Why contests?

[nikos79]

I would like to ask somewhat "provocative" rhetoric questions and I think is the right forum to do so:
- 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 ?
- How can your photo gain value among other photos that have no artistic "connection" or resemblance at all with your work?
- How can the value of a photograph be estimated and compared to win a trophy e.g. what are the criteria used by such committees?
- By making a photograph with the sole goal to please such larger audiences don't you lose in the end your artistic self?
- Is the purpose of such contests to promote photography and artists or just to make money from submissions?

 

[Don_ih]

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 ?

For fun, to win, for exposure, for getting your photo viewed, for getting your photo judged. Some people just like those things.

How can your photo gain value among other photos that have no artistic "connection" or resemblance at all with your work?

Why would it need to have any connection to the other photo? If the photo is valuable in itself, that should be apparent. It's a photo, after all - you look at it.

How can the value of a photograph be estimated and compared to win a trophy e.g. what are the criteria used by such committees?

That would depend on the judges and the theme of the contest. "Value" may be the wrong word. "Merit" may be closer.

By making a photograph with the sole goal to please such larger audiences don't you lose in the end your artistic self?

Why would those things be incompatible? You can be an artist and aim to please your audience. Writers and musicians do it all the time - as do painters and dancers.

Is the purpose of such contests to promote photography and artists or just to make money from submissions?

Depends on the contest.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Why do people play sports and have runoffs to see which are the best teams or the best player? Some do it for money, and others just for fun. People like to compete. It's in our DNA. Competition improves our abilities. You get to learn processes of which is best, which you might not be able to learn on your own. It forces you to up your game, pay attention to details. There's also the social value of getting together with people of similar interests.

Regarding photos and art, even if others don't like your style or subject, their comments on technical issues can improve your work. Artistic appreciation seems to cross education and experience lines. Good photos are appreciated by most and bad ones are similarly criticized for lack of artistic value. Judges commenting on your photos get experts to opine on your ability. They can flag issues you might not notice. There's a lot to learn, especially if you're not an expert to begin with. But even experts make mistakes and miss things that extra eyes will notice.

I agree that you can tune your work to what others may expect you to do and lose your uniqueness. That is a danger. But most of us are still learning how to walk and need lots of help.

My experience with contests is an annual competition among mainly retired people in 5 or 6 communities within 50 miles, where let's say 60 photographers submit two pictures each. We pay a known judge a stipend. He or she reviews each picture as to its pros and cons and rates them, awarding 1st 2nd and 3rd non-monetary prize for beginners and similar prizes for advanced photographers. The community photo club that has the highest total score gets a small trophy. Since COVID, we do the contest on Zoom. Maybe we'll go back to doing it in person, where we also have treats and drinks and get to meet other photographers from all the communities in the area. It's a real social occasion.

 

[loccdor]

By making a photograph with the sole goal to please such larger audiences don't you lose in the end your artistic self?

Yes, that's the wrong way to go about it. But entering a photo in a contest doesn't necessarily require that you do this.

 

[Don_ih]

that's the wrong way to go about it

It isn't necessarily wrong. It's common. It doesn't prevent a piece from otherwise having artistic merit. Also, it does seem to be the way to "work" contests. In writing, publications tend to not want submissions that vary much from what they regularly publish. Record companies want new acts to sound like old acts. In both those instances, people acquiesce. It's a bit different from outright pandering. And what you produce is still something you produced.

 

[Tel]

I think the OP’s questions are all valid and anyone thinking of entering work into a competition should bear them in mind and not take the outcome too seriously or personally. Clearly, there is a profit motive in many such contests and it would be wrong to deny it as a factor. But the same is true in any commercial gallery—they need to make a profit to pay their own expenses. So, to the question of merit/worth/value, all of which are highly subjective measures, potential for profit is an important consideration. What I see in galleries these days tends to be heavily postproduced/manipulated oversaturated digital imagery; analog photography can fail to hit the mark against such odds. Occasionally, a good eye for composition and for engaging subject matter can outweigh digital manipulation, and we should consider that a victory. But the audience (and the judges) often don’t consider that at all.

I’ve had 50 or more photos hung in commercial galleries over the years, and sold exactly five prints. I used to think it was reward enough to submit and eventually see my own work up on a wall for public inspection. Lately, the thrill has ebbed and I don’t submit much anymore. I get more and better quality feedback on the Photrio gallery than I ever did in a brick-and-mortar one. An exception—I used to get my stuff into a gallery in LA on a regular basis, and I developed a cordial and helpful relationship with the owner. Then his day job (he didn’t make a living from the gallery, I presume) demanded more of his time and the gallery had to close.

