Not sure how this relates to contests.
Not sure how this relates to contests.The are numerous less than ideal venues where one basically leases square footage of display wall space, and hopes that they will sell enough pieces to at least cover their overhead, or not lose to much money doing so; or once in awhile get lucky and actually make a profit. A lot depends on the quality and expense of framing involved. But effective presentation does count, unless you're just in a street fair or flea market sort of scenario.
There are all kinds of ways to try to get your foot in the door; just be careful that your toes don't get smashed if the door suddenly closes on you. There are plenty of "artist's friend" con schemes out there already, whether temporary group exhibitions or seemingly spiffy galleries, taking advantage of the unwary. Do your homework first and ask around. And I've seen a lot of pieces outright ruined in neglected gallery back rooms between venues, or by careless staff.
- What is the point of submitting images to contests where the jury are people you don't know and possibly whose opinion and work you might not appreciate at all ?
- Is the purpose of such contests to promote photography and artists or just to make money from submissions?
- By making a photograph with the sole goal to please such larger audiences don't you lose in the end your artistic self?
Years ago, I belonged to a local photo club in Queens, NYC, that met once a week. About once a month, we'd have a contest where everyone would bring in a print or two. They all would be tacked to the front board. Everyone would roam around the room looking at the pictures. Then we'd have a vote on all the pictures by counting raised hands. Often the photos would be reviewed and how each picture could be improved. Besides a social get together, it was an opportunity to have your photo reviewed by peers and to see what make pictures work and not. There was no money involved or awards other than a comment in the blurb that was published for members.
Monthly club contests are a good way to get evaluation ones photographic work, but one should take such comments balance by each judges [or commenter's] background and expertise.
What I've found is that artistic value is judged relatively equally by almost everyone. Certainly, tastes vary. But even a layman can tell which ones are best in their view, and it will match experienced people as well. Do you need to be a biologist to know a pretty face when you see one?
Sounds more like a group critique than a contest.Years ago, I belonged to a local photo club in Queens, NYC, that met once a week. About once a month, we'd have a contest where everyone would bring in a print or two. They all would be tacked to the front board. Everyone would roam around the room looking at the pictures. Then we'd have a vote on all the pictures by counting raised hands. Often the photos would be reviewed and how each picture could be improved. Besides a social get together, it was an opportunity to have your photo reviewed by peers and to see what make pictures work and not. There was no money involved or awards other than a comment in the blurb that was published for members.
What I've found is that artistic value is judged relatively equally by almost everyone. Certainly, tastes vary. But even a layman can tell which ones are best in their view, and it will match experienced people as well. Do you need to be a biologist to know a pretty face when you see one?
Sounds more like a group critique than a contest.
This is why I check out who is judging a contest before entering. Because I have seen many superficial photos win contests because they fit other criteria the judge might have.Artistic value varies even among individuals. We had a very long discussion in another thread with respected members like Don, Koraks, and Alex about how subjective can that be where I had to admit that it is impossible to judge it ourselves objectively. I can give you an example from personal experience. Let's take the artist Nan Goldin. Since I promised to refrain from personal opinions I won't do any judgement on her work. Let's just say she is an interesting case. When my teacher asked two very respected photographers about her and how genuine/honest her work is he got two very different answers. Tod Papageorge told him "Of course her work has artistic value because it is honest". Bernard Plossu on the other hand told him "She is so fake that I think she could turn her eye black herself to take a photo with her eye being blackened from her friend". So, you see two different respected artists can judge an artistic work very differently and find very different value to it.
Usually artistic value is not judged in such contests (how can that be judged anyway...)
Usually I think that what is judged is composition, technical aspects, conceptualism, etc. And mostly a pretty photo rather than a good one
And those new to entering contests often will enter something that is along the same lines as the judge's work. Usually a mistake.Before I enter a contest, I look to see who is the judge. I will then base my decision to enter upon seeing the judge‘s work or gallery artists.
I generally find the opposite -- sounds like your sample group from which you drew this conclusion was a pretty much homogeneous group.Alan : ...What I've found is that artistic value is judged relatively equally by almost everyone...
Artistic value varies even among individuals. We had a very long discussion in another thread with respected members like Don, Koraks, and Alex about how subjective can that be where I had to admit that it is impossible to judge it ourselves objectively. I can give you an example from personal experience. Let's take the artist Nan Goldin. Since I promised to refrain from personal opinions I won't do any judgement on her work. Let's just say she is an interesting case. When my teacher asked two very respected photographers about her and how genuine/honest her work is he got two very different answers. Tod Papageorge told him "Of course her work has artistic value because it is honest". Bernard Plossu on the other hand told him "She is so fake that I think she could turn her eye black herself to take a photo with her eye being blackened from her friend". So, you see two different respected artists can judge an artistic work very differently and find very different value to it.
Usually artistic value is not judged in such contests (how can that be judged anyway...)
Usually I think that what is judged is composition, technical aspects, conceptualism, etc. And mostly a pretty photo rather than a good one
Sounds more like a group critique than a contest.
Standards of beauty vary by culture, era and ethnicity. And a biologist certainly wouldn't be the person I would rely on to judge a beautiful face.
Fun fact: I happen to like wine too and for those familiar a very popular term is the "Parkerization" of red wines e.g. to produce wines with the sole purpose of pleasing the palate of the respected wine critic Robert Parker (high alcohol content, robust tannins, etc.) in order to win a good review that translates to $$$
Of course wine is not art although someone might argue
A bit longer. I may be drawn to a photo in seconds, but I like to study it a bit before I decide whether I like it or not. I like many photos that did not necessarily initially draw me to them. Maybe it's just me, but I don't take to "pretty" pictures. I find them boring. Sunsets are pretty. I generally detest them. I prefer the real experience.No I wouldn't. But they are the ones who would measure all the aspects of the face and try to decide based on centimeters which face is the most beautiful. Often, that's what we do when judging photos. We get into rules, and measurements, and details that have little to do with what makes a great photo. It;s really innate. I know in two seconds whether I like a photo. How long does it take you?
A bit longer. I may be drawn to a photo in seconds, but I like to study it a bit before I decide whether I like it or not. I like many photos that did not necessarily initially draw me to them. Maybe it's just me, but I don't take to "pretty" pictures. I find them boring. Sunsets are pretty. I generally detest them. I prefer the real experience.
A bit longer. I may be drawn to a photo in seconds, but I like to study it a bit before I decide whether I like it or not. I like many photos that did not necessarily initially draw me to them. Maybe it's just me, but I don't take to "pretty" pictures. I find them boring. Sunsets are pretty. I generally detest them. I prefer the real experience.
A bit longer. I may be drawn to a photo in seconds, but I like to study it a bit before I decide whether I like it or not. I like many photos that did not necessarily initially draw me to them. Maybe it's just me, but I don't take to "pretty" pictures. I find them boring. Sunsets are pretty. I generally detest them. I prefer the real experience.
Winogrand said it beautifully. When you take a picture and then print it and see it is the exact thing that you saw throw it away. A photo should magically transform (and not beautify) the reality according to Gary. But then how could you judge that? Difficult stuff....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?