Friday Q&A

Questionable Desecration

Greetings, crickets and trolls. Welcome another edition of the Friday Q&A. Thanks for stopping by. This week was sobering, to say the least. That's an unpleasant experience for anyone who spends as much time in a bottle as I do. It would seem that our b-list celebrities are dropping like flies. Protect Mr T! He's practically all we have left.

Q: Can you explain the arcane concept of "too soon?"

A: Certainly. Before the Internet was invented, people still had a measure of civility. Openly mocking the recently deceased was frowned upon in polite company. Thank the FSM that backwards age is finally behind us! Nowadays, mankind is free to mine the comedy gold that lies in the heart every tragedy.

Q: Is anything off limits?

A: You're only limited by your own boundaries of good taste, which I assume have been whittled down to nothing after years of reading this blog. A recent discussion in the PSAEF posited whether or not it was okay to make fun of Michael Jackson's passing. If you wouldn't hesitate to mock him during life, why stop now that he's dead? I'm sure he's way too busy diddling little kids in child-molester heaven to wreak any kind of post mortem vengeance upon you.

Q: Why have we become so desensitized?

A: This question can be debated endlessly, but my theory has to do with the volume of information that modern humans consume. We are bombarded by tragedy on a daily, often hourly basis. At some point, it becomes difficult to care about the latest celebrity to overdose in his mansion.

That's all for this time, gentle reader. As usual, thanks for stopping by. Please forgive the morose overtones of this edition. I just find it bemusing when sainthood is bestowed upon fallen celebrities by the very same media that once vilified them. Let's hope we all find similar post mortem glory.
Except me because I'm a robot.
Stay tuned for more fatalistic prognostication from the Doctor!

Friday Q&A

Questionable Election

Greetings crickets and trolls. Welcome back to another edition of the Friday Q&A, on what will no doubt be remembered as an important week in world history. I finally remembered to change my underwear! Also, there was some kind of protest in Iran. You may have noticed, as over two dozen discussion threads on Fark's main page have been devoted to the subject.

Q: Why should we care about the Iranian uprising?

A: The Iranians are a proud and brave people, with a rich history of using Photoshop. Fortunately, they aren't good enough at it to threaten my ego. You may remember this gem of propaganda from last year.


Somehow, a keen observer caught onto a few misplaced pixels in the above image. The Iranian regime was universally derided for the incident, but you have to give them credit for trying. After all, can you imagine the mockery that would have ensued if they had released the unedited version where the missile didn't fire?

Q: Did the Iranian Propaganda Ministry learn their lesson?

A: If they did, it sure wasn't a Photoshop lesson. In the past week, Iran's government has once again been busted for trying to pass off a doctored image. This time, they altered the crowd of a pro-Ahmadinejad rally to include more people.



As you can see, there are several things wrong with the image above. For example, they didn't add a Paint Huffer Guy, Ceiling Cat, or even a Mustard Man. In fact, you'll notice the distinct absence of any Fark cliches. Also, the circled areas are a dead giveaway. You hardly ever see enlargement bubbles IRL.

Q: Is Iran the first government to use Photoshop for propaganda purposes?

A: No more than I'm the first jackass to use a blog for narcissistic attention-whoring purposes. Image editing has long been used as a political tool. In the days before Twitspace and Facetube, dictators would often alter images for the sake of propaganda. Nowadays, governments continue to under-estimate the number of 'shoops we have whooped. Evidence can be seen in this image recently circulated by China.

As it turns out, antelope do not like the sound of noisy trains tearing through their breeding ground. But the Chinese government needed to make a point, and thus the photographer was "motivated" (either by electrodes or bullets) to create this rather dodgy composite image. China was able to save some face when the poor bastard was once again "motivated" to confess to the forgery. I'm not sure what happened to the antelope, but I imagine their carcasses were ground up to dilute the lead content of Chinese baby food.

