# Olive Cotton Award: $20k Photographic Portrait prize awarded to an image that isn't a photograph



## DanOstergren (Jul 25, 2017)

Ok, what? I guess the definition of a photographic "portrait" is changing, and apparently no longer actually has to include a person in it or be an actual photograph. No shade to the winner because she was simply an entrant, but to award this art piece $20,000 in a photographic portrait competition is absolutely absurd (to clarify, the image in the header is NOT the winning "portrait"; scroll down a bit on the article to see the piece that won the competition). Entrants had to pay a lot of money to enter this competition (competition fee, printing, framing, shipping), and this just seems like a complete slap in the face. I'm certainly not questioning the images merits as a unique art piece, but is it a photographic portrait? In my opinion, NO it is not, and does not deserve to win a $20,000 award in a photographic portrait competition. Would you even consider the winner to be the actual artist who created the piece, or should her grandmother be the one given credit for it's creation?

See here: 'They feel a bit cheated': Prize-winning portrait provokes debate among photographers


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 25, 2017)

Shouldn't the grandmother is awarded the prize as it was the grandmother's art.

That aside, while that could be construed as a self-portrait, there was never an intent to create a portrait. There is so much wrong with the the winning piece that one doesn't know where to start.  If the judge(s) don't care to follow, or find it important to makeup their own rules ... when why even have rules ...


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 25, 2017)

I would speculate that participation in the contest will fade away.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 25, 2017)

Dan, obviously you don't understand art.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 25, 2017)

rubbish. 
the winner is barely even a co-creator of....whatever that abomination is.


----------



## benhasajeep (Jul 25, 2017)

Yea, I have to agree that the winner was not a portrait.  I can see it as a piece of art.  But not a portrait.  And I also agree that the winner was only a co-creator.

I suspect there will be fewer paid participants in the future.


----------



## dennybeall (Jul 25, 2017)

I can understand this art piece being considered as art submitted by the grandmother BUT IMHO the only way this could have even been allowed in a photographic contest is if the judge was paid off under the table!


----------



## limr (Jul 25, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> rubbish.
> the winner is barely even a co-creator of....whatever that abomination is.



That abomination is called "a waste of film."


----------



## Overread (Jul 26, 2017)

Welcome to the world of high quality high priced art where the money talks more than the art. 
"But for me there's something about getting rid of the camera as an intermediary between the subject and the photographic paper"

Basically they'll say pages of stuff to justify what is basically doodles on a bit of film. They'll find any argument or reasoning. 

Heck in my view its scrawls on a bit of film. At the very best its an abstract drawing on a medium other than paper or canvas. It's most certainly not a photo, nor is it a prize winning photo; nor is the argument behind it worthy of attention. This is either a back-hander or a huge joke on the artistic community and an insult to those who did enter the competition.


I'm all for new ideas and new takes, but something like this is just utterly childish. If the judges were bored with 100001 entries of the "same kind of portrait" then there are surely better ways to encourage and reward creativity and diversity than this. This doesn't encourage new photographers this just insults.


----------



## weepete (Jul 26, 2017)

If you consider that the way we percieve someone is formed not only by what they look like but also their actions and, if you consider a portrait being and impression or a representation of someone I could see how this works. Sure it's stretching the definition a bit and is conceptual but it's not like she won it with a sculpture.

I actually think it's quite good. And ultimatley if you don't like the judging don't enter the contest.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 26, 2017)

shhh it's conceptual art


----------



## Overread (Jul 26, 2017)

Weepete the thing is this isn't even an impression of someone, its random doodles. It has nothing personal to a person what so ever in its creation and is something most children will have done at some point* (although a child would be more artistic and choose not  a blank but an already exposed bit of film to doodle on ). There is nothing about the person in that "portrait". You can't read anything from it about the person or their personality and I would argue that those who say they can are either just making anything up or already know the person and are interpreting it within a context.

You "might" get away if this was another form of art, but this is photography and its not even a photograph. The film isn't exposed its just been used as a drawing pad. 

*Which is another angle; skill. There is no skill in this. The doodles don't link up to form a greater display, they are not carefully placed to evoke a meaning or understanding. They are just random squiggles. Anyone of us could produce a whole 36 identical works along similar lines from a single roll of film. It would take all of 5 minutes to produce - and if anything produced on a roll of film could even be said to contain linkage one "frame" to the next. To many people its not just the creativity but the display of skill that's important so to me this is a double insult. It isn't photography; its not a portrait; its not creative nor is it skilled.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 26, 2017)

weepete said:


> If you consider that the way we percieve someone is formed not only by what they look like but also their actions and, if you consider a portrait being and impression or a representation of someone I could see how this works. Sure it's stretching the definition a bit and is conceptual but it's not like she won it with a sculpture.
> 
> I actually think it's quite good. And ultimatley if you don't like the judging don't enter the contest.


