Who is a good judge of a photo?

[tony cooper]

There's some discussion in another thread about who is best qualified
to be a judge of the artistic merit of a photograph. Gallery owners
and museum curators have been suggested.

I wouldn't regard a gallery owner as a good judge of artistic merit.
A gallery is a store that sells artistic creations. The successful
gallery owner is a person who is good at judging art that will sell.
The gallery owner isn't interested in the artistic merit of anything
that doesn't have sales potential.

"Sales potential" seems to be based on 1) name recognition of the
person who created the piece, and 2) appeal to Everyman.

Name recognition depends on earlier accomplishment by the
photographer. If the photographer has won awards or been published in
well-known and respected print media, the gallery can capitalize on
that.

The appeal factor in photographs is a bit more limited in photographs
than it is in art created in other media. There's a range of what can
be done with a photographic representation, but the range is much more
narrow than what can be done in other media. Photographs are limited
by being one dimensional (although the appearance of additional
dimensional aspects can be achieved) where other media are not.

Basically, though, photographs with sales potential appeal to a
cross-section (Everyman) of the public where art employing other media
can have appeal to buyers with very special interest areas.

I'm not sure I'm expressing this appeal factor very well, but think of
a visit to MoMA (Museum of Modern Art, NYC) and then a visit to a
museum or gallery where only photographs are displayed. In MoMA, the
average visitor (Everyman) will find some creations appealing and some
creations without any appeal at all. At the photographic exhibit, the
same might be true but Everyman will find a much higher percentage of
the items appealing or acceptable as art.

The museum curator is not, in my opinion, much more qualified to judge
the artistic merit of a photograph. More than gallery owner, but
still lacking. The museum curator is interested in adding items by
established artists (and I include photographers as artists) with name
recognition and prior acceptance as hangable artists. They look to
hang the works of winners of juried competitions and works that have
had prior publication success. They are not interested in discovering
the works of unknown artists based simply on the artistic merit of the
work. They look first to who did it rather than how good it was done.

Before someone else brings it up, there are some galleries and some
museums that offer the work of unknowns based on the merit of the
work, but they are exceptions and usually very small-scale.

So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?

What's your opinion?

[Pete A]

[snipped for brevity]
What's your opinion?

I enjoyed reading your post, Tony.

Only the gallery owner is in a position to be/become objective - the
sales figures provide the data. In all other cases, the judgement is
subjective.

The gallery owner is likely to change his/her views as they learn from
experience whereas the museum curator will create an experience that
reinforces their views.

The best judges are those who's job approximately matches the purpose
and/or content of the photo. I wouldn't ask the owner of successful
fashion store to judge my night photos of the docks, but if I took some
fashion shots then I would ask the owner if they had the time to look
at them. The last person I would ask to judge either type of those
shots would be a museum curator - my neighbours cat would be a better
judge.

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:54:35 +0100, Pete A

Post by Pete A

[snipped for brevity]
What's your opinion?

I enjoyed reading your post, Tony.
Only the gallery owner is in a position to be/become objective - the
sales figures provide the data. In all other cases, the judgement is
subjective.
The gallery owner is likely to change his/her views as they learn from
experience whereas the museum curator will create an experience that
reinforces their views.
The best judges are those who's job approximately matches the purpose
and/or content of the photo.

That's a good point, but a difficult objective in a juried art show.
There will photographs of nudes, flowers, people, and landscapes.

Post by Pete A
I wouldn't ask the owner of successful
fashion store to judge my night photos of the docks, but if I took some
fashion shots then I would ask the owner if they had the time to look
at them.

You are now in the area of commercial, or stock, photos. There the
judgement is based on either the specific topic or pleasingness in
general. Very blah photos are often sold as stock photos if they are
"nice". A photo of someone in a deck chair on the beach might sell
well as a stock photo (adverts for resorts) but be uninteresting for
any other purpose.

Post by Pete A
The last person I would ask to judge either type of those
shots would be a museum curator - my neighbours cat would be a better
judge.

[Pete A]

Post by tony cooper
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:54:35 +0100, Pete A

Post by Pete A

[snipped for brevity]
What's your opinion?

I enjoyed reading your post, Tony.
Only the gallery owner is in a position to be/become objective - the
sales figures provide the data. In all other cases, the judgement is
subjective.
The gallery owner is likely to change his/her views as they learn from
experience whereas the museum curator will create an experience that
reinforces their views.
The best judges are those who's job approximately matches the purpose
and/or content of the photo.

That's a good point, but a difficult objective in a juried art show.
There will photographs of nudes, flowers, people, and landscapes.

Post by Pete A
I wouldn't ask the owner of successful
fashion store to judge my night photos of the docks, but if I took some
fashion shots then I would ask the owner if they had the time to look
at them.

You are now in the area of commercial, or stock, photos. There the
judgement is based on either the specific topic or pleasingness in
general. Very blah photos are often sold as stock photos if they are
"nice". A photo of someone in a deck chair on the beach might sell
well as a stock photo (adverts for resorts) but be uninteresting for
any other purpose.

In that case, make sure none of the judges have a commercial or stock
photo interest. Who's left? People who like judging for the sake of it.

A judge with no commercial interest in art or photography is just an
armchair critic, or have I missed something? You learnt that from the
"expert" who suggested that you crop your horse shot down to the white
frame. If you follow their advice the image will indeed have no
commercial value, and in my opinion, no artistic value either.

The winner of a juried competition is the winner of that competition
according to the personal interests, experiences, and prejudices of the
judges. It has very little to do with artistic merit because there is
no such thing as photographic artistic merit with a context.

To address the specific questions at the end of your post, which are
orthogonal to each other:

"So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph?"

I've already answered that.


"Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried competition?"

If your intention is to win the competition then the answer is obvious
- only those who maximize your chance of winning and minimize the
chance of everyone else winning.

[Pete A]

It has very little to do with artistic merit because there is no such
thing as photographic artistic merit with a context.

Well, that may be true in my case, bit I meant to write "without a context."

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:26:18 +0100, Pete A

Post by Pete A
A judge with no commercial interest in art or photography is just an
armchair critic, or have I missed something? You learnt that from the
"expert" who suggested that you crop your horse shot down to the white
frame. If you follow their advice the image will indeed have no
commercial value, and in my opinion, no artistic value either.

Well, I don't agree with that critic who made the suggestion about my
horse photo, but she is probably more right than wrong about most
photos she judges. She, and the other judges, had about an hour and a
half to judge almost 100 images.

The way our system works, all 3 judges rate the photo on points, but
only one judge presents a verbal critique. The score itself was good
(but not the night's winner or in the top group), so the combined
judgement was not harsh.

I found myself less in agreement with her verbal critiques on the
other entries than I did with the other judges, but in dead-on
agreement on some images. She would have commented on over 30 of the
about 100 entries.

Post by Pete A
If your intention is to win the competition then the answer is obvious
- only those who maximize your chance of winning and minimize the
chance of everyone else winning.

Yeah, selfishly I'd have to agree, but that's not really a big thing
to me. Don't get me wrong...I like winning and I'm a competitive Type
A person. But, I'm in it for the chase, rather than the reward, at
this point. It doesn't bother me to have my photographs knocked.

A friend of mine is upgrading from a Nikon D90 to a D7000. He wants
me to buy his D90, but I'm not interested. He feels (like Bruce) that
my D60 is a junk entry-level camera. Until I feel I have a good grasp
on *what* I'm shooting and how to compose and process it, I'm not
interested in what I shoot *with*. A better camera isn't going to
result in better photos until I know what I'm doing.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Post by tony cooper
A friend of mine is upgrading from a Nikon D90 to a D7000. He wants
me to buy his D90, but I'm not interested. He feels (like Bruce) that
my D60 is a junk entry-level camera. Until I feel I have a good grasp
on *what* I'm shooting and how to compose and process it, I'm not
interested in what I shoot *with*. A better camera isn't going to
result in better photos until I know what I'm doing.

I admire your sense of perspective. As much as I'd like to "win" life is
short and who wants to put up with dick waving all the time.

Constraints can be good. A better camera can be more forgiving.

What's important?

[PeterN]

Post by tony cooper
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:26:18 +0100, Pete A

Post by Pete A
A judge with no commercial interest in art or photography is just an
armchair critic, or have I missed something? You learnt that from the
"expert" who suggested that you crop your horse shot down to the white
frame. If you follow their advice the image will indeed have no
commercial value, and in my opinion, no artistic value either.

Well, I don't agree with that critic who made the suggestion about my
horse photo, but she is probably more right than wrong about most
photos she judges. She, and the other judges, had about an hour and a
half to judge almost 100 images.
The way our system works, all 3 judges rate the photo on points, but
only one judge presents a verbal critique. The score itself was good
(but not the night's winner or in the top group), so the combined
judgement was not harsh.
I found myself less in agreement with her verbal critiques on the
other entries than I did with the other judges, but in dead-on
agreement on some images. She would have commented on over 30 of the
about 100 entries.

