I like how you use the trope of black and white photo, one that over our vast participatory networks has degenerated into simple objectifications and didacticism. In this case the tree is no longer embued with life but itself dead representation, itself as much an object as the jpg. We have unexpectedly arrived at quite an interesting idea of the object and objectivity. Activating the thing means perhaps to create an objective—not as a fact, but as the task of unfreezing the forces congealed within the trash of history. Objectivity thus becomes a lens, one that recreates us as things mutually acting upon one another. From this “objective” perspective, the idea of emancipation opens up somewhat differently what once was traditional art production may be a role model for the nouveaux riches created by privatization, expropriation, and speculation. But the actual production of art is simultaneously a workshop for many of the nouveaux poor, trying their luck as jpeg virtuosos and conceptual impostors, as gallerinas and overdrive content providers. Because art also means work, more precisely strike work.
I wanted to make a correction: "You are acting like a child who....", instead of you are one.
You are calling my images stock images. Hmm. Okay. But it is your gallery that is empty. I'm not trying to make you defensive, but I think your comment was contradictory. At least my words are my own and my photos are my own, as much as we can own our thoughts or images. Take your own advice when you have nothing on your gallery, and you make comments using someone's work.
There is nothing wrong in getting inspiration. And I looked at your comment as interesting at first thinking someone is trying to put more thoughts in what's before them. But I was disappointed when noticing that what it was being said seemed like it was some premeditated thought without relating much to the actual image. I couldn't see how the image could inspire it either. And then I discovered it's all copied.