How you perceive it and whether you like it or not has nothing to do with the fact that it isn't a photograph... It really comes down to the fact that it isn't a photo, it's scribbles and spit. The contest was for _photographic portraits_. 

I find it painfully ironic that you're literally on a photography forum telling us not to enter photo competitions if we don't want to be beat by entries that aren't photographs.


----------



## petrochemist (Jul 26, 2017)

I think all the entrants should be demanding their entrance fees back. Though this would still leave them significantly out of pocket, as printing framing etc is generally going to be a bigger cost. If the judges can't stick to the remit why should they make any money from it!

It isn't a portrait & it isn't a photograph, nor even an image created by the action of light. There is some debate as to if it can really be called art either.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 26, 2017)

the real rub here, in my opinion, is that it was specifically stated as a "portrait" contest. 
now, i realize that definitions of "portrait" might be subjective to some degree, but I challenge *anyone* to explain how that...whatever it is...falls into any photographic category, let alone a portrait one. 
I couldnt even begin to speculate why the judges chose that as the winner. maybe they wanted to invoke some sort of shock value. maybe they werent making enough money from entry fees and thought this sort of scandal would get them a lot of press, bringing attention to them. no press is bad press eh?

if the contest was an "art" contest...i could kinda understand. not agree mind you, but at least somewhat understand. 
is it a photograph? eh.... alternative technique i guess. so, maybe? _*maybe*_? by a thin stretch i suppose one could make the argument. 
is it a portrait? no $%@&#% way. not by any stretch of the imagination. 

but hey. wasnt my contest, wasnt my money, wasnt my decision, and it wasnt by popular vote.....so, congrats....grandma?


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 26, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> I couldnt even begin to speculate why the judges chose that as the winner. maybe they wanted to invoke some sort of shock value. maybe they werent making enough money from entry fees and thought this sort of scandal would get them a lot of press, bringing attention to them. no press is bad press eh?


I believe there was only one judge, and it's a guest judge.


----------



## Overread (Jul 26, 2017)

If you watch the video he's grinning like a Cheshire cat though the whole thing. Pretty sure he knows he's made a mockery of it and is just amazed he's been allowed to get away with it.

It's either marketing (if so its daft because its negative marketing and despite what they say - yes there IS such a thing as bad marketing/exposure); bribery; total incompetence; or someone just trying to give £20K to someone they wanted to give it to


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 26, 2017)

My first thought was that this was a bit of a stretch to say the least.

I did find the process somewhat interesting, and I agree about this being an alternative photo process. I've done lumen prints and those don't use a camera, so I don't think of them as strictly photographs; but an alt. photo process or photographic work could describe them.

To me this would at least be a collaborative effort since the subject (the grandmother) made the markings on the negative then the photographer/artist took it from there. It did say somewhere in the submission info. that an entry could be done by one person, or a duo, or a group. But to me the image doesn't particularly represent the grandmother, it just seems to be random markings more than reflecting her personality.

I noticed it said this was being held by a gallery but the place is actually part of their system of national art museums, etc. The judge has experience as a curator and has worked in that system. I don't think he would have anything to gain by doing anything other than making the choices.

The info. for entering submissions says "The Judge will be looking for excellence in photographic technique, creativity and originality..." - well this is creative... and original, I'll give it that, although I think it's pushing the boundaries of what a portrait is. It also says "The decision of the Judge is final, in both the pre-selection and final judging, and no discussion shall be entered into." So I guess that's clear enough! lol I guess don't enter it if you don't agree to go by that.

In the exhibition catalog (a pdf on the site) there's a discussion by the judge (on pg. 3 titled 'Boom Time', and don't ask me what the title means...) about the decision making process. He talks about 'poses' used for today's selfies, and the procedure of posing chairs used for taking daguerreotypes that created a style of portraits (the ones where the people are grimly staring into the camera, more from trying to sit perfectly still for a long exposure than their lives being all that dreadful!) - about how the tools or procedure can affect the way that portraits have been done. Well, it was interesting reading and the guy has some expertise...

I dunno, I've done submissions to juried exhibits and it's a crap shoot. I look up the jurors, and the gallery info., etc. etc. and I still sometimes end up without a clue as to what ends up getting chosen, and why mine didn't, or why it did! Either way, it just depends on the juror(s), and the gallery/art center, or on how the choices will work displayed together as an exhibit, and seems fairly subjective.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > If you consider that the way we percieve someone is formed not only by what they look like but also their actions and, if you consider a portrait being and impression or a representation of someone I could see how this works. Sure it's stretching the definition a bit and is conceptual but it's not like she won it with a sculpture.
> ...