Post by Pete A
If your intention is to win the competition then the answer is obvious
- only those who maximize your chance of winning and minimize the
chance of everyone else winning.

Yeah, selfishly I'd have to agree, but that's not really a big thing
to me. Don't get me wrong...I like winning and I'm a competitive Type
A person. But, I'm in it for the chase, rather than the reward, at
this point. It doesn't bother me to have my photographs knocked.
A friend of mine is upgrading from a Nikon D90 to a D7000. He wants
me to buy his D90, but I'm not interested. He feels (like Bruce) that
my D60 is a junk entry-level camera. Until I feel I have a good grasp
on *what* I'm shooting and how to compose and process it, I'm not
interested in what I shoot *with*. A better camera isn't going to
result in better photos until I know what I'm doing.

Noting wrong with your images. You have your style and create
interesting shots with it.
As I have said before, my younger daughter uses a D70 with a kit lens.
Her images sell for $50 to $700. She was offered a one woman show at an
embassy, but doesn't have the time to put it together.

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:32:34 -0400, tony cooper <***@earthlink.net>
wrote:
: A friend of mine is upgrading from a Nikon D90 to a D7000. He wants
: me to buy his D90, but I'm not interested. He feels (like Bruce) that
: my D60 is a junk entry-level camera. Until I feel I have a good grasp
: on *what* I'm shooting and how to compose and process it, I'm not
: interested in what I shoot *with*. A better camera isn't going to
: result in better photos until I know what I'm doing.

I don't entirely disagree, but I do think you're missing something. Absent
outright silliness, like putting a D3 in the hands of a beginner, better
equipment makes anyone a better photographer. How much better depends on how
good you already are: the better photographer you are, the more difference
better equipment makes. I think I've seen enough of your work to conclude that
you probably shouldn't be using an entry-level camera.

Any serious photographer needs at least one backup camera. If you don't
already have a decent one, maybe you should consider buying your friend's D90
and relegating your D60 to secondary use.

That said, I'm a Canonian who's never used any Nikon DSLR. So I have no basis
for knowing how much difference there actually is between a D60 and a D90. All
I know is that using a D90 didn't keep Ashton Kutcher from kicking over the
punchbowl, and one of my colleagues at work (who is, I think, no better than
you are) loves his D7000.

Bob

[PeterN]

On 8/27/2011 6:19 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
<snip>

Post by Robert Coe
I don't entirely disagree, but I do think you're missing something. Absent
outright silliness, like putting a D3 in the hands of a beginner, better
equipment makes anyone a better photographer. How much better depends on how
good you already are: the better photographer you are, the more difference
better equipment makes. I think I've seen enough of your work to conclude that
you probably shouldn't be using an entry-level camera.

I only partially agree. Better equipment by itself will not make anyone
a better photographer. It will allow a photographer to make images under
more varied conditions. e.g. If I want to shoot birds at a higher speed
I can increase my ISO higher than someone with a lower model. If I had a
D3s I could easily go up to 16,000. Yeah! I know the spec says over
100,000, but I am being conservative for purposes of this discussion. My
70-200 f2.8, with a 1.7 extender will allow me to shoot wildlife easier
than my 80-400. But for landscape, my 80-400 is just fine. For portraits
or walkabout images, Many people I know now use the Tamron 18 -270,
which is not a very high end lens.

Post by Robert Coe
Any serious photographer needs at least one backup camera. If you don't
already have a decent one, maybe you should consider buying your friend's D90
and relegating your D60 to secondary use.
That said, I'm a Canonian who's never used any Nikon DSLR. So I have no basis
for knowing how much difference there actually is between a D60 and a D90. All
I know is that using a D90 didn't keep Ashton Kutcher from kicking over the
punchbowl, and one of my colleagues at work (who is, I think, no better than
you are) loves his D7000.

[tony cooper]

Post by Robert Coe
: A friend of mine is upgrading from a Nikon D90 to a D7000. He wants
: me to buy his D90, but I'm not interested. He feels (like Bruce) that
: my D60 is a junk entry-level camera. Until I feel I have a good grasp
: on *what* I'm shooting and how to compose and process it, I'm not
: interested in what I shoot *with*. A better camera isn't going to
: result in better photos until I know what I'm doing.
I don't entirely disagree, but I do think you're missing something. Absent
outright silliness, like putting a D3 in the hands of a beginner, better
equipment makes anyone a better photographer. How much better depends on how
good you already are: the better photographer you are, the more difference
better equipment makes. I think I've seen enough of your work to conclude that
you probably shouldn't be using an entry-level camera.

Thank you for that last line.

Post by Robert Coe
Any serious photographer needs at least one backup camera. If you don't
already have a decent one, maybe you should consider buying your friend's D90
and relegating your D60 to secondary use.

I have a D40 body, but both the D40 and the D60 use the same two kit
lenses: 18-55 and 55-200. I bought the D60 body-only. The weakness
in the D40/D60 are the kit lenses. I'd like more frames-per-second in
continuous and bracketing that better cameras bodies offer, but that's
about it. Live view isn't something that I really yearn for.

My interest in subjects doesn't require high ISO setting. I rarely
shoot over 400 as it is.

Post by Robert Coe
That said, I'm a Canonian who's never used any Nikon DSLR. So I have no basis
for knowing how much difference there actually is between a D60 and a D90. All
I know is that using a D90 didn't keep Ashton Kutcher from kicking over the
punchbowl, and one of my colleagues at work (who is, I think, no better than
you are) loves his D7000.

Better lenses are available for the D90. D40/D60s have the focusing
mechanism in the lens, not the body.

[Pete A]

Post by tony cooper
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:26:18 +0100, Pete A

Post by Pete A
A judge with no commercial interest in art or photography is just an
armchair critic, or have I missed something? You learnt that from the
"expert" who suggested that you crop your horse shot down to the white
frame. If you follow their advice the image will indeed have no
commercial value, and in my opinion, no artistic value either.

Well, I don't agree with that critic who made the suggestion about my
horse photo, but she is probably more right than wrong about most
photos she judges. She, and the other judges, had about an hour and a
half to judge almost 100 images.

Sorry, I can't remember the precise logical fallacy in that reasoning,
but I sure can smell it!

Post by tony cooper
The way our system works, all 3 judges rate the photo on points, but
only one judge presents a verbal critique. The score itself was good
(but not the night's winner or in the top group), so the combined
judgement was not harsh.
I found myself less in agreement with her verbal critiques on the
other entries than I did with the other judges, but in dead-on
agreement on some images. She would have commented on over 30 of the
about 100 entries.

The smell hasn't changed :) Why the f... was she there, I wonder. Oh,
because she's "important" perhaps?

Post by tony cooper

Post by Pete A
If your intention is to win the competition then the answer is obvious
- only those who maximize your chance of winning and minimize the
chance of everyone else winning.

Yeah, selfishly I'd have to agree, but that's not really a big thing
to me. Don't get me wrong...I like winning and I'm a competitive Type
A person. But, I'm in it for the chase, rather than the reward, at
this point. It doesn't bother me to have my photographs knocked.

I envy you, I wish I was more competitive and didn't dislike winning.
However, choosing not to win, or not caring about it, means we do not
put our self-worth entirely in the hands of others.

Post by tony cooper
A friend of mine is upgrading from a Nikon D90 to a D7000. He wants
me to buy his D90, but I'm not interested. He feels (like Bruce) that
my D60 is a junk entry-level camera. Until I feel I have a good grasp
on *what* I'm shooting and how to compose and process it, I'm not
interested in what I shoot *with*. A better camera isn't going to
result in better photos until I know what I'm doing.

Your photography is artistic, which is a rare talent, and you do
already know what your are doing. Better camera gear will help you if
you decide to compete with my night and twilight shots of industry,
other than that, it won't.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:19:12 +0100, Pete A

Post by Pete A

Post by tony cooper
Well, I don't agree with that critic who made the suggestion about my
horse photo, but she is probably more right than wrong about most
photos she judges. She, and the other judges, had about an hour and a
half to judge almost 100 images.

Sorry, I can't remember the precise logical fallacy in that reasoning,
but I sure can smell it!

Post by tony cooper
The way our system works, all 3 judges rate the photo on points, but
only one judge presents a verbal critique. The score itself was good
(but not the night's winner or in the top group), so the combined
judgement was not harsh.
I found myself less in agreement with her verbal critiques on the
other entries than I did with the other judges, but in dead-on
agreement on some images. She would have commented on over 30 of the
about 100 entries.

