Rejected Again at a local art fair: suggestions & advice please

[padrepaul77]

Generally speaking, it takes someone who has a strong background in art to be able to judge with minimal bias, and small venues tend to try to get by on the cheap. don't get me wrong, I don't believe that anyone can be totally bias free, but we can be more, or less, biased in our judgments. The formula for getting your work accepted is (so I'm told) to watch the type of work being shown and awarded in any given contest as it comes around each year - you can often pick up on trends this way. Then, submit your work to those competitions that tend to prefer the type of work you are doing.

I have, over the last couple of decades, gone through cycles of wanting to participate in these types of things and, well, not wanting to do so for the reasons I've mentioned above. Obviously there are no blanket conditions - all competitions will be different in various ways - but in my experience (~20 years now) the above situation is not uncommon, especially in local competitions, camera clubs, and frankly much of what the PSA does.

Camera clubs can come with their own problems. Often there are people who regularly show their work, regularly win the competitions, and it can be difficult to break into this cycle as a new, and unknown, member. The same situations regarding preferred style may also apply, so if you do try a camera club you might want to try a couple (if you have more than one locally). Be prepared for a lot of equipment talk though. The few clubs that I've visited seem to have moved from photography in general to equipment specifically, especially these days with new equipment being produced weekly it would seem.

The important thing is don't take it personally. Once you find a venue that is receptive to the style of work you are producing you should be able to get your work in from time to time. It just takes a good deal of patience and a fair bit of coin - usually $15-$35 each attempt - but it can be done. And, also very important, don't try to change your own vision to suit what other people expect. I've seen a lot of the students where I work do this and they always get frustrated after a while and lose interest in photography...

- Randy

Thanks for the feedback. I'll try not to get too frustrated. Beauty can be in the eye of the beholder, but some photos that make it into those things often strike me as odd, and others are great. I think like 180 or so pieces of art were submitted to this competition, and how many were photos I don't know; they only took 40 but being it was a suburban juried show I thought I might have a shot. I'm a member of the arts center, and they will let me exhibit some of my photographs there too at various points of the year, and I can have my stuff in the non-juried show. I also found out about some competitions where I can submit some images on disc. The camera club sounds like it will be interesting - there are a number locally, but I'm checking out one that's nearby that sounds like it might be good to help learn and get feedback on images.

I'm also hoping to keep finding out about competitions...setbacks can of course be frustrating but might as well keep on trying.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[inTempus]

I really do like your shots, but they aren't really "art". Perhaps that's the problem. They are just nicely composed shots that, honestly, I would be very proud of.

Check these shots out, most of these images are what I consider "art". Obviously the term "art" is very subjective... I'm just guessing the judges are looking for something a little different than your shots.

Onexposure - 1x.com - Best photos in the world

By the way, of your shots #2 is my favorite.

 

[ZacMan1987]

Sorry for the thread jack, but were those taken at the State Fair?

Many fond memories of that place...

 

[Error]

I really do like your shots, but they aren't really "art". Perhaps that's the problem. They are just nicely composed shots that, honestly, I would be very proud of.

Check these shots out, most of these images are what I consider "art". Obviously the term "art" is very subjective... I'm just guessing the judges are looking for something a little different than your shots.

Onexposure - 1x.com - Best photos in the world

By the way, of your shots #2 is my favorite.

Be sure not to click the "Fine Art Nude" section in that link Padre otherwise it would sin for you.

 

[Randall Ellis]

I have to disagree, to a certain extent, about the opinion that these are not art (your spot on about the subjectivity of art though, as evidenced by our discussion here ). To me (an admitted eccentric) these are social commentary - a very basic principle of art in my opinion. They speak of a simpler time, of a time lost to us in this technology flooded society, of a time of local community, of a time when families spent time together in real life rather than apart online as so many life these days. Call me a Luddite if you will, but Ned Ludd was not anti-technology for the sake of hating technology, he was concerned for the impact that technology would have on society, i.e. putting people out of work and altering society at a fundamental level, but that's another discussion all together...

In my mind the choice of an evening setting (and this may be nothing more than reader response theory in action) suggests the twilight of this form of entertainment, of this aspect of our society even. The padre may be taking pretty pictures (are those not art too?) or he may be expressing some deeper message. In many ways it is up to us, the viewer, to form whatever connections to the images we see, and we all make those connections based on our individual life experiences. To wit, many of the images on the site that you provided spoke far less to me than the two that are in the original post here. Does that invalidate them as art?

I think that it plays directly into the original situation - some people like nekked women and call photographs of them art while others call it soft porn. Some people like pretty pictures and some don't see them as art. Some think that art has to be inapproachable - the more so the stronger the 'art'. I personally think (and this is just my opinion, not a statement that this is what everyone should believe) that if there is a message to be gleaned by the viewer in the work, it's art. If there is no apparent message, but the creator intended their efforts to have a message it's still art. If the creator is doing nothing more than working out ideas and the result is weak, it's probably still art, just not very powerful art. The key, again in my opinion, is whether there is something being said or not, no matter how obscure, that determines if something is art or not. I freely admit that I may be completely off base here...