OMFG...I went to the article and looked at the "portrait" of the old woman...reeeeee-doooon-culous!!!! Wow. Just amazing that such crap would win a "portrait" contest. Seriously effed up stuff. I think it's hard to overstate how stupid and undeserved this "win" was.


----------



## weepete (Jul 27, 2017)

@Overread:

Hmm, I'm gonna have to disagree with you, I do think its a photograph as it has been created on film and then developed. If an impression of someone can be a physical impression or just physical things they've left behind it works as this was a physical impression made by her grandma. The impression of a people on a landscape is something often talked about and encompasses how they changed the stuff that was around them for example.

If you ask one of my mates about his gran, he'll not tell you what she looked like but will tell you she made the best stew. One of his overriding memories is something that's not a likeness and every time he eats a good stew he thinks of his gran. So I could see how a portrait could be interpreted differently.


----------



## Overread (Jul 27, 2017)

Wee try looking at it another way then; without any story of who made it or why or how it came to be would you get any sense of a person from it? Would you think it spoke of a person or was just random doodles. In my view once you have to have an essay with a bit of artwork to justify the artwork then chances are the art itself isn't all that good.

In this case you've a few doodles and spit on a bit of film which apparently was then developed (honestly not quite sure what they did to develop it other than just enlarge it and copy for a print).


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 27, 2017)

Terrible choice.  Not a photograph and not a portrait,  IMO.  If I was an entrant I'd be furious. Having only one judge leaves the contest vulnerable to this type of "look at me" move by the judge and does the contest itself so much more harm than good.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 27, 2017)

When I've done submissions to juried exhibits there's often only one juror, sometimes two, it depends. It's clear in this exhibit's entry submission information that the judge's decision is final, no discussion. I suppose if I'd entered it I may not agree with the choice or like it, but I'd have to accept it. 

I can't say I agree with the choice since it pushes the boundaries of what a portrait is awfully far from portraiture. I can see where people that do portraits might look at it and think - this thing is what won?! The process interests me but that has nothing to do really with the portrait aspect. It does open the door I suppose to possibilities of what could constitute a portrait, and got me wondering if anything similar has ever been done. 

But I don't know if it will have big impact, and the only reason many things even get seen is the way things go viral. And the judge has had death threats apparently - I mean, come on... over this!? If people don't like it then they don't have to go to the exhibit, or make any donations, or find a better way to express themselves than making threats.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 27, 2017)

Am I the only one that took art a lot in school? lol Anyway I wondered, and yes, there have been unconventional portraits done before this. I read about them being described as representative, or symbolic, or conceptual portraits. Found more than I'll share but this one is from 1916 and is not a photo anything, it's a painting, but is it a portrait?
http://www.the-atheneum.org/art/detail.php?ID=154177 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/theater-art/2016/09/01/questions-identity-bowdoin-caOl 

Or this photograph from 1920, is it a portrait? apparently the photographer, who later also did photo montages, thought it was, in representing someone. And it's not just a work by the photographer but by the person who created the subject photographed.
http://www.francesnaumann.com/ELSA/elsa05.html

I noticed there are entries that are inkjet prints, C prints, a couple of Polaroids, and one that's a print on linen, so various techniques were accepted. To me this one isn't a representation of the subject that portrays her personality or life, so in that way I don't find it that effective as a portrait. But I get the idea of it being an alternative photographic technique, and maybe the innovative aspect of it was a deciding factor. I bet there are art teachers who will be discussing this in their classes this fall!


----------



## weepete (Jul 27, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> How you perceive it and whether you like it or not has nothing to do with the fact that it isn't a photograph... It really comes down to the fact that it isn't a photo, it's scribbles and spit. The contest was for _photographic portraits_.
> 
> I find it painfully ironic that you're literally on a photography forum telling us not to enter photo competitions if we don't want to be beat by entries that aren't photographs.



You're right Dan, whither I like it or not has no bearing on anything, however since others were expressing an opinion I thought I'd express mine.

Though as I said to Overread I do think it's a photograph, and I do think you can stretch the meaning of portrait to encompass this work. There are already portaits out there that don't include a face, abstract portaits which are not necessarily a likeness of the person are pretty well established and there are a few studies and excercises of concepts like self portraits without the self. 

It is tenuous and right out there on the edge but it does raise some interesting ideas if you look at it from a specific angle.


----------



## weepete (Jul 27, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> Am I the only one that took art a lot in school?



Nope, I also did it for a while in college. I can't see the links for some reason though, it may just be me but they just redirect to my ISPs search page. Weird.