The smell hasn't changed :) Why the f... was she there, I wonder. Oh,
because she's "important" perhaps?

She was picked as a judge because she teaches photography at a
college. I don't think any of the committee members who choose the
judges know her, though, because the college is not in this immediate
area.

There are 10 competition nights a year and 30 judges are selected:
three judges for each competition. Ten to 20 of the judges are club
members with some professional photographic credentials and ten are
outsiders. The club tries to get more than ten outsiders, but this is
not always possible.

This kind of follows my question about who should be selected to judge
juried shows. In trying to find ten to twenty outsiders with some
qualification, the club has to rely on what they think a person's
qualifications should be based on their occupation.

BTW, I don't feel that she wasn't a good judge, or isn't a good
teacher of photography, because I don't agree with her suggestion
about my photo. Perhaps she saw something possible that I didn't see
that would have worked out. Perhaps she would have tried her crop and
then changed her mind.

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:14:25 -0400, tony cooper <***@earthlink.net>
wrote:
: On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:54:35 +0100, Pete A
: <***@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote:
:
: >On 2011-08-27 15:58:24 +0100, tony cooper said:
: >
: >> [snipped for brevity]
: >> What's your opinion?
: >
: >I enjoyed reading your post, Tony.
: >
: >Only the gallery owner is in a position to be/become objective - the
: >sales figures provide the data. In all other cases, the judgement is
: >subjective.
: >
: >The gallery owner is likely to change his/her views as they learn from
: >experience whereas the museum curator will create an experience that
: >reinforces their views.
: >
: >The best judges are those who's job approximately matches the purpose
: >and/or content of the photo.
:
: That's a good point, but a difficult objective in a juried art show.
: There will photographs of nudes, flowers, people, and landscapes.
:
: >I wouldn't ask the owner of successful
: >fashion store to judge my night photos of the docks, but if I took some
: >fashion shots then I would ask the owner if they had the time to look
: >at them.
:
: You are now in the area of commercial, or stock, photos. There the
: judgement is based on either the specific topic or pleasingness in
: general. Very blah photos are often sold as stock photos if they are
: "nice". A photo of someone in a deck chair on the beach might sell
: well as a stock photo (adverts for resorts) but be uninteresting for
: any other purpose.
:
: > The last person I would ask to judge either type of those
: >shots would be a museum curator - my neighbours cat would be a better
: >judge.

Well, yeah, but part of the fun of going to a photography show is to
second-guess the curator (or the juror(s), or the famous-name photographer
himself). I think I've mentioned before that Martha and I once saw an exhibit
of Edward Weston's photographs from a trip to Mexico that he'd taken with his
mistress. The exhibit was replete with Weston's typically compulsive shot
after shot of the same cabbage or artichoke or whatever, and the prints were
murky and punchless by today's standards. Overall we just weren't that
impressed. But there was one picture (of an aloe plant, I believe) that we
both liked. It turned out to be the one picture that was taken not by Weston,
but by his mistress!

Bob

[Pete A]

Post by Robert Coe
[...]
Well, yeah, but part of the fun of going to a photography show is to
second-guess the curator (or the juror(s), or the famous-name photographer
himself). I think I've mentioned before that Martha and I once saw an exhibit
of Edward Weston's photographs from a trip to Mexico that he'd taken with his
mistress. The exhibit was replete with Weston's typically compulsive shot
after shot of the same cabbage or artichoke or whatever, and the prints were
murky and punchless by today's standards. Overall we just weren't that
impressed. But there was one picture (of an aloe plant, I believe) that we
both liked. It turned out to be the one picture that was taken not by Weston,
but by his mistress!

:)

Perhaps I should be looking for a mistress instead of trying to improve
my photography. What's the going rate for a body only (her lenses are
available on the NHS)?

[PeterN]

Post by tony cooper
There's some discussion in another thread about who is best qualified
to be a judge of the artistic merit of a photograph. Gallery owners
and museum curators have been suggested.
I wouldn't regard a gallery owner as a good judge of artistic merit.
A gallery is a store that sells artistic creations. The successful
gallery owner is a person who is good at judging art that will sell.
The gallery owner isn't interested in the artistic merit of anything
that doesn't have sales potential.
"Sales potential" seems to be based on 1) name recognition of the
person who created the piece, and 2) appeal to Everyman.
Name recognition depends on earlier accomplishment by the
photographer. If the photographer has won awards or been published in
well-known and respected print media, the gallery can capitalize on
that.
The appeal factor in photographs is a bit more limited in photographs
than it is in art created in other media. There's a range of what can
be done with a photographic representation, but the range is much more
narrow than what can be done in other media. Photographs are limited
by being one dimensional (although the appearance of additional
dimensional aspects can be achieved) where other media are not.
Basically, though, photographs with sales potential appeal to a
cross-section (Everyman) of the public where art employing other media
can have appeal to buyers with very special interest areas.
I'm not sure I'm expressing this appeal factor very well, but think of
a visit to MoMA (Museum of Modern Art, NYC) and then a visit to a
museum or gallery where only photographs are displayed. In MoMA, the
average visitor (Everyman) will find some creations appealing and some
creations without any appeal at all. At the photographic exhibit, the
same might be true but Everyman will find a much higher percentage of
the items appealing or acceptable as art.
The museum curator is not, in my opinion, much more qualified to judge
the artistic merit of a photograph. More than gallery owner, but
still lacking. The museum curator is interested in adding items by
established artists (and I include photographers as artists) with name
recognition and prior acceptance as hangable artists. They look to
hang the works of winners of juried competitions and works that have
had prior publication success. They are not interested in discovering
the works of unknown artists based simply on the artistic merit of the
work. They look first to who did it rather than how good it was done.
Before someone else brings it up, there are some galleries and some
museums that offer the work of unknowns based on the merit of the
work, but they are exceptions and usually very small-scale.
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

Before we can say who is qualified to judge art, we should answer the
more basic question what is art.
I confess to not really knowing the answer. I do have an answer. Art is
in the eye of the beholder. You and I might not like a particular
artist, but others do. That would make it a community consensus. I have
seen art dealers quietly encourage emerging artists. While not currently
hanging their work, they are building what they hope will be a future
demand for that artists work.

As you know CC judges work according to CC standards. Cartier Bresson
would not do will in that competition because he cuts off bicycle
wheels. Similarly, a Hudson River School photo would not do well because
there is no individual center of interest. That is not to say some
judges would not recognize the merit in those images, but most do not.

Sometimes we go to "starving artist" sales. On occasion we have seen
some decent art, but mostly would only buy if we liked the frame.

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:40:24 -0400, PeterN

Post by PeterN

Post by tony cooper
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

Before we can say who is qualified to judge art, we should answer the
more basic question what is art.

Still, we do have competitions, juried art shows, and other situations
where photography is judged.

I'm not talking about the S-I type of competition. I'm referring to
competitions where there are actual awards or prizes and entries from
a wide group of photographers.

Camera club competitions seem to lean to interest first, but heavily
to technical aspects depending on the judges. In this type of
judging, we know what factors influenced the judges because they tell
us.

If you submit prints to a juried art show, though, you don't get
feedback. A ribbon or no ribbon.

There are some prestigious juried art shows in this area, but I've
never checked into who makes up the judging panel and what their
qualifications are.

How would you pick a panel? Who would be on it and why? (Not names,
but by what qualification?)

Would you, for example, put an experienced professional portrait
photographer on the panel? Would he/she be biased because he/she has
a particular style? Would that person be better at judging nature
photography because that person's bias in portraiture wouldn't be a
factor?

Would you put a gallery owner on the panel? A museum curator?

As far as "What is art?", I go along with Justice Potter Stewart who
said "I know it when I see it" in Jacobellis v Ohio. He was referring
to pornography, but I think the same thing applies to art in general.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Post by tony cooper
There are some prestigious juried art shows in this area, but I've
never checked into who makes up the judging panel and what their
qualifications are.
How would you pick a panel? Who would be on it and why? (Not names,
but by what qualification?)
Would you, for example, put an experienced professional portrait
photographer on the panel? Would he/she be biased because he/she has
a particular style? Would that person be better at judging nature
photography because that person's bias in portraiture wouldn't be a
factor?
Would you put a gallery owner on the panel? A museum curator?
As far as "What is art?", I go along with Justice Potter Stewart who
said "I know it when I see it" in Jacobellis v Ohio. He was referring
to pornography, but I think the same thing applies to art in general.

A very good topic, Tony. Never thought that much about it before. No answers
but some more questions that might help.

A broad list of "names" seem to be picked for these things. If they've
achieved some sort of commercial or artistic success themselves over a
period of time it might not make them perfect judges but it weeds out the
crap. The rest is probably getting the right mix of skills and interests
which will almost certainly have some overlap.

