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

[limr]

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]

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

 

[weepete]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

[
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:

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.

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]

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.