----------



## weepete (Jul 27, 2017)

Overread said:


> Wee try looking at it another way then; without any story of who made it or why or how it came to be would you get any sense of a person from it? Would you think it spoke of a person or was just random doodles. In my view once you have to have an essay with a bit of artwork to justify the artwork then chances are the art itself isn't all that good.
> 
> In this case you've a few doodles and spit on a bit of film which apparently was then developed (honestly not quite sure what they did to develop it other than just enlarge it and copy for a print).



Ok mate, I appreciate not everyone want's the deeper stuff, lots of people prefer the more straight forward art. Part of the reason why I liked this is it did not take me long to get thinking about what exactly a photographic portrait is and if there is a bit more to it than a physical likeness. 

What it brought to my mind was a bit like going into someones house who has passed away and seeing their belongings but no photographs of themselves, or cave paintings, or and thumb imprint on utilitarian pottery. It brings to mind an echo of a person for me.

Photographically my thoughts quickly go like this: would I consider a shot taken in a camera with a lens cap on and then developed (say as part of a roll) as a photograph...yes. What about if the photo was taken of something but not with a shutter or a modern camera (like a pinhole camera?) ...yup, still a photo. What if it wasn't even a box but just happened to be an exposed film for just enough time through other means but captured a recognisable image then yes...still a photo. Would I consider a negative a photo...no...why?...not been developed yet.

Conclusion: Its not a camera or the content that is a defining factor, but the development of a film. (what about digital??! ok so it's a defining factor but not the single defining factor)


----------



## bribrius (Jul 27, 2017)

Tough one. Apparently the judge was seriously tired of seeing the s.o.s and wants people to be a little more creative entering if they want 20k. Lets see what people put in for entries next year.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 28, 2017)

weepete said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > How you perceive it and whether you like it or not has nothing to do with the fact that it isn't a photograph... It really comes down to the fact that it isn't a photo, it's scribbles and spit. The contest was for _photographic portraits_.
> ...


How is it a photograph if light wasn't ever used to imprint an image?


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 28, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> Am I the only one that took art a lot in school? lol Anyway I wondered, and yes, there have been unconventional portraits done before this. I read about them being described as representative, or symbolic, or conceptual portraits. Found more than I'll share but this one is from 1916 and is not a photo anything, it's a painting, but is it a portrait?
> http://www.the-atheneum.org/art/detail.php?ID=154177
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/theater-art/2016/09/01/questions-identity-bowdoin-caOl
> 
> ...


It was a photographic competition, yet light was never used to imprint an image. If there was no imprint made from light, can it still be defined as a photograph? As well, it took absolutely no knowledge or skill of photography for the entrant to create this image. Photography had nothing to do it, other than the film that was used as the canvas for the grandmother's scribbling. I don't see how scribbling and spitting on film makes a photograph, in any way shape or form. It's a drawing on film. A drawing on stone, the floor, a car, or whatever else doesn't make it anything else but a drawing. If I photographed a canvas painting, the resulting photograph certainly wouldn't be called a painting, it would still be a photograph. In the context of a photography contest, photographic technique should matter quite a bit and there was none used. I agree that it is a form of artistic portrait and I even really like the piece, I just can't see how it could ever be a photograph if nothing on it was recorded using light.


----------



## limr (Jul 28, 2017)

I am all for keeping an open mind and allowing expansions of our understanding of things, but to say scribbles and spit on a piece of film counts as a _photograph _expands the definition so far as to render it meaningless. At that point, everything could be and _would _be a photograph, and the word would essentially mean nothing.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 28, 2017)

imagine you submitted a genuine portrait. and you lost to *that*.


----------



## weepete (Jul 30, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> It was a photographic competition, yet light was never used to imprint an image. If there was no imprint made from light, can it still be defined as a photograph?



Sorry for the late reply but I'm on my holidays in the Balerics. I think that's really the crux of the matter, and for me the answer is yes. For example I'd still consider a shot taken with the lens cap on a photograph, or one that was underexposed so much it capured no detail. And it does raise another question... if ultimatley the light we capture is just marks on a print, does it matter how they got there?


----------



## Braineack (Jul 30, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> Am I the only one that took art a lot in school?


i went to school for art, left after my first year cause i couldnt stand all the drivel.


----------



## Overread (Jul 30, 2017)

weepete said:


> And it does raise another question... if ultimatley the light we capture is just marks on a print, does it matter how they got there?



Yes because how they got there is part of the process of creation. Art has never ever been only about the final product, its always been tied to the method of production. It's why we have different mediums and groupings. Photography is one such grouping and as such for photography to remain photography its got to involve the core concept of photography. 
Drawing on a bit of film isn't photography - sticking glitter onto film isn't photography - they are other forms of artwork as the creation is totally different.

And sure you get those that straddle the line; drawing on an exposed film etc...