The people themselves might have a dominant speciality but people often have
other interests. Denis Healy was a UK politician who was in his spare time a
very accomplished photographer. David Bailey is more often than not
interviewed for his political opinions as anything else. Philosophers like
Anthony Scrivener have a nuanced understanding of aesthetics. Historians may
have a strong exposure to many schools of art. Industrial designers and
architects have strong artistic elements to their work.

[PeterN]

Post by tony cooper
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:40:24 -0400, PeterN

Post by PeterN

Post by tony cooper
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

Before we can say who is qualified to judge art, we should answer the
more basic question what is art.

Still, we do have competitions, juried art shows, and other situations
where photography is judged.
I'm not talking about the S-I type of competition. I'm referring to
competitions where there are actual awards or prizes and entries from
a wide group of photographers.

SI isn't really a competition. I look at it as solely a fun thing.

Post by tony cooper
Camera club competitions seem to lean to interest first, but heavily
to technical aspects depending on the judges. In this type of
judging, we know what factors influenced the judges because they tell
us.

Yup! And I have learned not to take the comments too seriously when they
refer to the art, but to consider them more when when the comments refer
to technique.

Post by tony cooper
If you submit prints to a juried art show, though, you don't get
feedback. A ribbon or no ribbon.
There are some prestigious juried art shows in this area, but I've
never checked into who makes up the judging panel and what their
qualifications are.
How would you pick a panel? Who would be on it and why? (Not names,
but by what qualification?)
Would you, for example, put an experienced professional portrait
photographer on the panel? Would he/she be biased because he/she has
a particular style? Would that person be better at judging nature
photography because that person's bias in portraiture wouldn't be a
factor?
Would you put a gallery owner on the panel? A museum curator?

Art is judged objectively. Therefore your comment can provoke an
adinfinitum discussion. I don't know of subjective standards.

A portrait artist might as a judge be biased towards portraits, OTOH he
may decide that none are as good as his, and a landscape that you or I
might deem mediocre, would score better.

One advantage of entering local competitions here is that recognition
will get you a heavily discounted subscription at the MOMA.

Post by tony cooper
As far as "What is art?", I go along with Justice Potter Stewart who
said "I know it when I see it" in Jacobellis v Ohio. He was referring
to pornography, but I think the same thing applies to art in general.

I think the porno test is: "contemporary community standards," whatever
that means.

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:47:41 -0400, PeterN <***@nospam.verizon.net>
wrote:
: I think the porno test is: "contemporary community standards," whatever
: that means.

It means "what most people around here will tolerate now".

Bob

[PeterN]

Post by Robert Coe
: I think the porno test is: "contemporary community standards," whatever
: that means.
It means "what most people around here will tolerate now".
Bob

And the level of toleration is different in your area, than in Raleigh, NC

[dadiOH]

Post by tony cooper
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

A good question and a hard one to answer; in fact, there may be no answer.

FWIW, at one time I has some fame (notoriety? :) as a photographer and was
sometimes asked to judge camera club competitions. It was a very difficult
task as subjects and styles were all over the place; consequently, I often
relied on finding those with errors and eliminating those from further
consideration. By "errors" I mean unspotted prints, poor mounting if
mounted, less than good exposure, etc. That would cull out half or more.
Sometimes much more. And yes, they were removed from consideration even if
the content of the photo was exemplary. And there was often more than one
round of culling, each with an ever increasing nit picking eye.

Ultimately, I'd get down to 6-10 photos with which I could find no fault and
that is when it *really* gets hard; how can one choose "best" when the
photos might include such diverse subjects as portrait, architectural, still
life, etc. The only way I found was to select the one that spoke to me most
strongly and, of course, that was influenced by my personal biases
regardless of how hard I tried to be objective.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Post by dadiOH

Post by tony cooper
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

A good question and a hard one to answer; in fact, there may be no answer.

I strongly suspect there isn't.

TBH, if more qualified people with more resources haven't found an answer
I'm not going to spend the rest of my life chasing parked cars.

An answer arrives when it arrives.

[Irwell]

Post by dadiOH

Post by tony cooper
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

A good question and a hard one to answer; in fact, there may be no answer.
FWIW, at one time I has some fame (notoriety? :) as a photographer and was
sometimes asked to judge camera club competitions. It was a very difficult
task as subjects and styles were all over the place; consequently, I often
relied on finding those with errors and eliminating those from further
consideration. By "errors" I mean unspotted prints, poor mounting if
mounted, less than good exposure, etc. That would cull out half or more.
Sometimes much more. And yes, they were removed from consideration even if
the content of the photo was exemplary. And there was often more than one
round of culling, each with an ever increasing nit picking eye.
Ultimately, I'd get down to 6-10 photos with which I could find no fault and
that is when it *really* gets hard; how can one choose "best" when the
photos might include such diverse subjects as portrait, architectural, still
life, etc. The only way I found was to select the one that spoke to me most
strongly and, of course, that was influenced by my personal biases
regardless of how hard I tried to be objective.

Rather like the 'Best of Breeds' at the dog show.

[Pete A]

Post by dadiOH

Post by tony cooper
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

A good question and a hard one to answer; in fact, there may be no answer.
FWIW, at one time I has some fame (notoriety? :) as a photographer and
was sometimes asked to judge camera club competitions. It was a very
difficult task as subjects and styles were all over the place;
consequently, I often relied on finding those with errors and
eliminating those from further consideration. By "errors" I mean
unspotted prints, poor mounting if mounted, less than good exposure,
etc. That would cull out half or more. Sometimes much more. And yes,
they were removed from consideration even if the content of the photo
was exemplary. And there was often more than one round of culling,
each with an ever increasing nit picking eye.
Ultimately, I'd get down to 6-10 photos with which I could find no
fault and that is when it *really* gets hard; how can one choose "best"
when the photos might include such diverse subjects as portrait,
architectural, still life, etc. The only way I found was to select the
one that spoke to me most strongly and, of course, that was influenced
by my personal biases regardless of how hard I tried to be objective.

You've illustrated a point I was trying make: subjectivity determines
outcomes when there is insufficient data to be entirely objective.
Trial by jury remains preferable to verdict by computer, despite the
fact that the computer would consistently follow a set of well-defined
and agreed rules. Why do we have this preference? Because we believe,
and need to believe, that we can somehow influence the outcome of the
decision, in our favour, beyond the raw evidence provided. Also, if we
don't like the decision we can appeal for a retrial by a different
jury; that is our right.

If one is unhappy with the competition jury then either change it
directly or change venue to change it indirectly.

Tony's questions reach far beyond my initial thoughts. Suppose a
different person wins the competition each time, but I get 2nd place
each time. Surely, I am the most consistent (therefore most noteworthy)
artist, but I am never the best artist. What am I supposed to learn
from the experience? This reminds me of my school days, except for the
2nd place part, I wish...

I have to concede, there may be no answer. If so, perhaps Tony's
original two questions need to be coalesced into one which does have an
answer.

[Savageduck]

Post by tony cooper
There's some discussion in another thread about who is best qualified
to be a judge of the artistic merit of a photograph. Gallery owners
and museum curators have been suggested.
I wouldn't regard a ...........................<<< Le Brevity Snip >>>>
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

You have posed a multifaceted question here, in which the important
words are "judge the artistic merits of a photograph." Remember,
photography does not always result in art. At times it is quite
industrial with no artistic merit at all. Then good technical
photography and artistic photography are not mutually exclusive.

The first thing to decide in the evaluation of the photograph in
question is; are evaluating the work primarily as a photograph, or as a
work of art.

If the former, then certainly a judge who has an understanding of
theoretical photographic composition, exposure mechanics and technique
would be a good idea.
If the latter, then you should have a judge who has the ability to look
past the photographic qualities of the work and who is able to express
the feelings and emotions the work evokes in him/her.
A stock photograph, be it a studio, or outdoors location image can be a
perfect photograph technically and have absolutely zero artistic merit.
Whereas a poorly exposed and composed shot might evoke all sorts of
very visceral emotions and feelings, from a sense of serenity, to shear
disgust. The work should be able make the judge as him/herself "why
does this image make me feel the way I do when I look at it?"

Then the judge should be an individual who has the ability to add a
good degree of objectivity to a very subjective issue. They should be
able to say that a photograph is a superb example photography or an
artistically powerful image which might, or might not be a technically
very good photograph.

I have a feeling that if you wanted to evaluate a photograph on
artistic merit, you could do no worse than enlisting a panel of 5
passers-by off the street, or even student from an art school to ask
them to describe the feelings and emotions each of the works evokes in
them. A sampling of those feelings/emotions such as, happiness,
sadness, a sense of calm, disturbing, a sense of discomfort, love,
hatred, serenity, contentment, foreboding, personal memories could be
listed on a score sheet with a value of 1 to 10 for each, and a write
in section for the judge to be able to qualify his/her overall
impression of the image.