Related story: Some years ago, in another life, I was seconded to a search committee to fill a post as an art department faculty member in the college where I worked. I was reminded how cut-throat academic politics can be, but I also learned that in the arts community, merit is often defined as resemblance to the judges’ own work, and anything foreign to their way of working was rejected out of hand. Thankfully, the work of that committee ended in what was (to me) a satisfactory outcome: we couldn’t agree on a suitable candidate and the search was aborted.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think the OP’s questions are all valid and anyone thinking of entering work into a competition should bear them in mind and not take the outcome too seriously or personally. Clearly, there is a profit motive in many such contests and it would be wrong to deny it as a factor. But the same is true in any commercial gallery—they need to make a profit to pay their own expenses. So, to the question of merit/worth/value, all of which are highly subjective measures, potential for profit is an important consideration. What I see in galleries these days tends to be heavily postproduced/manipulated oversaturated digital imagery; analog photography can fail to hit the mark against such odds. Occasionally, a good eye for composition and for engaging subject matter can outweigh digital manipulation, and we should consider that a victory. But the audience (and the judges) often don’t consider that at all.

I’ve had 50 or more photos hung in commercial galleries over the years, and sold exactly five prints. I used to think it was reward enough to submit and eventually see my own work up on a wall for public inspection. Lately, the thrill has ebbed and I don’t submit much anymore. I get more and better quality feedback on the Photrio gallery than I ever did in a brick-and-mortar one. An exception—I used to get my stuff into a gallery in LA on a regular basis, and I developed a cordial and helpful relationship with the owner. Then his day job (he didn’t make a living from the gallery, I presume) demanded more of his time and the gallery had to close.

Related story: Some years ago, in another life, I was seconded to a search committee to fill a post as an art department faculty member in the college where I worked. I was reminded how cut-throat academic politics can be, but I also learned that in the arts community, merit is often defined as resemblance to the judges’ own work, and anything foreign to their way of working was rejected out of hand. Thankfully, the work of that committee ended in what was (to me) a satisfactory outcome: we couldn’t agree on a suitable candidate and the search was aborted.

At our 55+ intercommunity photo contest a few years ago, automobile detail photos seem to get lots of approval from that year's judge. At the next year's contest, there was an abundance of auto detail shots submitted. But it turns out the judge they hired didn't like auto pictures. After the second one she reviewed during the live contest, she exclaimed, "Wow, do I hate auto pictures." and she panned the rest of those.

Now, when the judge's name is announced, people check their web site to review their photography to try to get a handle on what they like. The whole situation is rather amusing as people try to tailor their submissions to the prejudices of the judges.

 

[Dan Pavel]

You are right to ask this question.
The artistic value of the submissions can't be objectively determined, as in a sports contest. In painting, for instance, it's a silly question to ask who is better: Leonardo or Rembrandt.
The only thing that can be objectively judged by the jury is the technical correctness of the picture. Photographic criteria like exposure and focus as well as visual criteria like correct composition, correct color balance, correct use of light and shadow. But the expressiveness of a picture is often gained by breaking the well established rules. It can't be objectively determined.
The only reason of submitting images to contests should be to get some visibility for your pictures or, if you are a beginner, to test your technical abilities. Or simply to get a prize and a trophy to brag about in front of your friends.

 

[loccdor]

It isn't necessarily wrong. It's common. It doesn't prevent a piece from otherwise having artistic merit. Also, it does seem to be the way to "work" contests. In writing, publications tend to not want submissions that vary much from what they regularly publish. Record companies want new acts to sound like old acts. In both those instances, people acquiesce. It's a bit different from outright pandering. And what you produce is still something you produced.

I'd argue that the contest becomes a goal, but not the sole one, by your description. But I get your points.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Great discussion, great question.

 

[Don_ih]

There are people who only see value in competitive terms. Some people can only justify what they're doing by trying to "win" in some way.

 

[MTGseattle]

Biased judging is a risk in every such scenario. How to surpass that is anyone's guess, but it does place a cloud over the proceedings.