At the end of the day this competition wanted a photographic portrait. What was chosen to win was nothing like it; not in creation not really its concept nor interpretation after the fact (again remember if you weren't told how it was made you'd make no "personality" connections at all). It' a stunt and little more. Sure its worked at getting loads of attention, but its also made a mockery of that competition. 


By all means think outside the box; but remember you're thinking outside the box not grabbing random things from the trashcan/bin.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 30, 2017)

weepete said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > It was a photographic competition, yet light was never used to imprint an image. If there was no imprint made from light, can it still be defined as a photograph?
> ...


Ok, so what about the other point I brought up?

- It's a drawing on film. A drawing on stone, the floor, a car, or whatever else doesn't make it anything else but a drawing. If I photographed a canvas painting, the resulting photograph certainly wouldn't be called a painting, it would still be a photograph. In the context of a photography contest, photographic technique should matter quite a bit and there was none used.


Also, the film she used was never exposed to create an image. The only image on it were the scribbles and spit made by the grandmother, which still doesn't constitute a photograph. limr's point becomes very relevant here:


limr said:


> to say scribbles and spit on a piece of film counts as a _photograph _expands the definition so far as to render it meaningless. At that point, everything could be and _would _be a photograph, and the word would essentially mean nothing.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 30, 2017)

With the Conditions of Entry stating entries must be 'photographic, archivally sound, still and two dimensional', that seems to leave it somewhat open to interpretation I think. I agree though that photos and artwork need to be able to stand alone; a description may be in the catalog or accompany the artwork, but it isn't necessarily part of the display - and if it needs to be explained then I don't think the artwork expresses what was intended.

This must have been exposed to light at some point, being dark. I don't know the specific steps of the process but I think the grandmother would have made the marks on the piece of film while the film was out in the light. Even if it was indoors with enough UV/sunlight coming in the windows it would be getting exposed.

When I've done lumen prints using old photo paper I use a small table set up in a window and if it's a really sunny day I have to be careful to get the paper out of the black packaging at some distance or it will start to darken before I even get set up. (You gotta work quick or you get a big white thumb mark on the paper!). On more cloudy days I still am getting the UV light but the paper doesn't expose as quickly, and with the ISO of photo paper being in single digits obviously there's a longer exposure time than film.

Unless maybe this was a piece of film that had already been exposed to light, run thru some developer, let dry, then the grandmother drew on the already exposed, darkened film. I don't know if/how that would work, or if it would be considered to be a photographic process.

If the film had not been exposed, but then run thru some developer etc. in a darkroom, it would still be almost clear plastic with a light gray tone (probably from the developer) because it hadn't been exposed to light (if it went directly from the film holder or roll film cartridge to a developing tank). The reason I know this is from times I've changed film midroll, and I'm working fast and later realize uh-oh, is this a roll I already had in the camera or one I haven't shot yet?? So I get it developed because I don't want to lose any photos... so it ends up as some negative images on one end of a long strip of light grayish film. So if someone took _that _and marked on it with pens it would almost look like ink marks on clear/gray tinted plastic.

I did find an art exhibit of portraits from last year that were described as 'abstract, symbolic, and conceptual', that included at least one photogram, a photogravure, and a photograph. I was thinking looking at them, do they tell me something about the artist? do they represent the subject? I think so. Are they strictly photographs? I don't think so, but they were made with a photography process.
This Is a Portrait If I Say So: Identity in American Art, 1912 to Today

This one reminds me of when I first tried doing a lumen print after someone told me about them. I just stuck some objects on a piece of old photo paper and sat it in the sun to see how well it worked. That was a practice run as far as I was concerned. So I think in this case the process could have been taken further to represent the subject in a way that told something about the grandmother.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 30, 2017)

If nothing else I now know who Olive Cotton was. And her 'Teacup ballet' 1935 looked familiar and I realized I've seen that before, apparently it's one of her more well known photos. 

It says here that she talked about the angled handles of the teacups made her think of people with arms akimbo. Seems interesting, a photograph of objects representing people of sorts. 
COTTON 					 							, 					 					Olive 					 	 	 			| Teacup ballet


----------



## Peeb (Jul 31, 2017)

Requirements for the entries, in full (highlights are mine, however):

· A new portrait completed since 1 April 2015, *owned and created by the artist*; not previously exhibited (including online but excluding the entrant’s personal webpage or social media platform), shown in competitions or awarded a prize;

· *Photographic,* archivally sound, still and two-dimensional; 

· Within the size limits and able to be hung on or pinned to Gallery walls. 
The Judge will be looking for excellence in *photographic technique, creativity and originality to the standards prescribed by the Director, Tweed Regional Gallery*.​
I look at the phrase "owned and created by the artist".  Not being versed in Australian law, I cannot say whether the grand-daughter is the owner, the co-owner, or just the processor of the image, but isn't grandma the creator?   If I send a jpeg to a processor to be printed onto canvas, could they submit MY image to a contest as a 'portrait of a customer'?  I can see it now:  "_We wanted to really capture not just the face of a typical customer, but really reveal existentially what that individual 'sees' in the world as a more full realization of the customer's spirit in communion with the planet as a whole_."  I just don't understand the logic, but more on that in a moment.