As far as having photographers judge artistic merits, he/she may well
have the ability to separate the two issues of photographic excellence
and artistic merit, but they are going to bring their prejudices to the
table.

I would give you Tony the photographer, asked to judge the artistic
merits of a series of photographs. This might be a good choice, but
Tony as photographer does not particularly favor landscapes, but finds
himself drawn strongly to images of urban decay and character shots
from the seamier side of life. His favored style of photography might
include tighter crops and straightened vertical lines and horizons. All
of these might be great to include in critical comment of a photograph,
but should probably be ignored in a photograph being evaluated for
artistic merit.

So you have asked a tough question for which there is no good answer.
There are photographers who will always look at the work as a
photograph and find it difficult to make the separation. There are
those from the artistic and cultural world who's pomposity will
overwhelm them. I still go for the man in the street when it comes to
judging a work of art. As a work of art that individual does not have
to love the piece, it has to effect him/her in such a way that it
evokes an emotional response. A piece which evokes a high level of
hatred and disgust, might well be the finest piece of art in a group of
competing images.

[Pete A]

Post by Savageduck

Post by tony cooper
There's some discussion in another thread about who is best qualified
to be a judge of the artistic merit of a photograph. Gallery owners
and museum curators have been suggested.
I wouldn't regard a ...........................<<< Le Brevity Snip >>>>
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

You have posed a multifaceted question here, in which the important
words are "judge the artistic merits of a photograph." Remember,
photography does not always result in art. At times it is quite
industrial with no artistic merit at all. Then good technical
photography and artistic photography are not mutually exclusive.
The first thing to decide in the evaluation of the photograph in
question is; are evaluating the work primarily as a photograph, or as a
work of art.
If the former, then certainly a judge who has an understanding of
theoretical photographic composition, exposure mechanics and technique
would be a good idea.
If the latter, then you should have a judge who has the ability to look
past the photographic qualities of the work and who is able to express
the feelings and emotions the work evokes in him/her.
A stock photograph, be it a studio, or outdoors location image can be a
perfect photograph technically and have absolutely zero artistic merit.
Whereas a poorly exposed and composed shot might evoke all sorts of
very visceral emotions and feelings, from a sense of serenity, to shear
disgust. The work should be able make the judge as him/herself "why
does this image make me feel the way I do when I look at it?"
Then the judge should be an individual who has the ability to add a
good degree of objectivity to a very subjective issue. They should be
able to say that a photograph is a superb example photography or an
artistically powerful image which might, or might not be a technically
very good photograph.
I have a feeling that if you wanted to evaluate a photograph on
artistic merit, you could do no worse than enlisting a panel of 5
passers-by off the street, or even student from an art school to ask
them to describe the feelings and emotions each of the works evokes in
them. A sampling of those feelings/emotions such as, happiness,
sadness, a sense of calm, disturbing, a sense of discomfort, love,
hatred, serenity, contentment, foreboding, personal memories could be
listed on a score sheet with a value of 1 to 10 for each, and a write
in section for the judge to be able to qualify his/her overall
impression of the image.
As far as having photographers judge artistic merits, he/she may well
have the ability to separate the two issues of photographic excellence
and artistic merit, but they are going to bring their prejudices to the
table.
I would give you Tony the photographer, asked to judge the artistic
merits of a series of photographs. This might be a good choice, but
Tony as photographer does not particularly favor landscapes, but finds
himself drawn strongly to images of urban decay and character shots
from the seamier side of life. His favored style of photography might
include tighter crops and straightened vertical lines and horizons. All
of these might be great to include in critical comment of a photograph,
but should probably be ignored in a photograph being evaluated for
artistic merit.
So you have asked a tough question for which there is no good answer.
There are photographers who will always look at the work as a
photograph and find it difficult to make the separation. There are
those from the artistic and cultural world who's pomposity will
overwhelm them. I still go for the man in the street when it comes to
judging a work of art. As a work of art that individual does not have
to love the piece, it has to effect him/her in such a way that it
evokes an emotional response. A piece which evokes a high level of
hatred and disgust, might well be the finest piece of art in a group of
competing images.

Profound words! The main art form that moves my emotions is music.
Where did the music I like originate? The streets, of course! Not from
the feedback of music critics in their comfortable, sterile,
emotionless surroundings and lifestyle. Some of the finest jazz
musicians cannot read a single note of music, neither can I, but we can
improvise, which is something a traditionally trained musician is
unable to learn because "rules" have destroyed their ability to create
unique art.

The most entertaining jazz cannot be written down in any notation yet
devised. Even MIDI equipment struggles to get it bang-on perfect with
its so-called millisecond timing (totally incompatible with PC
architecture). But MIDI and CD recordings defeat the object of jazz -
jazz is supposed to be different each time you hear it, duh! If only I
had the medium to the same with my photography...

[PeterN]

On 8/27/2011 10:08 PM, Pete A wrote:


<snip>

Profound words! The main art form that moves my emotions is music. Where
did the music I like originate? The streets, of course! Not from the
feedback of music critics in their comfortable, sterile, emotionless
surroundings and lifestyle. Some of the finest jazz musicians cannot
read a single note of music, neither can I, but we can improvise, which
is something a traditionally trained musician is unable to learn because
"rules" have destroyed their ability to create unique art.

Yup! A lot of great music originated n the streets. IIRC Some classical
orchestra music, now considered great was originally panned by the critics.

The most entertaining jazz cannot be written down in any notation yet
devised. Even MIDI equipment struggles to get it bang-on perfect with
its so-called millisecond timing (totally incompatible with PC
architecture). But MIDI and CD recordings defeat the object of jazz -
jazz is supposed to be different each time you hear it, duh! If only I
had the medium to the same with my photography...

Can't agree. I guess that depends on the individual. I know quite a few
classically trained musicians who love nothing more than to jam it up in
an improv session. Many times top professional orchestras will tune up
by jamming. Yes there are snatches of the music, but rarely as
originally written.

[Irwell]

Post by PeterN
Yup! A lot of great music originated n the streets. IIRC Some classical
orchestra music, now considered great was originally panned by the critics.

That is because great symphonies are works that need more than
one hearing to get the true essence of them.

[PeterN]

Post by Irwell

Post by PeterN
Yup! A lot of great music originated n the streets. IIRC Some classical
orchestra music, now considered great was originally panned by the critics.

That is because great symphonies are works that need more than
one hearing to get the true essence of them.

Not always. While I am not a great fan of his music,AFAIK Ives has
always been accepted by the critics. Think also Bernstein, Williams,
Mahler, Verdi and many others.
One can easily say that Williams is a street musician in that he writes
a lot of situation music. Many of his movie themes stand a pieces that
stand on their own, as telling a story.

[PeterN]

Post by Savageduck

Post by tony cooper
There's some discussion in another thread about who is best qualified
to be a judge of the artistic merit of a photograph. Gallery owners
and museum curators have been suggested.
I wouldn't regard a ...........................<<< Le Brevity Snip >>>>
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

You have posed a multifaceted question here, in which the important
words are "judge the artistic merits of a photograph." Remember,
photography does not always result in art. At times it is quite
industrial with no artistic merit at all. Then good technical
photography and artistic photography are not mutually exclusive.
The first thing to decide in the evaluation of the photograph in
question is; are evaluating the work primarily as a photograph, or as a
work of art.
If the former, then certainly a judge who has an understanding of
theoretical photographic composition, exposure mechanics and technique
would be a good idea.
If the latter, then you should have a judge who has the ability to look
past the photographic qualities of the work and who is able to express
the feelings and emotions the work evokes in him/her.
A stock photograph, be it a studio, or outdoors location image can be a
perfect photograph technically and have absolutely zero artistic merit.
Whereas a poorly exposed and composed shot might evoke all sorts of very
visceral emotions and feelings, from a sense of serenity, to shear
disgust. The work should be able make the judge as him/herself "why does
this image make me feel the way I do when I look at it?"
Then the judge should be an individual who has the ability to add a good
degree of objectivity to a very subjective issue. They should be able to
say that a photograph is a superb example photography or an artistically
powerful image which might, or might not be a technically very good
photograph.
I have a feeling that if you wanted to evaluate a photograph on artistic
merit, you could do no worse than enlisting a panel of 5 passers-by off
the street, or even student from an art school to ask them to describe
the feelings and emotions each of the works evokes in them. A sampling
of those feelings/emotions such as, happiness, sadness, a sense of calm,
disturbing, a sense of discomfort, love, hatred, serenity, contentment,
foreboding, personal memories could be listed on a score sheet with a
value of 1 to 10 for each, and a write in section for the judge to be
able to qualify his/her overall impression of the image.
As far as having photographers judge artistic merits, he/she may well
have the ability to separate the two issues of photographic excellence
and artistic merit, but they are going to bring their prejudices to the
table.
I would give you Tony the photographer, asked to judge the artistic
merits of a series of photographs. This might be a good choice, but Tony
as photographer does not particularly favor landscapes, but finds
himself drawn strongly to images of urban decay and character shots from
the seamier side of life. His favored style of photography might include
tighter crops and straightened vertical lines and horizons. All of these
might be great to include in critical comment of a photograph, but
should probably be ignored in a photograph being evaluated for artistic
merit.
So you have asked a tough question for which there is no good answer.
There are photographers who will always look at the work as a photograph
and find it difficult to make the separation. There are those from the
artistic and cultural world who's pomposity will overwhelm them. I still
go for the man in the street when it comes to judging a work of art. As
a work of art that individual does not have to love the piece, it has to
effect him/her in such a way that it evokes an emotional response. A
piece which evokes a high level of hatred and disgust, might well be the
finest piece of art in a group of competing images.