I wouldn't try and tailor my submissions with the goal of winning or placating the judge/s, that's where we run the risk of sidelining whatever artistic integrity we strive to maintain. one could treat a contest as a learning experience and a chance to expand into formerly untested subject matter.

I would hope the point of the contest would be to promote photography and the submission fees likely pay some/all of the event space and judges time barring any sponsorships.

 

[MattKing]

Print contests are my favorite, and they are worthwhile to attend as well, because that way you get to see a bunch of prints from a bunch of people, and you get to meet a bunch of people who appreciate prints.
If you aren't careful, photography can be a very solitary endeavour. Contests encourage you to both create photographs, and engage with others.
I find contests based on shared digital images, shared by sitting in a darkened room with others looking at either screens or digital projections, to be underwhelming at best.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Contests make Photrio more interactive and that increases user interest.

 

[PhotoBob]

Interesting questions indeed. For sure with the growing number and variety of photo contests out there, profitability must be one of the economic drivers. At the same time, most contests charge way too much for submission fees - no excuses. But they may provide some semblance of a fragile and ephemeral measure as to how one's works stands up against the other submissions at a given time on the space-time continuum.
Last year I was awarded a GOLD in the PX3 competition, which was nice, but it did nothing to help promote me as a photographer - it was just a nice gesture I suppose for that moment in time. If one's goal is to become more noted, recognised and sought after as a photographer ... contests may not be the best way to pursue this endeavour. As has been previous mentioned, they may be just fun for some people.

 

[Vaughn]

Sometimes a competitive show can be a good reason to get that new image matted up and framed, and out into the world.
Sometimes a competitive show can be entered primarily to help out the organization putting the show on (or supporting the cause it represents).

By making a photograph with the sole goal to please such larger audiences don't you lose in the end your artistic self?

That is the goal of many fine artists -- to please their audience with one's own inspiration and risk-taking, and to inspire that in their audience. Putting one's work up on a wall, other than one's own wall, is a way to test one's achievement in this regard.

Edit to add: It is difficult to make an accurate general statement about judges. I have judged a couple photo shows and find I am too biased and not educated enough in the history of art to be a good judge. And probably way too concerned about people's feelings. And this is with strictly photographic shows -- heaven help us all if I was involved judging a multi-media show.

I've been selected, rejected, awarded, and unrewarded. I even won a Ries tripod head one time. But like in sports where one only gets better by playing better players, if one enters a photo contest, it is worthwhile giving it your best against the best. Many times these will be competitions held by art non-profits, with entry fees going to awards, to a quality juror, and to support the non-profit. I am thinking of such organizations such as the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel. If one does not get a piece accepted, one can consider the entry fee to be a donation...win/win.

 

[cerber0s]

By making a photograph with the sole goal to please such larger audiences don't you lose in the end your artistic self?

That may be true if the audience get a vote. My experience (only from watching, never participating) with contests judged by a jury, more often than not it’s the photo that stands out from the mainstream that wins.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Contests are seemingly for people who have nothing better to do, even the so-called judges, with a folded paper Tom Terrific party hat for their Pope hat. I'm mean, yeah, it can all be fun and community oriented, just like when I submitted a 4H project bug collection to the County Fair and won a blue ribbon. But it wasn't like my classmate who later sent his bull to the State Fair and won Grand Champion, and sold it for enough to pay his entire 4-year tuition to Veterinarian College.

Most art contests are awfully Little League, so to speak, even the big ones. There are exceptions, of course, but even most of those make me scratch my head, "What on earth are those guys thinking." But I really shouldn't even be saying, "most of", since I've ignored all those kinds of events for decades. Got better things to do in the darkroom.

The last time I walked into that Carmel Arts Center, I scratched my head too. The company where I worked cut all and sold all their frame backings etc, hundred of pieces at a time. And in that particular instance, I had my own gig right down the street, and sold a couple of my early pieces to someone still then alive who had his original big wooden camera and its lens enshrined in a display case in that Arts Center, so I guess I did OK without needing any contest at all.

I never have seen the point in a middleman arrangement. Just go for it. If you set your sights too low, it's hard to get anywhere. Just doing stuff for fun is perfectly acceptable too, so if contests appeal to you, do that instead, or as well, whatever. And don't be afraid of mistakes and bruises. I just never personally found training wheels necessary or even appealing, and learned more in the "school of hard knocks" instead.

 

[pentaxuser]

There are people who only see value in competitive terms. Some people can only justify what they're doing by trying to "win" in some way.

