I think that's an excellent idea... I think a 'sneak' photo should be introduced into EACH challenge... maybe that could be another 'game' for the site.. see if you can identify the professional photo in this challenge... hmmm... interesting :)If nothing else, it would make the photographers feel great if their photo got selected as the professional shot incorrectly :)
Hehehe, as long as the professional shot doesn't continuously get first place I'm ok with this. In fact, I think this would be a really good and interesting addition to the site.
I know - I was kidding :-) I guess DQ wouldn''t work because we then couldn''t see the photo anymore. I would actually be interested to be able to view this photo afterwards with the comments and rating distribution just like any other photo. It just shouldn''t be taken into account for the placing.
Maybe drew and langdon would create a fake user account for the professional?
Originally posted by hokie: No, the pro photo would be DQ''ed or not eliegible..whatever the guys code in to happen.
Such an excellent idea.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/5/2002 5:17:37 PM.
Originally posted by hokie: No, the pro photo would be DQ'ed or not eliegible..whatever the guys code in to happen.
I assumed the check for an illegal photo was a manual process. If that's the case it would be even MORE interesting if they put up a touched-up photo in the contest and see how many 1s and 2s it gets! :)
I actually had/have a theory that I discussed at length with an art professor of mine regarding the point at which artists stop relying on "artistic talent" (undeniably very subjective, I know) and get to the point where what they create is art simply because it has their name attached to it. (The discussion started after going to a Joseph Beuys exhibition -- that man had some very strange ideas....)
I'm not very familiar with Srebneski's work -- but after looking at that photo, I wonder if this theory applies.
Originally posted by Patella: I actually had/have a theory that I discussed at length with an art professor of mine regarding the point at which artists stop relying on "artistic talent" (undeniably very subjective, I know) and get to the point where what they create is art simply because it has their name attached to it. (The discussion started after going to a Joseph Beuys exhibition -- that man had some very strange ideas....)
I''m not very familiar with Srebneski''s work -- but after looking at that photo, I wonder if this theory applies.
You see..that is the eternal question.
What is art? Is it a shot in focus, is a recognizable form? Is it pure emotion, shape or implied motion?
What I think must be the most liberating thing for any artist is that once..as an artist..you get beyond the acceptance factor..you can move to the real point of art..personal expression.
Many artists may never get that liberty..they are always searching for that audience that may never materialize.
Try this artist out for size..one of the greatest artist of his time and one of the most scandalized of his time.
He would only create art for patrons at the end of his career because he felt the public was too hung up on victorian ideals at the time and it constrained him.
He was right.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/5/2002 6:26:39 PM.
Mostly had a problem with Beuys once I learned he bought a bunch of chalkboard erasers, used a rubber stamp to stamp his name and logo on them, and then sold them as art. (Regardless of his reasoning, I still think that's lame.)
To me, there's a difference between vision/breaking away from the norms and simply being lazy.
Like I said, I've only seen the one Srebneski. Maybe if I saw more of his work I'd have a different interpretation. I feel the same way about some of Ansel Adams stuff. "What's the big deal that everybody is so in love with his work." But then I see others and think, "Ohhhhh yeah, that's the stuff alright."