As to whether or not it is a 'photograph', it looks from the rules like they left things loosey-goosey enough that I guess technically anything goes, since it doesn't have to be a 'photograph', just 'photographic' (whatever they want that to mean...).  Doesn't SEEM like what I would consider a 'photographic' work, but what do I know?

I'm not trained in 'art'.  I am not a portrait artist or a portrait photographer.  I'm not versed in the _'standards prescribed by the Director, Tweed Regional Gallery_'.  That phrase is a huge wildcard that could open a lot of doors.  If the Director has 'prescribed' that twigs bound together with twine are 'photographic' then the rules say that this is what was agreed to.  I dunno.

Having said all that, I (personally) would never want to be entered into a contest where the merit of the winning entry had to be carefully explained to me in order for me to begin to guess why it was deemed superior to works more pleasing to me and everyone I know.  Which I think is precisely the effect that was desired by awarding this type of 'art'.  Results of this type probably do a good job of keeping our the riff-raff.


----------



## Pedro_lopez (Jul 31, 2017)

That's it guys, I learned the photographic triangle for nothing when all I needed was to doodle and spit on a piece of film. No light capturing skills needed. 




Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 31, 2017)

Pedro_lopez said:


> That's it guys, I learned the photographic triangle for nothing when all I needed was to doodle and spit on a piece of film. No light capturing skills needed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope, none needed whatsoever, at least if you want to win the grand prize. You might as well enter a shoe and call it a portrait photograph. Just don't forget to include a philosophical essay explaining the significance of said shoe, that way your essay can win the photo contest.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 31, 2017)

It is photographic, I think... at least it seems like it must have been exposed to light. If I had access to a darkroom (which I don't anymore) I'd try it out and see. I don't see why the film wouldn't still be light if it hadn't darkened by being exposed to light. Unless something else was done to it that I didn't see mentioned. Some of the alt. processes that are based on early photography methods could be considered to be 'photographic' works but not strictly photographs.

It said that an entry could be done by one artist, a duo, or a group. So apparently a collaborative work could be submitted, but how copyright comes into it in Australia, I have no idea.

This being a juried art exhibition it's different than a photo contest; their procedure seems similar to juried exhibits I've done submissions for.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 31, 2017)

Trying to explain away the level of bullspit underlying the "winning entry" and its validity is quite an errand...

Don Quixote would be in fine company in this thread...windmill-tilting and all, dontcha' know...

The "winning" entry is an effed-up mess. Sorry, that's just how I feel about the way this *portrait contest* was judged. Dan's comments above make sense.


----------



## weepete (Aug 1, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Lets look at your example then, and say you draw on a car. Does that now mean the car is a drawing and not a car anymore?

What about hand coloured photographs, are they paintings?

We don't live in a world of absolutes and things can get a bit squshy at the edges.


----------



## petrochemist (Aug 1, 2017)

weepete said:


> Lets look at your example then, and say you draw on a car. Does that now mean the car is a drawing and not a car anymore?
> 
> What about hand coloured photographs, are they paintings?
> 
> We don't live in a world of absolutes and things can get a bit squshy at the edges.



But the film used for the image is not a photograph either.
Look at the following definition of Photography (pulled off the net via Google) '*Photography* is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as *photographic* film.'
Other definitions would be broadly similar, but may be more restrictive.

The film here does not show a recorded image of light it's fully darkened, leaving no image from the exposure.
The definition quoted does not mention a camera, and so can easily be stretched to cover images like photograms or sun prints, which are IMO photographs. In this case the image was not recorded electromagnetic radiation, just material subsequently applied to the film.
While things often have grey areas there are also core parts that are required. Drawing on a car does stop it being a car, but here there was no image before the drawing so it wasn't a photograph before or after the drawing.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 1, 2017)

that contest was a setup. im calling shinanigans.  a publicity stunt perhaps. shock value. there is no way that contest was above board. 
I do a contest that is purely subjective and decided by only 2 people, and im still calling bull$^*% on that one. 
its a hard enough stretch to even say that it might _*resemble*_ something a _*little*_ like a "photograph" (very very technially subjectively speaking)... but a portrait?
come on now... 
that contest wasnt pushing borders or definitions, it was $***ing on legitimate photographers everywhere. 
I hope this rediculous plan backfires and everyone boycots the hell out of the judges work/contests/whatever from now on.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 1, 2017)

That's a good point about a photograph being a recorded image of light. I suppose it depends on what someone considers to be a photograph, a photographic work, or a photographic process. This definition seems to describe it somewhat differently; it refers to "_*action* of light_ on a light sensitive material."
Photography – Art Term | Tate

This one is described as an award with 1st prize being acquisitive and funded by the family of Olive Cotton; a Director's Choice Acquisition funded by the Friends of the Tweed Gallery; and Judge's High Commendations. It's an exhibition held by The National Gallery of Australia; it's not a sponsored contest by a company or business.

