From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

This page needs attention & love from someone who knows about the topic, which I do not. --Msilverstar 18:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely someone can add definitions, examples and links? --Msilverstar 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I added a few examples with links to some of my favorites that also looked popular, though I'm not sure whether comic strips and inspirational posters count. The section still needs representatives from many other fandoms.--æthel 22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I changed the "notable" part to "examples for different styles and fandoms" because saying something is notable with regard to the whole genre doesn't work for me at all. ETA: I think the examples need some explanation what they are supposed to be examples for. What style, what technique, etc. --Doro 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I actually never thought of motivational posters as manips, provided that the picture/screencap has not been altered beyond adding text. Similarly I only see comics from screencaps as manips if the image source has been altered with more than cropping and text. I mean, that Escape Velocity comic I can see described as manip, but not every screencap comic.--Ratcreature 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Would the motivational posters fall under macros instead?--æthel 00:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, more than under manips maybe. I just have this idea that manips require that a photo source itself has been manipulated, not just contrasted or expanded with text, but it's not like I'm an expert on the genre.--Ratcreature 06:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thank you all! Content on this page makes me happy. --Msilverstar 18:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: that Merlin art, I would sort that as "manip" because it is not a digital painting, but it is digital fanart that uses and changes photo sources, and I don't really know any other category name. I mean, lots of digital fanart uses brushes, patterns etc, and many of those also have drawn elements (like a ton of those "grunge" brushes and splatters and what not, seem to be digitalized paint things and patterns).--Ratcreature 10:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about it but I removed the question. --Doro 10:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is a different kind of art from the slash manips, but I thought these were called photo manips too. The only other term I've seen was "graphics"? Eg the yuletart exchange FAQ excludes this kind of fanart with the explanation "For this exchange, art is defined as traditional art/craft created from the ground-up by the artist ("fine" art, whether done in traditional media - pencils, textiles, food, etc - or via computer), as opposed to graphics, icons, photo manipulations and the like. We will not accept graphics or manips." But I'm unclear what exactly the definition of "graphics" opposed to "manips" is.--Ratcreature 10:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Squick quotes

I removed the squick quotes because they turn this page into an article about a particular squick and the line that some people feel squicked by manips because they think it's too close to RPS is already in there, so it doesn't really add a new insight. But it is a good reference for this sentiment, that's why I kept the links and turned them into regular references. I hope that's OK. The quotes might still be useful for some squick page though. I put them here so they won't get lost:
"And this isn't just the case for fiction, I realized, I feel the same way about the graphic arts. I've never been the biggest fan of photo manips, for instance, but I realized at a con a couple of years ago, when I saw someone had taken photos of Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon and put their heads on some gay porn stars engaged in their craft what a big part of my problem was (other than, of course, that it was just horribly done): Drawings, by their nature, are an artists interpretation of characters, even though they're the characters as portrayed by specific actors. To me, photographs are much more about the actors. That's not the total of it--there are some photographs which are obviously of the actor portraying a character and others which are the actor himself--but, again, it's an extra layer of fiction that's part of my comfort buffer zone. Manipulating photos just seems to be more about the actors than their characters than does a drawing of the actor as a character."[1]
"I was just now pointed toward a very nicely done piece of fan art, and ran screaming.
The piece in question is a HP photomanip, called "Disarmed," and you can find it from here. But the part you need to know is that it is a Harry/Snape photomanip (or electronic portrait of some sort), based on images from the films. Whomever X is, X is very talented. And X is even very careful to subtly age the character, so that the Harry in the photograph is, presumably, Old Enough.
But you know what? He still looks an awful lot like Daniel Radcliffe, who at 14 is Not Old Enough. And this made me yelp and close my browser with an eeee! and start thinking again about my Real Person Issue." [2]
--Doro 17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps still a little too negative rather than neutral

As an old manipper, I kind of find the article is still veering a little too much into the "ick, this is wrong" kind of feel, where you get the idea that most fans just don't like this kind of thing at all. I think that was more of a thing in the olden days, and even if this is pendulum-swing is mentioned in one of the "pros and cons" quotes, I still get more of a negative feel about the reception of manips overall. There's still a lot of explaining and hand-wringing in there and I appreciate that some people quoted therein are at least attempting to be neutral, but... hm. I'm just trying to see how it could be made more neutral. As in, it's fine if you're squicked by what I do! But as someone who manips, I don't see it the same way, so I feel that side is underrepresented here at the moment.

