I do understand the need to curb spam Hive account@discordiant ...including people dropping youtube links of Other people's work.

I disagree however with the intent that photography or original art videos need to have in-depth descriptions to give them value.

I am not seeing anywhere that written work needs to have hand drawn art to offer a visual, or an original photograph or video in order for them to have value.
Writers are allowed to source unoriginal images, or use no images at all.

I have worked in high end art galleries, for years...and I can tell you that the only description we would hang by a high end painting OR photo, is the name of work, name of artist, date created, and Sometimes the price. All this on a little card below the art.

If art needs a description, then it is not portraying the feeling, image, concept, etc...that the artist was conveying (or trying to convey) with their work.

The more words needed to show these things, the less value they have, in the world of fine art, in my experience. As a writer, you may not understand visual art, however.

I would suggest, that a claim of Original Work be added at the end of art posts. If it is original, that is all that should matter for true value.
If someone claims it is original when it is not, then it falls under plagiarism.

Aside from that, there is already a once a day minnowsupportbot usage, so that prevents those who would take 8 photos of random things to get 8 upvotes a day from doing that.

I really do feel it is unbalanced to require visual arts to include written descriptions, while writers are not asked to do original visual art to make their posts have value.

Here is an example, in case you need a visual to believe me. The Packards are High End artist, people I have known for years, and sold their art. http://www.packardgallery.com/paintings.html