It says in the Conditions of Entry pdf under Entry Eligibility that entries need to be 'photographic'; it doesn't say they have to record an image or even fit any particular definition of photography, which seems to leave it open to possibilities.


----------



## limr (Aug 1, 2017)

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, if I have to do the mental gymnastics equivalent of discovering the theory of relativity just to _kinda sorta _fit this piece of work into the definition of "photograph" or "portrait," then chances are it doesn't belong in either.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 1, 2017)

limr said:


> I'm sorry, but with all due respect, if I have to do the mental gymnastics equivalent of discovering the theory of relativity just to _kinda sorta _fit this piece of work into the definition of "photograph" or "portrait," then chances are it doesn't belong in either.




there is no respect due either the judge or the judges decision.


----------



## limr (Aug 1, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, but with all due respect, if I have to do the mental gymnastics equivalent of discovering the theory of relativity just to _kinda sorta _fit this piece of work into the definition of "photograph" or "portrait," then chances are it doesn't belong in either.
> ...



Agreed. That was aimed more towards the folks in this thread who are trying to argue in the judge's defense  I may disagree with them, but I still respect them.


----------



## DanOstergren (Aug 2, 2017)

weepete said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > weepete said:
> ...


Right, but the car was a car to begin with. The artist did not start with a photograph, just a piece of film with no photograph imprinted on it as a canvas for a drawing. At the end of the day it's still a drawing, not a photograph, and it took no photographic skill whatsoever to create. In the context of a photography contest, photographic technique should matter quite a bit and there was none used.


----------



## petrochemist (Aug 2, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> That's a good point about a photograph being a recorded image of light. I suppose it depends on what someone considers to be a photograph, a photographic work, or a photographic process. This definition seems to describe it somewhat differently; it refers to "_*action* of light_ on a light sensitive material."
> Photography – Art Term | Tate


Their definition actually states "an image produced by the action of light on a light-sensitive material" so you'll note it refers to an image as well in the same sentence you part quoted.
Further down it also goes into the derivation of the word: "The word photograph was coined in 1839 by Sir John Herschel and is based on the Greek word ‘phos’, meaning ‘light’, and ‘graphê’, meaning ‘drawing’ – so ‘drawing with light."

A fully exposed negative has no drawing, and while the price winner makes up for that with the subsequent scribbles they weren't done with light so don't upgrade the film to a photograph.

If only I'd thought to enter a 'sculpture' made from a pile of waste camera bits, that would have been as related to photography & not been 2 dimensional so could have broken another requirement - how could it not win!


----------



## runnah (Aug 2, 2017)

But...what is art?


----------



## limr (Aug 2, 2017)

runnah said:


> But...what is art?


----------



## ClickAddict (Aug 2, 2017)

runnah said:


> But...what is art?



Irrelevant to the argument.

People offended by this entry winning are not claiming that it's not "art" they are claiming it's not a "photograph".  just like they would if someone entered a painting in a sculpting competition.  Yes, both are art... no, both are not sculptures.  (And to use some weird explanation that you are sculpting the paint would be such a stretch as to be offensive.)


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 2, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> Pedro_lopez said:
> 
> 
> > That's it guys, I learned the photographic triangle for nothing when all I needed was to doodle and spit on a piece of film. No light capturing skills needed.
> ...


A shoe has sole.


----------



## runnah (Aug 2, 2017)

ClickAddict said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > But...what is art?
> ...



I would argue that the irrelevancy of the argument is what makes irrelevant relevant.


----------



## webestang64 (Aug 2, 2017)

runnah said:


> But...what is art?



 Art = 5% Talent, 95% BS. (My college art appreciation teacher told our class this as a joke, but I took her seriously).


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 2, 2017)

I wonder about some people having had such negative experiences with art - at least it seems like it. I always loved to draw and paint, etc. and took art all through school as electives. But nobody has to go to art exhibits or museums or do anything with art if they aren't into it. So if someone doesn't like this one or agree with the choice or whatever, then you don't have to like it or support it; it's their museum and exhibition and up to them I think. Although I can understand people not agreeing with this choice; it is a stretch.