You have touched on one of the criteria - Does it provoke emotion. Yet
There are thousands of square feet of museum wall space devoted to
minimalist works, that are hard for me to comprehend as art. An art
history buff will tell us that these were intended as a protest against
the so called disciplined art that Peter A has mentioned.
IMHO there is a divergence between minimalist photography and minimalist
paintings.

compare:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=minimalist+art&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS335US335&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_ABfTrr8PKLX0QGDsP2fAQ&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=1344&bih=688>

with the photographic images at:

<http://www.noupe.com/photography/minimalist-art-photography.html>

[Savageduck]

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by tony cooper
There's some discussion in another thread about who is best qualified
to be a judge of the artistic merit of a photograph. Gallery owners
and museum curators have been suggested.
I wouldn't regard a ...........................<<< Le Brevity Snip >>>>
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

You have posed a multifaceted question here, in which the important
words are "judge the artistic merits of a photograph." Remember,
photography does not always result in art. At times it is quite
industrial with no artistic merit at all. Then good technical
photography and artistic photography are not mutually exclusive.
The first thing to decide in the evaluation of the photograph in
question is; are evaluating the work primarily as a photograph, or as a
work of art.
If the former, then certainly a judge who has an understanding of
theoretical photographic composition, exposure mechanics and technique
would be a good idea.
If the latter, then you should have a judge who has the ability to look
past the photographic qualities of the work and who is able to express
the feelings and emotions the work evokes in him/her.
A stock photograph, be it a studio, or outdoors location image can be a
perfect photograph technically and have absolutely zero artistic merit.
Whereas a poorly exposed and composed shot might evoke all sorts of very
visceral emotions and feelings, from a sense of serenity, to shear
disgust. The work should be able make the judge as him/herself "why does
this image make me feel the way I do when I look at it?"
Then the judge should be an individual who has the ability to add a good
degree of objectivity to a very subjective issue. They should be able to
say that a photograph is a superb example photography or an artistically
powerful image which might, or might not be a technically very good
photograph.
I have a feeling that if you wanted to evaluate a photograph on artistic
merit, you could do no worse than enlisting a panel of 5 passers-by off
the street, or even student from an art school to ask them to describe
the feelings and emotions each of the works evokes in them. A sampling
of those feelings/emotions such as, happiness, sadness, a sense of calm,
disturbing, a sense of discomfort, love, hatred, serenity, contentment,
foreboding, personal memories could be listed on a score sheet with a
value of 1 to 10 for each, and a write in section for the judge to be
able to qualify his/her overall impression of the image.
As far as having photographers judge artistic merits, he/she may well
have the ability to separate the two issues of photographic excellence
and artistic merit, but they are going to bring their prejudices to the
table.
I would give you Tony the photographer, asked to judge the artistic
merits of a series of photographs. This might be a good choice, but Tony
as photographer does not particularly favor landscapes, but finds
himself drawn strongly to images of urban decay and character shots from
the seamier side of life. His favored style of photography might include
tighter crops and straightened vertical lines and horizons. All of these
might be great to include in critical comment of a photograph, but
should probably be ignored in a photograph being evaluated for artistic
merit.
So you have asked a tough question for which there is no good answer.
There are photographers who will always look at the work as a photograph
and find it difficult to make the separation. There are those from the
artistic and cultural world who's pomposity will overwhelm them. I still
go for the man in the street when it comes to judging a work of art. As
a work of art that individual does not have to love the piece, it has to
effect him/her in such a way that it evokes an emotional response. A
piece which evokes a high level of hatred and disgust, might well be the
finest piece of art in a group of competing images.

You have touched on one of the criteria - Does it provoke emotion. Yet
There are thousands of square feet of museum wall space devoted to
minimalist works, that are hard for me to comprehend as art. An art
history buff will tell us that these were intended as a protest against
the so called disciplined art that Peter A has mentioned.
IMHO there is a divergence between minimalist photography and
minimalist paintings.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=minimalist+art&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS335US335&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_ABfTrr8PKLX0QGDsP2fAQ&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=1344&bih=688>

with

Post by PeterN
<http://www.noupe.com/photography/minimalist-art-photography.html>

I have to say that given the first group of works, while there were a
few which I could appreciate for what they were, most did very little
for me

The photographs of the other hand each evoke a mood, a feeling, a sense
of serenity, place, event, untold story, and dare I say it, emotion.
They all succeed as works of art, minimalist, or other, regardless of
medium.

[PeterN]

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by tony cooper
There's some discussion in another thread about who is best qualified
to be a judge of the artistic merit of a photograph. Gallery owners
and museum curators have been suggested.
I wouldn't regard a ...........................<<< Le Brevity Snip >>>>
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

You have posed a multifaceted question here, in which the important
words are "judge the artistic merits of a photograph." Remember,
photography does not always result in art. At times it is quite
industrial with no artistic merit at all. Then good technical
photography and artistic photography are not mutually exclusive.
The first thing to decide in the evaluation of the photograph in
question is; are evaluating the work primarily as a photograph, or as a
work of art.
If the former, then certainly a judge who has an understanding of
theoretical photographic composition, exposure mechanics and technique
would be a good idea.
If the latter, then you should have a judge who has the ability to look
past the photographic qualities of the work and who is able to express
the feelings and emotions the work evokes in him/her.
A stock photograph, be it a studio, or outdoors location image can be a
perfect photograph technically and have absolutely zero artistic merit.
Whereas a poorly exposed and composed shot might evoke all sorts of very
visceral emotions and feelings, from a sense of serenity, to shear
disgust. The work should be able make the judge as him/herself "why does
this image make me feel the way I do when I look at it?"
Then the judge should be an individual who has the ability to add a good
degree of objectivity to a very subjective issue. They should be able to
say that a photograph is a superb example photography or an artistically
powerful image which might, or might not be a technically very good
photograph.
I have a feeling that if you wanted to evaluate a photograph on artistic
merit, you could do no worse than enlisting a panel of 5 passers-by off
the street, or even student from an art school to ask them to describe
the feelings and emotions each of the works evokes in them. A sampling
of those feelings/emotions such as, happiness, sadness, a sense of calm,
disturbing, a sense of discomfort, love, hatred, serenity, contentment,
foreboding, personal memories could be listed on a score sheet with a
value of 1 to 10 for each, and a write in section for the judge to be
able to qualify his/her overall impression of the image.
As far as having photographers judge artistic merits, he/she may well
have the ability to separate the two issues of photographic excellence
and artistic merit, but they are going to bring their prejudices to the
table.
I would give you Tony the photographer, asked to judge the artistic
merits of a series of photographs. This might be a good choice, but Tony
as photographer does not particularly favor landscapes, but finds
himself drawn strongly to images of urban decay and character shots from
the seamier side of life. His favored style of photography might include
tighter crops and straightened vertical lines and horizons. All of these
might be great to include in critical comment of a photograph, but
should probably be ignored in a photograph being evaluated for artistic
merit.
So you have asked a tough question for which there is no good answer.
There are photographers who will always look at the work as a photograph
and find it difficult to make the separation. There are those from the
artistic and cultural world who's pomposity will overwhelm them. I still
go for the man in the street when it comes to judging a work of art. As
a work of art that individual does not have to love the piece, it has to
effect him/her in such a way that it evokes an emotional response. A
piece which evokes a high level of hatred and disgust, might well be the
finest piece of art in a group of competing images.