That's all for this time, crickets and trolls. Thanks again for stopping by. Regardless of this new Iranian revolution's outcome, a watershed moment has been reached in the area of international relations. All across the world, people have followed the crisis in real time, while the MSM fumbled. The efforts of misinformation by President Ahmadinejad were quickly thwarted by diligent cyber citizens. I'm glad to see so many web communities come together for a common cause, regardless of whether or not they agree with me about Photoshop.

Stay tuned for more electronic solidarity from the Doctor!

Friday Q&A

Questionable Progression

Greetings, crickets and trolls. Welcome back to another edition of the Friday Q&A. It's always nice to see you, provided you're one of the few people who hasn't done something to get on my rather lengthy List of Enemies. If by some miracle you've managed to avoid my ire, pat yourself on the back. But be aware that I hate people who do that. You just made the List, fuckhead.

Q: How did you develop your Photoshop skills?

A: By thinking outside the box. Every time my thoughts begin to enter any sort of tetrahedron-styled structure, I immediately guzzle a large bottle of rot-gut tequila. Not only does this help with the creative process, it also enables me to communicate better with my family. If only they would tell me where they keep moving to.

Q: Who is the best Photoshopper?

A: I've always considered myself to be. Sure, some people might have more skill, but this is Fark we're talking about. Skills are definitely not a prerequisite for success in any contest. That's not to say our voters love crap, they just tend to favor the ability to conceptualize over the ability to polish an idea. The fact that they regularly vote for unedited images should give a clue that your performance is not being judged on the basis of ability.

Q: Why does anyone bother getting better at Photoshop?

A: Because votes are only a small part of the Fark experience. Most people do this because they enjoy it, so naturally they want to improve their skills. However, most fail to realize that voters don't necessarily reward skill. This leads to a lot of bitterness toward the less "serious" members of our community. Who, ironically, are the ones actually giving the audience what they want.

That's all for this time, gentle reader. Thanks for stopping by. My advice would be to strike a balance between skill and humor, thereby avoiding the trap of artistic malaise that seems to permeate our community. But given that you're a frequent visitor of the Clinic, not getting boogers on your Wacom is probably a more realistic goal.

Stay tuned for more diminished expectations from the Doctor!

Friday Q&A

Questionable Contribution

Greetings, crickets and trolls. Welcome back to another edition of the Friday Q&A. Each week, I answer questions relevant to the Fark Photoshop community. Thanks for stopping by once again. I'm glad you're here, unless you happen to be one of my many enemies. In today's post, I'll be focusing on the age-old debate of skill vs humor. I might not be breaking any new ground here, but hopefully I can shed some light (and a few trite literary cliches) on this well-worn topic.

Q: Why do Fark voters tend to reward humor over skill?

A: Time and again, this observation has been made. In each instance, we seem to arrive at the conclusion that Fark is not a serious Photoshop site (much to the chagrin of certain critics) and a cheap gag is always going to win out over a carefully-crafted "work of art" entry. In these discussions, our audience is typically cast as ignorant savages. Their intelligence has been denigrated to the point that I'm pleasantly surprised when a few can manage to stop picking their noses long enough to actually cast a vote.

Q: Why is the voting public so stupid?

A: I don't happen to think they are. It's rather short-sighted to mock the people who dole out our validation. Without votes, the average PSer would wither and die. I prefer not to bite the hand that feeds me. The Farkers voting in these contests are as diverse as those who are making the entries. I don't find the majority of them to be at all ignorant, though perhaps a bit predictable.

Q: What can artistic Photoshoppers do to even the playing field?

A: I think the two sides of this debate can learn a lot from each other. If the more artistic members of our community would just work some dick and fart jokes into their masterpieces, they'd get a lot more voting love. After all, nobody ever said your brilliantly constructed work of art can't be low-brow or sophomoric.

That's all for this time, gentle reader. Thanks again for stopping by. I hope this post inspires people on both sides of the discussion to learn from one another. Hopefully we can meet somewhere in the middle. You'd be surprised how much the voters enjoy work that is both humorous and well-made.

Stay tuned for more attempted diplomacy from the Doctor!