Who Gets to Judge?

Well at least last night, I did. Asked to be a third juror for a local photography competition, I had to place a numerical value (up to 33) on over 400 images. It is always an interesting exercise and makes me very aware of how judging an image is often quite subjective. I tried to create an internal process that allowed me to not spend 10 minutes on each image (that would have taken 3 days!).

I couldn’t help thinking while driving home what numerical value I would place on my own images. Maybe I should go through that process when evaluating my work. I suspect though that some of my work wouldn’t do too well even though I really like the images. So what that tells me is that I am much more interested in my work having an emotional component than being a technical 33. I think I’ve known this for a while though, I’m more interested in the art of photography than the process.

My work is judged though, and actually all the time. Beyond myself of course, it’s judged by the tens of thousands of people I put it in front of each year, by the viewers of my website and blog, by the members of the gallery I belong to, by the editors of publications I submit to, the jurors of competitions I enter, by my wife and even my 12 year old daughter!

That’s a lot of judging! The result? Well my own judging is the most important and in some ways defines who I am as an artist, but I do listen very attentively to all the others as they can affect my own vision and views. Editors have brought my attention to images I overlooked, art show patrons have informed me of attributes of my work that I missed, my very supportive wife sometimes dislikes work I’m very fond of, my daughter doesn’t particularly like my most popular print but really enjoys a newer piece I suspected she would not.

In a year’s time I may judge my work and other’s differently than I do now. But what you see now and how I value other’s work is always based on my own best judgement.

****************************************************************

“More” Art…

It appears as though my idea that art which is appreciated by more people is “more” art has created some discussion (Guy Tal and Skolai Images) . By “more” I do not mean “better”. “Better” is a supposedly objective determination made by a rule set derived by people who study art. What I mean by “more” is “greater impact”, and that is I feel, what gives art value. I believe that the creation of art is a cognitive process combining imagination and skill for the purpose of expressing some emotional response to a subject or just the maker’s state of mind. What makes art powerful is its communicative, or emotive impact on others.

If, as I believe, art requires a viewer in order to be complete, to count as more than just paint on canvas, words on paper, than something is “art” as soon as that first responsive viewer exists. But art is a subjective idea. The label of “art” is a judgment  made by people. What I perceive as random marks, may hold emotional meaning for someone else. I suggest that the power of something as “art” ( it’s “artfulness” )is a cumulative process so that the more people “see” it as art, respond to it, the “more” it is “art”. Being “art” to more people, I feel makes it “more” art.

I believe the Mona Lisa is more “art” today than if it were locked away in a closet after made. It will be more “art” a hundred years from now than today. Artists understand this, museums understand this, galleries understand this, investor’s understand this. It’s the reason they put their works out into the public through exhibits, books, catalogs, magazines, DVD’s, the internet and any other means they can find. The perception of something as “art” is a cumulative process, a work takes on the value of being “more” art, the more people respond to it as such.

******************************************************************

A Shot at Vocabulary

Should you be in my booth and hear me talking about my work, you may notice that I don’t use some common vernacular about the process of image making. One word I avoid is the word “shot”. This is a term I grew up using in relation to photography and is well ingrained in the vocabulary of photographers and non-photographers alike. However, I stopped using the term “shot” to describe or refer to any piece of mine or another photographer. There are two primary reasons for my dropping the word from my discussion about photography.

First, I don’t feel the term does justice to the photographic process. Fine photography is a complex and involved process both physically and creatively. As a medium that requires a physical presence with a subject and an array of creative decision making, I don’t feel that the word “shot” is good enough . The term “shot” implies a fleeting, almost chance-driven enterprise, not one of deliberateness and deliberation. Fine photographers do not “take a shot” at making a powerful image, they contemplate, evaluate, and are moved emotionally to translate a scene or event into a 2-dimensional representation that communicates a feeling.

Secondly, and this reason has unavoidable undertones, the term “shot”  has a connotation of “shooting” something. Photography is not hunting. And while some may achieve a thrill that they associate with hunting, that is not the thrill I seek. My goals in photography are artistic, expressive, and meditative. As my work incorporates several genres including landscapes, macro, and abstraction as well as wildlife, the association with a term used in hunting seems even more inappropriate. I’m not judging hunting, only indicating that the terms associated with hunting do not describe my process or work.

It is a lot easier, and I feel less confusing, for me to talk about an image I made of a deer, a great blue heron, a mountain view, or a tulip, if I use words that better describe my approach to photography. So if you ask me “where I took that shot”, I will likely reply, “I made that image while at …….”

 ****************************************************************