For context, this is my response to a post elsewhere about whether or not editing photographs from a photo shoot was good practice.  The OP was wondering if models or photographers had strong opinions on working with someone who edited versus working with someone whose technique was proposed to supersede a need for editing.  As you would imagine, responses varied.

I wanted to share this thought experiment for those who find themselves on the spectrum of harmony and competition.  

My response follows:

Since this philosophically is parallel to similar arguments in other art forms, I have some experience in wrestling with this. ...and I think I should be assertive about my position that any artist who is continuing to grow in their art should be able to reevaluate a stance no matter how long they have been doing things a certain way. Moreover, changing one's mind for a particular situation or even returning to a previous stance are still signs of the dynamic nature of growth.

That being said, I guess my position has revolved around answering the question, "What is most important to establish about my contribution to this?"

Is it a demonstration of skill or prowess?  

Is it unfettered creativity?  

Is it optimizing the contributions within a collaboration?  

Etc.  

To illustrate an analogous debate, DJs around the world still argue about whether or not "true" DJs use vinyl, or beatmatch, or use rehearsed sets, or pre-record, etc.  

What I have taken from witnessing and participating in these debates is that some base their artistic reputation on a sense of community status: a sense that there are aspects of their version of the art that others cannot emulate and thus they want to emphasize the importance of that skill or aspect to create a hierarchal stratification that favors their attributes.  

E.g.: "Other DJs struggle with or don't like vinyl? Then, I want to establish in my community a competitive framework that values vinyl DJs to artificially put myself above those other DJs."  

I've found this same strife in all artistic communities (that I know intimately enough):   

Freestyle BMX? Is flawlessness or originality more important? The riders who excel in one are always advocates of that way. (So, sort of a sport vs. art debate)  

Dancing? Pretty much the same, with further points about adhering to historical frameworks or disruptive techniques.  

Bodybuilding? You know this one, of course.  Size or definition?  Natural versus "whatever it takes"?    

Martial arts, drawing, graffiti, music production, music performance, the list goes on...  

So, I would say that the more important question is what is trying to be established by creating this separation within the community? Those who do this one thing versus those who don't. Does the art advance?

In conclusion, many of us here in the crypto community deal daily with the concept of establishing or understanding value.  There are many thoughts on this and the discussion is far beyond the scope of this-- and, is not likely to be settled so simply.  However, I would still suggest we all take a moment when a separation within a community is used to change value.  Is the separation key to the value?  What is our motivation as a proponent or opponent of the separation?