You have touched on one of the criteria - Does it provoke emotion. Yet
There are thousands of square feet of museum wall space devoted to
minimalist works, that are hard for me to comprehend as art. An art
history buff will tell us that these were intended as a protest
against the so called disciplined art that Peter A has mentioned.
IMHO there is a divergence between minimalist photography and
minimalist paintings.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=minimalist+art&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS335US335&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_ABfTrr8PKLX0QGDsP2fAQ&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=1344&bih=688>

with

Post by PeterN
<http://www.noupe.com/photography/minimalist-art-photography.html>

I have to say that given the first group of works, while there were a
few which I could appreciate for what they were, most did very little
for me

Now why would curators devote space to these works. What is their
artistic importance. I see few of them that I would even take a second
glance at.

Post by Savageduck
The photographs of the other hand each evoke a mood, a feeling, a sense
of serenity, place, event, untold story, and dare I say it, emotion.

Which was my point in posting the comparison.

Post by Savageduck
They all succeed as works of art, minimalist, or other, regardless of
medium.

Do you include the non=photographic images? If so, see my comment above.
Of course, It may be me. I do not consider myself to be an ultimate
authority on anything artistic.

Several years ago we went to the MASS MoCA, in North Adams MA. As its
name implies, the museum is devoted to contemporary art and space is
liberally given to upcoming artists. A lot of the work takes getting
used to, but for the most part I can appreciate the words as art. OTOH
my wife, who has different tastes saw very little that she liked. Some
friends of ours, found themselves equally split. His wife agreed with my
wife, while he and I agreed.

[tony cooper]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:39:07 -0400, PeterN

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN
<http://www.google.com/search?q=minimalist+art&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS335US335&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_ABfTrr8PKLX0QGDsP2fAQ&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=1344&bih=688>

I have to say that given the first group of works, while there were a
few which I could appreciate for what they were, most did very little
for me

Now why would curators devote space to these works. What is their
artistic importance. I see few of them that I would even take a second
glance at.

Hmmm. There are several in this group that I admire. I recognize
some as ones I've seen at MoMA, including the one third from the left
on page 7 by Piet Mondrian.

After a few hours at MoMA, one comes to the conclusion that there are
many pieces there that wouldn't make it to the wall in my garage, but
are also some that I would like to own. I couldn't begin to explain
why a particular piece would be hung in the garage and another hung in
the living room. There's a visceral reaction to some that can't be
explained.

I don't own any works of this type. The art in my house is mostly
water colors, ink sketches, and ink sketches that have been colored in
with water colors or pastel chalk.

There's a ink sketch colored in with water colors on the wall of our
living room that was my Christmas gift to my wife the year before we
were married. If there was a fire, that's one of the first things
we'd grab to save.

Still, I have an appreciation for "modern art" and minimalist art.

Sometime, you should try creating a minimalist piece with any media,
including photographically. It's much more difficult than it seems to
create one you think is worth a nail in the wall.

[PeterN]

Post by tony cooper
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:39:07 -0400, PeterN

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN
<http://www.google.com/search?q=minimalist+art&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS335US335&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_ABfTrr8PKLX0QGDsP2fAQ&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=1344&bih=688>

I have to say that given the first group of works, while there were a
few which I could appreciate for what they were, most did very little
for me

Now why would curators devote space to these works. What is their
artistic importance. I see few of them that I would even take a second
glance at.

Hmmm. There are several in this group that I admire. I recognize
some as ones I've seen at MoMA, including the one third from the left
on page 7 by Piet Mondrian.
After a few hours at MoMA, one comes to the conclusion that there are
many pieces there that wouldn't make it to the wall in my garage, but
are also some that I would like to own. I couldn't begin to explain
why a particular piece would be hung in the garage and another hung in
the living room. There's a visceral reaction to some that can't be
explained.
I don't own any works of this type. The art in my house is mostly
water colors, ink sketches, and ink sketches that have been colored in
with water colors or pastel chalk.
There's a ink sketch colored in with water colors on the wall of our
living room that was my Christmas gift to my wife the year before we
were married. If there was a fire, that's one of the first things
we'd grab to save.
Still, I have an appreciation for "modern art" and minimalist art.

For me modern, but not all modern.
The only gift ties I wear regularly are Escher ties.

Post by tony cooper
Sometime, you should try creating a minimalist piece with any media,
including photographically. It's much more difficult than it seems to
create one you think is worth a nail in the wall.

Agreed, especially in monochrome.

[Savageduck]

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by tony cooper
There's some discussion in another thread about who is best qualified
to be a judge of the artistic merit of a photograph. Gallery owners
and museum curators have been suggested.
I wouldn't regard a ...........................<<< Le Brevity Snip >>>>
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?

You have posed a multifaceted question here, in which the important
words are "judge the artistic merits of a photograph." Remember,
photography does not always result in art. At times it is quite
industrial with no artistic merit at all. Then good technical
photography and artistic photography are not mutually exclusive.
The first thing to decide in the evaluation of the photograph in
question is; are evaluating the work primarily as a photograph, or as a
work of art.
If the former, then certainly a judge who has an understanding of
theoretical photographic composition, exposure mechanics and technique
would be a good idea.
If the latter, then you should have a judge who has the ability to look
past the photographic qualities of the work and who is able to express
the feelings and emotions the work evokes in him/her.
A stock photograph, be it a studio, or outdoors location image can be a
perfect photograph technically and have absolutely zero artistic merit.
Whereas a poorly exposed and composed shot might evoke all sorts of very
visceral emotions and feelings, from a sense of serenity, to shear
disgust. The work should be able make the judge as him/herself "why does
this image make me feel the way I do when I look at it?"
Then the judge should be an individual who has the ability to add a good
degree of objectivity to a very subjective issue. They should be able to
say that a photograph is a superb example photography or an artistically
powerful image which might, or might not be a technically very good
photograph.
I have a feeling that if you wanted to evaluate a photograph on artistic
merit, you could do no worse than enlisting a panel of 5 passers-by off
the street, or even student from an art school to ask them to describe
the feelings and emotions each of the works evokes in them. A sampling
of those feelings/emotions such as, happiness, sadness, a sense of calm,
disturbing, a sense of discomfort, love, hatred, serenity, contentment,
foreboding, personal memories could be listed on a score sheet with a
value of 1 to 10 for each, and a write in section for the judge to be
able to qualify his/her overall impression of the image.
As far as having photographers judge artistic merits, he/she may well
have the ability to separate the two issues of photographic excellence
and artistic merit, but they are going to bring their prejudices to the
table.
I would give you Tony the photographer, asked to judge the artistic
merits of a series of photographs. This might be a good choice, but Tony
as photographer does not particularly favor landscapes, but finds
himself drawn strongly to images of urban decay and character shots from
the seamier side of life. His favored style of photography might include
tighter crops and straightened vertical lines and horizons. All of these
might be great to include in critical comment of a photograph, but
should probably be ignored in a photograph being evaluated for artistic
merit.
So you have asked a tough question for which there is no good answer.
There are photographers who will always look at the work as a photograph
and find it difficult to make the separation. There are those from the
artistic and cultural world who's pomposity will overwhelm them. I still
go for the man in the street when it comes to judging a work of art. As
a work of art that individual does not have to love the piece, it has to
effect him/her in such a way that it evokes an emotional response. A
piece which evokes a high level of hatred and disgust, might well be the
finest piece of art in a group of competing images.

You have touched on one of the criteria - Does it provoke emotion. Yet
There are thousands of square feet of museum wall space devoted to
minimalist works, that are hard for me to comprehend as art. An art
history buff will tell us that these were intended as a protest
against the so called disciplined art that Peter A has mentioned.
IMHO there is a divergence between minimalist photography and
minimalist paintings.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=minimalist+art&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS335US335&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_ABfTrr8PKLX0QGDsP2fAQ&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=1344&bih=688>

with

the

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN
<http://www.noupe.com/photography/minimalist-art-photography.html>

I have to say that given the first group of works, while there were a
few which I could appreciate for what they were, most did very little
for me

Now why would curators devote space to these works. What is their
artistic importance. I see few of them that I would even take a second
glance at.

I think that an art critic when faced with an artist who's work
minimalist or otherwise differs from convention gives credit to the
work as a unique expression. Beyond that other elements have to be
taken into account regarding how each individual piece might be seen as
art, or just a drafting exercise.
I can also appreciate the daring initial explorations into a particular
style, but remain less impressed with stuff derived from the original
concept.
For example, one of those images appeared "Rothkoesque" but I got
little from it as it was presented, when compared with an original
Rothko I saw in the the flesh at the Munson, Williams, Proctor
Institute in Utica, NY. Having said that many of those images lose
something as photographs, just as the Rothko is nothing special as a
photograph, but is compelling as a work of art when viewed on a wall.
< Loading Image... >

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck
The photographs of the other hand each evoke a mood, a feeling, a sense
of serenity, place, event, untold story, and dare I say it, emotion.

Which was my point in posting the comparison.

Post by Savageduck
They all succeed as works of art, minimalist, or other, regardless of
medium.

