P3D Re: Competitions suppressing creativity?

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts) writes:
>>Much has been said about the benefits of stereo competitions, and I agree
>>that they appear to have some benefits...
>>But the above quote illustrates what I consider to be one of the harmful 
>>effects of stereo competitions - a push toward a uniform judgment on what's
>>worth photographing.  
>>...To pressure people to take "good" stereo photographs, and to define "good"
>>as "likely to win a stereo photo competition", inhibits creativity and runs
>>the risk of discouraging innovation. 

I had already acknowledged that stereo competitions have good points - let me 
do so more forcefully, and state that I believe there are many good results
from stereo competitions. What I was trying to note was that I believe there's
also a downside to stereo competitions, in addition to the benefits. If any
of the followup posts are intended to prove that there's *no* downside to
stereo competitions, then I remain unconvinced. :-)

>...I ABSOLUTELY and POSITIVELY DISAGREE! (there we go... :-))
>IMO, there a slight problem with this line of reasoning.
>The problem is that you see yourself as a photographer and not as a 
>judge. You also do not see the judges as practicing photographers. 

Disagree. If I were a judge I would probably do the same as them, but that
doesn't mean I consider it unreservedly "right".

>Is there a such thing as a "a good stereo photograph likely to win a 
>stereo photo competition"?  Are there any absolute standards that 
>encourage people to submit uninspired work in order to win awards, 
>instead of following their own creative juices?  I don't  know... 
>If there are any recipes around, someone please send them to me!

Well, in the 2D field, a few years ago the local county fair had a photo
entry of a soldier in uniform, reflected in the Vietnam War "Wall"
memorial. I thought it was a good picture, and it won "best in show" for
all categories. Good enough - but the next year there were three or four
entries on the same topic. The original photo may have been inspired, but
I was considerably less impressed by the copycats.

>Judges are practicing photographers and they are humans, subjected to 
>all the individual variations that most humans do.  Usually... their 
>votes go in favor of what most people would say are the best or better 
>pictures.  This is a fine democratic process.  Anyone who thinks that 
>their creative work is marked down because it is out of the ordinary, 
>is invited to join the system and influence the common thinking by 
>casting his or her vote as a judge.

Except that in this case I consider "the system" to be a major contributor
to this particular problem that stereo competitions create (in spite of
their many other excellent points). It's like trying to become Emperor 
in order to reform the Roman Empire's political system, if one believes
that the problem with the system is that it has an emperor. (I can suggest
some possible fixes.)

Mike Watters made some excellent points. Let me further describe my concerns:

- Art in ancient Egypt became highly stylized - people were always depicted
  in certain ways that to our eyes depart significantly from realism. Anyone
  venturing to make major changes to the style of art would almost certainly
  have been censured. "The Establishment" served to perpetuate the art style.
  Among modern stereo associations, "the Establishment" similarly tends to 
  perpetuate certain characteristics of stereo photographs. That's not
  automatically bad - that's its function. But the stylism promoted may be
  more restrictive than "necessary" to avoid errors, and may hinder
  improvements in popular appeal or realism . Of course since we're "inside
  the system" it's hard to judge, but here are some possible candidates:
    1) If you ask a random person in the street what they want to see in
       the nature of 3D, quite often the response will be "Zowie! I
       want to see lots of depth, and I want to see stuff coming out at
       me in front of the window!". But if they join a stereo club, the
       attitude is often "We're perfect ladies and gentlemen here - we
       don't play silly games like that - nothing in front of the window,
       if you please". It may seem to be a subtle point, but here's something
       that isn't generally considered a technical error, and which many
       of the general public say they would like to see, but which is usually
       discouraged in stereo clubs and stereo competitions.
    2) There's usually considerable encouragement to mount to the stereo
       window. But unless the photographer was careful when composing the shot 
       to make sure the nearest object was at exactly the distance of the 
       window, mounting to the window is a planned and deliberate departure 
       from reality. (I expect the ancient Egyptians thought the curious body 
       poses and angles of view they used looked "better", and they might even 
       have denied that there was anything unnatural about them.)

- A second concern is more connected to the "evolution" of art. Sometimes
  development is immediate and revolutionary - apparently some guy sat down one
  day and invented perspective drawing, and many people loved it and it caught 
  on like wildfire. But frequently a new form must be developed painstakingly 
  over time until the point that the promise it holds becomes evident. 
  Judgement of early versions can discourage development. Of course the
  photographer can conceal his/her work until considerable development has been
  accomplished, but even so some forms may require the insight of two or more
  people to bring to fruition, and a competitive environment makes it difficult
  for this to take place.

John R


------------------------------