P3D Re: PSA judging

[Derek Gee <73157.2172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Here's a "new idea:" let's judge entries for their innovativeness and
>artistic content!  Technical excellence should be a given - it is qualities
>beyond technical excellence that should matter most among the highest
>scoring images.

I believe you are mistaken.  Technical excellence is NOT a given in
a Salon.  It should be, but it isn't.  Anyone who ponies up the entry
fee can have their slide judged.  (That's why I thought Andrea's idea
of including mounting tips with the entry form was so good.  I'm
still astonished at some of the poor mounting I've seen on occasion
in Salons.)  If a slide is innovative and artistic, it should get
additional points on top of those it receives for being technically
excellent.

>Technical merit and artistic content are two different things.  The first
>can be judged "automatically," that is, by application of rigid guidelines.
>(For example, you could literally run software to judge the sharpness of a
>given image.)  The latter is far more subjective, and so relies upon the
>personal reaction that a judge may develop with the image - I believe a
>judge cannot leave personal preferences at the door, and still be able to
>judge artistic content.

While technical merit and artistic content are two aspects of a photo,
you cannot just judge a slide on artistic content.  If you consider all
of those things you should be able to come to some kind of balance that
lets you take everything into account.  I believe personal preferences
can be minimized, but perhaps not entirely eliminated.  I do believe
it is vital for a judge to be as unbiased as possible, and that means
you gotta keep those preferences in check. 

>My own experience with the PSA competitions, limited though it may be, has
>been a disappointment overall.  And this is not just because I'm not
>winning awards all the time.  On the contrary.  The thing that I seek in
>competition, or even just looking at exhibitions, is a challenge - what
>challenges me is seeing art that I recognize as being beyond my present
>means, either because I still need to grow as an artist, or because I've
>not been creative enough, or whatever.  I seek examples of artistic
>novelty, challenging messages, beauty.  A few of the stereoviews honored by
>the PSA Stereo Division have these qualities.  But most do not.

Let me see if I can translate this.  Does this mean "I've seen a lot of
winning, but uninspired landscapes in PSA"?  Yeah, there are lots of
those.  It's hard sometimes to improve on Mother Nature.  Let's assume
for the sake of arguement that there's a lack of artistry in PSA.
Whose fault is that?  PSA or the maker's?  You can only judge what people
enter in your competition.

>I think other photographers feel as I do about the PSA competitions - that
>too often the work is being judged by technicians.  Nothing can be more
>discouraging to an artist who wants to present work that transcends
>technical challenges.

What does "trancends technical challenges" mean - that the judges should
ignore obvious technical faults for the sake of art?  I've seen a
number of slides where the idea was good, it just wasn't pulled off
well technically.  To me, both the art and the technicals of photography
have to co-exist together and be judged together.  If you feel
frustrated that you've seen a lot of technically good photos that won,
but weren't so artistic, than that should leave you ample room to
apply your artistic expertise to your growing technical excellence in
stereography [as all P3Der's must be getting ;) ].  I will hopefully see
your name at the top of the PSA Salon acceptances. 

>And this is indeed the problem.  It appears that the PSA encourages judging
>heavily weighted towards technical excellence.  If the PSA wants to
>encourage technicians, not artists, this is the way to do it.

How would you suggest that PSA include creativity and art within a
judging framework that can be consistantly applied and not allow
a person's biases to overrule logic?

>This whole thread has been about innovation.  Innovation in Salon
>procedures, innovation in photography.  So far as I can tell, the PSSP is
>trying something innovative by inviting persons outside of the "PSA mold"
>to judge.  This may help innovative photography to receive some
>recognition.

And this is the crux of the matter upon which we differ.  Inviting people
that are unskilled in judging photographs to judge a PSA salon is
not "innovation" to me, it's just plain stupid.  I'm not so hung up on
PSA methodology that I would insist that a judge should be trained
in only that way before judging a PSA Salon.  There must be other
photographic organizations worldwide that hold competitions, whose
judging methods would qualify someone to judge in a PSA Salon.  (If any
P3Der's know of any methodologies used by others, please post them
to the list.  I'd be interested in hearing how other organizations have
handled this.)  But I would still insist that judges be qualified before
being allowed to judge a PSA International Exhibition.

                                 Derek Gee
                                 President
                                 Detroit Stereoscopic Society
  


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