True and seems so `a propos when you view the world

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sometimes a competitive show can be a good reason to get that new image matted up and framed, and out into the world.
Sometimes a competitive show can be entered primarily to help out the organization putting the show on (or supporting the cause it represents).



That is the goal of many fine artists -- to please their audience with one's own inspiration and risk-taking, and to inspire that in their audience. Putting one's work up on a wall, other than one's own wall, is a way to test one's achievement in this regard.

Edit to add: It is difficult to make an accurate general statement about judges. I have judged a couple photo shows and find I am too biased and not educated enough in the history of art to be a good judge. And probably way too concerned about people's feelings. And this is with strictly photographic shows -- heaven help us all if I was involved judging a multi-media show.

I've been selected, rejected, awarded, and unrewarded. I even won a Ries tripod head one time. But like in sports where one only gets better by playing better players, if one enters a photo contest, it is worthwhile giving it your best against the best. Many times these will be competitions held by art non-profits, with entry fees going to awards, to a quality juror, and to support the non-profit. I am thinking of such organizations such as the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel. If one does not get a piece accepted, one can consider the entry fee to be a donation...win/win.

A competitive show can be an entry way to become known to new people and new markets.

 

[Don_ih]

If you aren't careful, photography can be a very solitary endeavour.

That's true. And any very solitary activity tends to become a bit of a bubble and you may have difficulty being able to judge if what you're doing is anywhere near objectively good. Also, entering a contest is less directly hazardous to a fragile ego than preparing a portfolio and bringing it places. Anyone in isolation from the "art world" won't have a clue how to do that, anyway. At least contests are advertised.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

- By making a photograph with the sole goal to please such larger audiences don't you lose in the end your artistic self?

Throughout history, there was never a contradiction between pleasing large audiences and fully expressing one's artistic self. Artists have always wanted to please — meaning speak to — as many people as possible. Read Mozart's letters to his father, and you'll see how important it was for him to please as many people as possible.

The opposition is a legacy of the early 19th century, but a true invention of the 20th century, where a new myth of the artist — as one speaking to a chosen few — is created, partly to justify the complexity and inaccessibility of the works themselves. In the 20th century, inaccessibility becomes a quality, a sign a value. This doesn't mean that there aren't great inaccessible works — T. S. Eliot or James Joyce comes to mind —, but for many the difficulty itself became a stamp for both artistic merit and so-called depth. The difficulty became an end in itself.

Add to that the prevalence of philosophican and literary theories such as deconstructionism, and you get the kind of misunderstandings that are shown in your statement.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Print contests are my favorite, and they are worthwhile to attend as well, because that way you get to see a bunch of prints from a bunch of people, and you get to meet a bunch of people who appreciate prints.
If you aren't careful, photography can be a very solitary endeavour. Contests encourage you to both create photographs, and engage with others.
I find contests based on shared digital images, shared by sitting in a darkened room with others looking at either screens or digital projections, to be underwhelming at best.

Throughout history, there was never a contradiction between pleasing large audiences and fully expressing one's artistic self. Artists have always wanted to please — meaning speak to — as many people as possible. Read Mozart's letters to his father, and you'll see how important it was for him to please as many people as possible.

The opposition is a legacy of the early 19th century, but a true invention of the 20th century, where a new myth of the artist — as one speaking to a chosen few — is created, partly to justify the complexity and inaccessibility of the works themselves. In the 20th century, inaccessibility becomes a quality, a sign a value. This doesn't mean that there aren't great inaccessible works — T. S. Eliot or James Joyce comes to mind —, but for many the difficulty itself became a stamp for both artistic merit and so-called depth. The difficulty became an end in itself.

Add to that the prevalence of philosophican and literary theories such as deconstructionism, and you get the kind of misunderstandings that are shown in your statement.

Considering the many ways to communicate with media, the web, and so many other avenues, it's interesting that photography can be such a lonely pursuit. Maybe it's just in the personality of many photographers.

 

[Pieter12]

Recognition. Exhibition, in some cases. A line on a CV, although a gallerist once told me that too less-prestigious contests on a CV can be worse than none at all. He also recommended not entering contests that charge high fees or do not offer cash prizes. Winning a contest with a physical gallery exhibition can cost a lot of money once one takes into consideration the cost of printing, matting, framing and shipping (both ways). Many contests are just run as money mills.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.