Another thing is that I am once again feeling iffy about editing the article because sure, I know a fangirl source that could be quoted for this (as in, an essay by a manipper about why she does this kind of thing [[3]] ), but the source happens to be me, and I don't want to feel like I'm talking over others there or promoting myself (whether it's my artworks or my opinions) too much. Plus, it's more of a fervent rant and I don't address everything that I feel would need to be said about the artform here--for instance, I've got dyscalculia and therefore *can't* draw realistically because my brain doesn't do perspective or dimensions right, so the only way for me to create realistic-ish/non-cartoony fanart is to manipulate existing photos. So to deflect the usual "my hed iz pastede on yay" crap I should probably write an essay from the POV of someone who's working around a genuine disability and who knows that it really, really, really isn't just about slapping a head on--it takes a huge load of practice and work and weeding through literally tens of thousands of source images to be able to combine various different elements.

But again, that's just me and I don't want to turn the article into a soapbox, even if, OTOH, I feel an insider view is needed to create a more balanced article. I'm scratching my head as to what to do, really, so that those of us who actually make manips could be heard on this article, rather than just outside opinions. I mean, that's very close to the idea of this wiki, isn't it--that the fans get to explain their rationales and inspirations and things when most of outside media has a rather bizarre view of us. But how to do it without coming across as egotistical? Especially when there are only about a half a dozen fangirl manippers out there, and fanboy "fakers" are a completely different bunch with diametrically opposed motivations, at times (I feel like I'm doing the visual equivalent of fanfic--characterisation and personality being a huge part of the images for me--but many fanboys want to strip away the character and reduce her to a pair of tits. So there's the age-old divide there, and porn often being all about objectification is what automatically triggers the squick response in most women when they see manips, so the first thing they see is just the objectification rather than the character. Whereas I want to de-objectify the bodies from the porn pics and make them into specific people again. Exactly to reclaim it into something women can enjoy). But now I'm definitely soapboxing, so I'll shut up... but if anyone has any suggestions as to how to implement a slightly wider perspective, I'd appreciate it. Even if it means doing an interview or something, which I'd be happy to do. (Is that egotistical, too? You can't win...) --Snowgrouse (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There are people who think that making Fanlore at all is egotistical. There are people who find all study of fandom history and all meta egotistical. I wouldn't worry about it. Just add quotes from yourself or whomever else seems relevant. If somebody else dislikes what you've done, they can add their own perspective. Franzeska (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware of that. There is a part of me screaming "here we go with good old female socialisation and its imposed meekness again," which I do try to fight. But on the other hand, I've had enough wank for a lifetime over having any kind of opinion in fandom (to the point of literally murderous stalkers that necessitated police intervention because we disagreed about a show), so it's always stressful as hell to contribute at all. (I wonder if it isn't exactly the wanky nature of this side of transformative (read: female-heavy) fandom that has kept this wiki so quiet and stubby--basically females morally policing each other while dude-heavy places like TVTropes prosper, full of inaccurate and subjective information presented as fact and the guys don't even pause to worry about it. Because they'll get witch-hunted for it less often, and won't have their contributions immediately moralised to hell and back. Hell, even this article is full of moral questions.) So the contribution threshold is high for even the crankiest old bitches who hate that kind of thing and who *do* want to be bold--but on the other hand are just so, so *tired* of wank. I'm no shrinking violet, but just old and tired and PTSDd but still stubbornly wanting to contribute. And I want to do it right.
Sorry. Tangent. But relevant. I mentioned the interview thing as a possibility, in case someone wants to interview me about manips (been making them for about 18 years now). How *do* people get picked for these interviews that get quoted in so many entries on here? I mean, I know being visible in big fandoms helps, but that's immaterial when it's the medium being talked about, right? Since my own essay on the topic is just that rant and the odd tutorial, perhaps it'd help get us something more cohesive (primarily for the purposes of this wiki entry) if someone asked me the questions people want answered about the topic. Maybe a strange question out of the blue, but I feel like I get too myopic and focus on stuff that isn't as relevant to someone coming to it from outside (or just wander off on ranty tangents) whenever I try to write about it myself on my blog. And every time when I've been on a fanart panel or done a workshop at a con, people asked me things I'd never even thought about, so an outsider's questions would be helpful. (And then there's that aforementioned issue of it sounding weird even now in a "who do you think you are?!" sort of way about my just popping up and going "Hey! I'm an expert! Interview me!" Can one just walk somewhere and do that without being looked at as if you're a crazy megalomaniac? I'm doing it now nevertheless, because I want to help.)