- Randy

 

[inTempus]

I have to disagree, to a certain extent, about the opinion that these are not art (your spot on about the subjectivity of art though, as evidenced by our discussion here ). To me (an admitted eccentric) these are social commentary - a very basic principle of art in my opinion.

I think you completely mis-read my post. My point was pretty much the same as yours. The term art is very subjective. Obviously the judges didn't see his photography as meeting their requirements for their view of what "art" is.

I think the OP's photos are very well done. As I said, I would be proud to have shot them. But in my view, they aren't "artsy" in the sense that they would fit in with the images I posted a link to. Those images (Onexposure - 1x.com - Best photos in the world), I feel, are very artistic to my senses meaning they are gallery worthy.

So there is a discrepancy between what the OP sees as fine art and what the judges see as fine art. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Randall Ellis]

So there is a discrepancy between what the OP sees as fine art and what the judges see as fine art. That's all I'm saying.

Thanks for clarifying that It was the first sentence that threw me off. I don't completely agree with the Wiki explanation of fine art - it's overly basic and fairly biased - but I do agree with your assessment above.

- R

 

[padrepaul77]

Sorry for the thread jack, but were those taken at the State Fair?

Many fond memories of that place...

Yes, its the State Fair...great place to go and to shoot pictures!

 

[padrepaul77]

I have to disagree, to a certain extent, about the opinion that these are not art (your spot on about the subjectivity of art though, as evidenced by our discussion here ). To me (an admitted eccentric) these are social commentary - a very basic principle of art in my opinion.

I think you completely mis-read my post. My point was pretty much the same as yours. The term art is very subjective. Obviously the judges didn't see his photography as meeting their requirements for their view of what "art" is.

I think the OP's photos are very well done. As I said, I would be proud to have shot them. But in my view, they aren't "artsy" in the sense that they would fit in with the images I posted a link to. Those images (Onexposure - 1x.com - Best photos in the world), I feel, are very artistic to my senses meaning they are gallery worthy.

So there is a discrepancy between what the OP sees as fine art and what the judges see as fine art. That's all I'm saying.

Good point...and those shots you linked me too are great. I just looked at the nature ones. Still learning about how to take it to the next level...I'm just trying to find things that are interesting or unique, but also things that might not be art, but would make for a nice framed picture that someone might enjoy. So I guess my overall goal is to get the unique stuff, but also nice shots that might sell too.

 

[maya]

wow!!!!
both pictures are great!
i like the first one better but there both great!
if both of those are great i can just imagen what the others must of been
keep your chin up

 

[padrepaul77]

wow!!!!
both pictures are great!
i like the first one better but there both great!
if both of those are great i can just imagen what the others must of been
keep your chin up

Hey, thanks for the nice comments. I liked them too. The one with the sun going down reminds me of Normal Rockwell )

 

[padrepaul77]

I have to disagree, to a certain extent, about the opinion that these are not art (your spot on about the subjectivity of art though, as evidenced by our discussion here ). To me (an admitted eccentric) these are social commentary - a very basic principle of art in my opinion. They speak of a simpler time, of a time lost to us in this technology flooded society, of a time of local community, of a time when families spent time together in real life rather than apart online as so many life these days. Call me a Luddite if you will, but Ned Ludd was not anti-technology for the sake of hating technology, he was concerned for the impact that technology would have on society, i.e. putting people out of work and altering society at a fundamental level, but that's another discussion all together...

In my mind the choice of an evening setting (and this may be nothing more than reader response theory in action) suggests the twilight of this form of entertainment, of this aspect of our society even. The padre may be taking pretty pictures (are those not art too?) or he may be expressing some deeper message. In many ways it is up to us, the viewer, to form whatever connections to the images we see, and we all make those connections based on our individual life experiences. To wit, many of the images on the site that you provided spoke far less to me than the two that are in the original post here. Does that invalidate them as art?

I think that it plays directly into the original situation - some people like nekked women and call photographs of them art while others call it soft porn. Some people like pretty pictures and some don't see them as art. Some think that art has to be inapproachable - the more so the stronger the 'art'. I personally think (and this is just my opinion, not a statement that this is what everyone should believe) that if there is a message to be gleaned by the viewer in the work, it's art. If there is no apparent message, but the creator intended their efforts to have a message it's still art. If the creator is doing nothing more than working out ideas and the result is weak, it's probably still art, just not very powerful art. The key, again in my opinion, is whether there is something being said or not, no matter how obscure, that determines if something is art or not. I freely admit that I may be completely off base here...

- Randy

Good points...I'm not sure if it's art or not, but what I was going for with it was a scene that would bring back good memories with the sunset, and with the darker one I just was going for a shot of a midway that was a little unique. The one with the sun going down I can hang on a wall and look at in the dead of a Minnesota winter and remind myself that it's not always as bad as it is outside and get memories of a place I really enjoy, the State Fair. I really hoped one of them would get in, but what can you do.

Thanks!
Paul

 

[choudhrysaab]

personaly i like both of the shots ... they may have a different criteria they're looking for.