and that should be enough for people to realise that they should comment properly in order to be thanked as they deserve.
Thanking to favs is also a nice thing to do when time allows, and just for the satisfaction of thanking the one who gave his interest on your work, and not in order to get more popularity.

Popularity. The fact that most of the people runs for around here. Depending on everyone's character, it can be good or it may become dangerous, preventing art support in order that some other deviant could not become more popular than you. Cheap tricks like: "wow. beautiful photo. could you please visit my gallery too?" or faving a thousand works in an hour in order to get pageviews or gallery visits when being thanked in return, are getting annoying. Popularity is something that is really enjoyed when you know you deserve it and have worked for it. Could you feel happy for getting comments and favs on some photo you've stolen ? I don't know what kind of satisfaction could bring that. And edits or manips without right go also into the theft category.

This is where most of the people get wrong. As minor the edits may be, it you used stock, you should claim your work as manipulation, at least in my opinion. The fact is that more and more people take stock photos and just apply a colour action or two (usually vintage) or some really basic adjustments that don't make that much difference, and then add it to their gallery. That's why getting a lot of favs just because of some colours, when the main subject does not belong to someone, does not make justice. It's true that close-ups stock photos for example don't offer too many alternatives, but a real manip should involve mixing characters and backgrounds etc. Also doing manips on photos that are not stock without permission is also wrong and goes as theft.

There is also this photoshop vs. no photoshop thing when it comes to photos. I think the truth stands somewhere in the middle. A good photo should keep the main subject as it is captured by the camera, but some basic adjustments (levels, curves, saturation etc) won't harm if they are well managed. Using hard textures or changes alters the reality we should see, but no photoshop doesn't mean a photo is good. The camera has it's lacks too and distorts the reality our eyes see, that's why having at least some basic skills in photoshop and a good visual taste is part of what a good photographer would always need.

Any beginning is hard but one should try it on himself. That's how you learn to appreciate art.

Thanks for reading until here. If you did. Any opinions, agrees or disagrees are welcome