----------



## Overread (Aug 3, 2017)

The problem with art, in my experience, is that its a subject where its possible to teach the subject with very few skills at teaching. In fact I think a lot of art teachers rely on a lot of "justification" of artwork from their students whilst typically fawning over those who show "natural talent". I think this overcome two key weaknesses in the system

1) Time - it seems there isn't time to properly teach artistic methods - eg sketching/painting/photography/etc...
2) Lack of technical understanding on the part of the teacher - both with regard to method and artistic quality. 

As  a result art has quickly become a kind of magic. No other line of work people say "well you just have to be born a natural electrician" so much as in art. Even on sites like here one encounters many who consider composition to be a kind of either luck or mystical mythological power that other people have that can't be learned. Or which requires a kind of brain type defined by if you write with your left or right hand etc...

However the teaching system also has a third weakness which is that it seems that many art teachers and schools want to encourage students so much that they actually give up with critique and improvement and instead focus on praise. Praise is good but when its heavily put on and you're writing essays to justify otherwise weak bits of art; that thinking sticks. It grows and nurtures a whole generation or three of artists who feel that art is more about justification and argument than skill.


----------



## weepete (Aug 3, 2017)

petrochemist said:


> But the film used for the image is not a photograph either.
> Look at the following definition of Photography (pulled off the net via Google) '*Photography* is the science, art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as *photographic* film.'
> Other definitions would be broadly similar, but may be more restrictive.
> 
> ...



I didn't say the film was a photograph, in my opinion  but I'd stretch the definition to anything made on film and then developed a photograph. If a shot made  with the lens cap on and then is developed, most people would still consider that as a photograph. Therefore actually using light to produce an image is not a pre-requisite. The film is a just that, until a print is made.


----------



## weepete (Aug 3, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> Right, but the car was a car to begin with. The artist did not start with a photograph, just a piece of film with no photograph imprinted on it as a canvas for a drawing. At the end of the day it's still a drawing, not a photograph, and it took no photographic skill whatsoever to create. In the context of a photography contest, photographic technique should matter quite a bit and there was none used.



But most film starts with nothing on it unless you are double exposing. 

I've seen some work with an image made by light and coloured with paint. In that instance I'd agree because the paint was applied to a print, but this one is the opposite.

Development is also a photographic technique and requires skill.


----------



## weepete (Aug 3, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> I wonder about some people having had such negative experiences with art - at least it seems like it. I always loved to draw and paint, etc. and took art all through school as electives. But nobody has to go to art exhibits or museums or do anything with art if they aren't into it. So if someone doesn't like this one or agree with the choice or whatever, then you don't have to like it or support it; it's their museum and exhibition and up to them I think. Although I can understand people not agreeing with this choice; it is a stretch.



There was a time in my life where I'd have been with most people in this thread. Interestingly enough it was when I was most active drawing and painting (not that I was actually any good) but my favorites were always the Dutch movement. It's not till I've gotten older and a bit more mellow that I've been able to appreciate conceptual art a bit more. 

I do get it, most of the time though we are so consumed by reproducing a realistic image of what we see and striving to get that fantastic shot that I guess the push in one way in my head has created an equal and opposite reation in the part of my brain for tolerance of art! lol


----------



## limr (Aug 3, 2017)

weepete said:


> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> > But the film used for the image is not a photograph either.
> ...



The shutter released with the lens on is called a **** up and is considered a waste of film.

Edit: Apparently I neglected to type the word 'cap' in the above message.


----------



## weepete (Aug 3, 2017)

limr said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > petrochemist said:
> ...



True, but is it not still a photograph?


----------



## weepete (Aug 3, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > weepete said:
> ...



Yup, I have  neglected digital a bit but have said that that while development of film is a defining feature it is not the single one.


----------



## limr (Aug 3, 2017)

weepete said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > weepete said:
> ...



No. There is no image.


----------



## weepete (Aug 3, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I think you missed what I was posting as you missed what was typed in the post I quoted.  Read the words that are there not the ones your mind wants to tell you are there.



Sorry buddy! Spanish measures!  I'll have anther look tomorrow


----------



## petrochemist (Aug 4, 2017)

weepete said:


> I didn't say the film was a photograph, in my opinion  but I'd stretch the definition to anything made on film and then developed a photograph. If a shot made  with the lens cap on and then is developed, most people would still consider that as a photograph. Therefore actually using light to produce an image is not a pre-requisite. The film is a just that, until a print is made.



I think most people would happily call it an attempt at photography, at least if they realize what it is. Most people probably wouldn't recognize it.


----------



## limr (Aug 4, 2017)

An interesting discussion of the copyright issue.

'A very real concern': Should Justine Varga give her $20,000 art prize to her grandmother?


----------