But I do want to help with the wiki to make it broader and more representative. It really is just a matter of me looking at this article and going "wait, this is different from the perspective of those of us who make these things" but not having solid quotable material. A good source. I *could* quote myself in the end, but right now my thoughts are kind of all over the place in various posts. And I don't know 100% what people want answered.
TL;DR I feel like I could contribute to this but I'd need some help in creating the original source because I'm a ranty scatterbrain, and a blog post with an interview (read: someone to wrangle me a bit and to provide those questions I've never thought about) seems like the most natural choice. So if anyone knows how I could offer my knowledge/experience in that kind of way, I'm all ears. Please be patient with me and all this rambliness; I appreciate it.
Who do I ask? Who do I prod? How do people do these things? --Snowgrouse (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Interviews come from a bunch of sources, including things quoted in some old letter zine and so on, but a lot of them are from this. So the answer to how people get picked is they're either people MD has known for a billion years, or they happened to be in my hotel room at a con when I had my tape recorder handy. Haha. (In general, for most such projects, it's less about being visible in big fandoms and more about knowing or running into the interviewers.) I think we've got someone doing phone interviews, so you could certainly do one if you want. Franzeska (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I meant the newer ones. I've seen a fair few interviews here with people who've been active in the past decade or so, even post-LJ and during the Tumblr era. And I figured it was more about who you knew and whether you were visible enough to be noticed by the folks active in OTW projects (which, obvy, means being in big fandoms, which I haven't really done for a while--partially thanks to wank and mostly thanks to being kidnapped by the ghost of Conrad Veidt). I think being able to type down my answers might be the best way to do it for me, so if you want to pass on the info that there's a doddery old fangirl with knowledge of the history of the manip (I got into it when it was *only* fanboys doing it and when they were still called "fakes," pre-Theban Band, even--*that* early) up for an interview (email or text-based chat would work), I'm here. I just get the feeling I'll get bugger-all done if it's something that goes on my "I should write an exhaustive meta post about this" list and there's nobody to prod me and/or ask the stuff I wouldn't even think of asking:) It's the only transformative fandom area where I've got some real expertise/knowledge that might prove useful on here (and something not many fans have experience of, especially from the fangirl/slasher perspective), but it'd help a lot if I knew what to talk about/address--so that's why another person to ask me stuff would be good. Whatever you guys want and feel is valuable, really:). Feel free to leave a comment on my LJ or on my talk page here if you/I can arrange something, no rush, etc. --Snowgrouse (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure. What's your email address? Franzeska (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Just trying to figure out how to give it out without attracting undesirables. Try this: it's a self-destructing note so only you can view it--but let me know if it's already been viewed and destroyed. I'll delete this bit of text from here later, if it's not against the rules. Thanks!
Got it! Thanks! Franzeska (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Fan Edit Redirect

While working on some Star Wars pages, I noticed that Fan Edit redirects to this page. I'm wondering if a separate page should apply for the other use of that term?? Editing entire movies or TV shows to remove unpopular scenes or storylines.

The Wikipedia page definition that's mentioned in the intro best describes this practice, here. It has appeared in two fandoms I've recently edited: Star Wars The Last Jedi and Star Trek: Discovery. In both of these fandoms, fans edited to remove unpopular storylines, and this did include removing gay storylines and female centric scenes. I know not everyone would agree with this but there is a whole community around these fan edits. An example we already have on fanlore is The Phantom Edit.--Auntags (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)