Do you include the non=photographic images? If so, see my comment
above. Of course, It may be me. I do not consider myself to be an
ultimate authority on anything artistic.

The above remark was referring to the photographs. However there were
one or two of the pieces in the first group, but not many, to which the
comment would apply.

Post by PeterN
Several years ago we went to the MASS MoCA, in North Adams MA. As its
name implies, the museum is devoted to contemporary art and space is
liberally given to upcoming artists. A lot of the work takes getting
used to, but for the most part I can appreciate the words as art. OTOH
my wife, who has different tastes saw very little that she liked. Some
friends of ours, found themselves equally split. His wife agreed with
my wife, while he and I agreed.

My exposure to, appreciation and understanding of art took a major leap
forward when my dating circle expanded to include some art students. I
have been able to maintain an objective interest ever since. Otherwise
I might just have been one of those old cops unable to appreciate and
evaluate the esthetic worth of an image.

[PeterN]

Post by Savageduck
My exposure to, appreciation and understanding of art took a major leap
forward when my dating circle expanded to include some art students. I
have been able to maintain an objective interest ever since. Otherwise I
might just have been one of those old cops unable to appreciate and
evaluate the esthetic worth of an image.

Old cops never die. they just lose their ability to misjudge art. ;-)

[Pete A]

Post by PeterN
[...]
<http://www.noupe.com/photography/minimalist-art-photography.html>

Ignoring the artistic merit or otherwise of those images, many of them
demonstrate why curators of art often despise photography:
over-sharpening, pincushion and barrel distortion, colour banding,
incorrect exposure, lens vignetting, noise, lack of understanding of
the nature of light, and sloppy editing.

One image in that set looks like it was created for a scene in "South
Park", but abandoned well before it was finished.

[PeterN]

Post by Pete A

Post by PeterN
[...]
<http://www.noupe.com/photography/minimalist-art-photography.html>

Ignoring the artistic merit or otherwise of those images, many of them
over-sharpening, pincushion and barrel distortion, colour banding,
incorrect exposure, lens vignetting, noise, lack of understanding of the
nature of light, and sloppy editing.
One image in that set looks like it was created for a scene in "South
Park", but abandoned well before it was finished.

Ah! You seem to be bringing up the old question:
Is photography an art, or a craft.

I think the test is does the image portray what the maker wanted, or are
those distortions accidental. None of the images under discussion were
intended to be catalog shots. They were intended to convey emotion. You
and I have had this same discussion in a different thread, when I
commented on your photos. the difference in our POVs is healthy and
neither of us is right or wrong. I am an abstractionist, and you are a
photo realist.

I have deliberately added distortion to create art. One example of which
is in the SI.

<http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/136707853>

A different example that will go into the dawn to dusk SI.

[Pete A]

Post by PeterN

Post by Pete A

Post by PeterN
[...]
<http://www.noupe.com/photography/minimalist-art-photography.html>

Ignoring the artistic merit or otherwise of those images, many of them
over-sharpening, pincushion and barrel distortion, colour banding,
incorrect exposure, lens vignetting, noise, lack of understanding of the
nature of light, and sloppy editing.
One image in that set looks like it was created for a scene in "South
Park", but abandoned well before it was finished.

Is photography an art, or a craft.
I think the test is does the image portray what the maker wanted, or
are those distortions accidental. None of the images under discussion
were intended to be catalog shots. They were intended to convey
emotion. You and I have had this same discussion in a different thread,
when I commented on your photos. the difference in our POVs is healthy
and neither of us is right or wrong. I am an abstractionist, and you
are a photo realist.

Each beholder sees different things; long may it remain that there are
no right answers.

As to the question "Is photography an art or a craft?" I think the
question voids itself with the word "or". Photography can be excellent
without art, but art without craft doesn't get very far unless one has
celebrity status in abundance.

I've changed my opinion on this question after reading the words of a
media mogul recently trying to hold onto his reputation. He was
probably right in saying that the purpose of all media is only to
entertain; accuracy is very low on the list of things that make
something successful.

As to accidental distortions - I haven't yet seen an oil or water
colour painting with accidental barrel or pincushion distortion. That
domain belongs to lens designers and the users who choose their output
and fail to correct for it :)

Post by PeterN
I have deliberately added distortion to create art. One example of
which is in the SI.
<http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/136707853>
A different example that will go into the dawn to dusk SI.

I didn't see any distortion because there is no real-world object for
reference such as a brick wall or pavement. It's a superb work of art
and is displayed on the best Web page for it - black.

[PeterN]

Post by Pete A

Post by PeterN

Post by Pete A

Post by PeterN
[...]
<http://www.noupe.com/photography/minimalist-art-photography.html>

Ignoring the artistic merit or otherwise of those images, many of them
over-sharpening, pincushion and barrel distortion, colour banding,
incorrect exposure, lens vignetting, noise, lack of understanding of the
nature of light, and sloppy editing.
One image in that set looks like it was created for a scene in "South
Park", but abandoned well before it was finished.

Is photography an art, or a craft.
I think the test is does the image portray what the maker wanted, or
are those distortions accidental. None of the images under discussion
were intended to be catalog shots. They were intended to convey
emotion. You and I have had this same discussion in a different
thread, when I commented on your photos. the difference in our POVs is
healthy and neither of us is right or wrong. I am an abstractionist,
and you are a photo realist.

Each beholder sees different things; long may it remain that there are
no right answers.
As to the question "Is photography an art or a craft?" I think the
question voids itself with the word "or". Photography can be excellent
without art, but art without craft doesn't get very far unless one has
celebrity status in abundance.
I've changed my opinion on this question after reading the words of a
media mogul recently trying to hold onto his reputation. He was probably
right in saying that the purpose of all media is only to entertain;
accuracy is very low on the list of things that make something successful.
As to accidental distortions - I haven't yet seen an oil or water colour
painting with accidental barrel or pincushion distortion. That domain
belongs to lens designers and the users who choose their output and fail
to correct for it :)

Post by PeterN
I have deliberately added distortion to create art. One example of
which is in the SI.
<http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/136707853>
A different example that will go into the dawn to dusk SI.

I didn't see any distortion because there is no real-world object for
reference such as a brick wall or pavement. It's a superb work of art
and is displayed on the best Web page for it - black.

Thanks.
It is a night shot of a roller coaster, to which I applied the spherize
and polar coordinates filters.

[mmyvusenet]

"tony cooper" escribió en el mensaje de

Post by tony cooper
There's some discussion in another thread about who is best qualified
to be a judge of the artistic merit of a photograph. Gallery owners
and museum curators have been suggested.
I wouldn't regard a gallery owner as a good judge of artistic merit.
A gallery is a store that sells artistic creations. The successful
gallery owner is a person who is good at judging art that will sell.
The gallery owner isn't interested in the artistic merit of anything
that doesn't have sales potential.
"Sales potential" seems to be based on 1) name recognition of the
person who created the piece, and 2) appeal to Everyman.
Name recognition depends on earlier accomplishment by the
photographer. If the photographer has won awards or been published in
well-known and respected print media, the gallery can capitalize on
that.
The appeal factor in photographs is a bit more limited in photographs
than it is in art created in other media. There's a range of what can
be done with a photographic representation, but the range is much more
narrow than what can be done in other media. Photographs are limited
by being one dimensional (although the appearance of additional
dimensional aspects can be achieved) where other media are not.
Basically, though, photographs with sales potential appeal to a
cross-section (Everyman) of the public where art employing other media
can have appeal to buyers with very special interest areas.
I'm not sure I'm expressing this appeal factor very well, but think of
a visit to MoMA (Museum of Modern Art, NYC) and then a visit to a
museum or gallery where only photographs are displayed. In MoMA, the
average visitor (Everyman) will find some creations appealing and some
creations without any appeal at all. At the photographic exhibit, the
same might be true but Everyman will find a much higher percentage of
the items appealing or acceptable as art.
The museum curator is not, in my opinion, much more qualified to judge
the artistic merit of a photograph. More than gallery owner, but
still lacking. The museum curator is interested in adding items by
established artists (and I include photographers as artists) with name
recognition and prior acceptance as hangable artists. They look to
hang the works of winners of juried competitions and works that have
had prior publication success. They are not interested in discovering
the works of unknown artists based simply on the artistic merit of the
work. They look first to who did it rather than how good it was done.
Before someone else brings it up, there are some galleries and some
museums that offer the work of unknowns based on the merit of the
work, but they are exceptions and usually very small-scale.
So who are the best qualified people to judge the artistic merits of a
photograph? Who should be on the panel to judge at a juried
competition?
What's your opinion?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In my opinion, people living in the area should be on the panel, because
more easily understand the difficulties of the moment.

--
MMYV
http://www.mmyv.com