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

DanOstergren · Jul 25, 2017

Ok, what? I guess the definition of a photographic "portrait" is changing, and apparently no longer actually has to include a person in it or be an actual photograph. No shade to the winner because she was simply an entrant, but to award this art piece $20,000 in a photographic portrait competition is absolutely absurd (to clarify, the image in the header is NOT the winning "portrait"; scroll down a bit on the article to see the piece that won the competition). Entrants had to pay a lot of money to enter this competition (competition fee, printing, framing, shipping), and this just seems like a complete slap in the face. I'm certainly not questioning the images merits as a unique art piece, but is it a photographic portrait? In my opinion, NO it is not, and does not deserve to win a $20,000 award in a photographic portrait competition. Would you even consider the winner to be the actual artist who created the piece, or should her grandmother be the one given credit for it's creation?

See here: 'They feel a bit cheated': Prize-winning portrait provokes debate among photographers

Gary A. · Jul 25, 2017

Shouldn't the grandmother is awarded the prize as it was the grandmother's art.

That aside, while that could be construed as a self-portrait, there was never an intent to create a portrait. There is so much wrong with the the winning piece that one doesn't know where to start. If the judge(s) don't care to follow, or find it important to makeup their own rules ... when why even have rules ...

smoke665 · Jul 25, 2017

I would speculate that participation in the contest will fade away.

Braineack · Jul 25, 2017

Dan, obviously you don't understand art.

pixmedic · Jul 25, 2017

rubbish.
the winner is barely even a co-creator of....whatever that abomination is.

benhasajeep · Jul 25, 2017

Yea, I have to agree that the winner was not a portrait. I can see it as a piece of art. But not a portrait. And I also agree that the winner was only a co-creator.

I suspect there will be fewer paid participants in the future.

dennybeall · Jul 25, 2017

I can understand this art piece being considered as art submitted by the grandmother BUT IMHO the only way this could have even been allowed in a photographic contest is if the judge was paid off under the table!

limr · Jul 25, 2017

pixmedic said:
rubbish.
the winner is barely even a co-creator of....whatever that abomination is.

That abomination is called "a waste of film."

Overread · Jul 26, 2017

Welcome to the world of high quality high priced art where the money talks more than the art.
"But for me there's something about getting rid of the camera as an intermediary between the subject and the photographic paper"

Basically they'll say pages of stuff to justify what is basically doodles on a bit of film. They'll find any argument or reasoning.

Heck in my view its scrawls on a bit of film. At the very best its an abstract drawing on a medium other than paper or canvas. It's most certainly not a photo, nor is it a prize winning photo; nor is the argument behind it worthy of attention. This is either a back-hander or a huge joke on the artistic community and an insult to those who did enter the competition.

I'm all for new ideas and new takes, but something like this is just utterly childish. If the judges were bored with 100001 entries of the "same kind of portrait" then there are surely better ways to encourage and reward creativity and diversity than this. This doesn't encourage new photographers this just insults.

weepete · Jul 26, 2017

If you consider that the way we percieve someone is formed not only by what they look like but also their actions and, if you consider a portrait being and impression or a representation of someone I could see how this works. Sure it's stretching the definition a bit and is conceptual but it's not like she won it with a sculpture.

I actually think it's quite good. And ultimatley if you don't like the judging don't enter the contest.

chuasam · Jul 26, 2017

shhh it's conceptual art

Overread · Jul 26, 2017

Weepete the thing is this isn't even an impression of someone, its random doodles. It has nothing personal to a person what so ever in its creation and is something most children will have done at some point* (although a child would be more artistic and choose not a blank but an already exposed bit of film to doodle on

). There is nothing about the person in that "portrait". You can't read anything from it about the person or their personality and I would argue that those who say they can are either just making anything up or already know the person and are interpreting it within a context.

You "might" get away if this was another form of art, but this is photography and its not even a photograph. The film isn't exposed its just been used as a drawing pad.

*Which is another angle; skill. There is no skill in this. The doodles don't link up to form a greater display, they are not carefully placed to evoke a meaning or understanding. They are just random squiggles. Anyone of us could produce a whole 36 identical works along similar lines from a single roll of film. It would take all of 5 minutes to produce - and if anything produced on a roll of film could even be said to contain linkage one "frame" to the next. To many people its not just the creativity but the display of skill that's important so to me this is a double insult. It isn't photography; its not a portrait; its not creative nor is it skilled.

DanOstergren · Jul 26, 2017

weepete said:
If you consider that the way we percieve someone is formed not only by what they look like but also their actions and, if you consider a portrait being and impression or a representation of someone I could see how this works. Sure it's stretching the definition a bit and is conceptual but it's not like she won it with a sculpture.

I actually think it's quite good. And ultimatley if you don't like the judging don't enter the contest.

How you perceive it and whether you like it or not has nothing to do with the fact that it isn't a photograph... It really comes down to the fact that it isn't a photo, it's scribbles and spit. The contest was for photographic portraits.

I find it painfully ironic that you're literally on a photography forum telling us not to enter photo competitions if we don't want to be beat by entries that aren't photographs.

petrochemist · Jul 26, 2017

I think all the entrants should be demanding their entrance fees back. Though this would still leave them significantly out of pocket, as printing framing etc is generally going to be a bigger cost. If the judges can't stick to the remit why should they make any money from it!

It isn't a portrait & it isn't a photograph, nor even an image created by the action of light. There is some debate as to if it can really be called art either.

pixmedic · Jul 26, 2017

the real rub here, in my opinion, is that it was specifically stated as a "portrait" contest.
now, i realize that definitions of "portrait" might be subjective to some degree, but I challenge anyone to explain how that...whatever it is...falls into any photographic category, let alone a portrait one.
I couldnt even begin to speculate why the judges chose that as the winner. maybe they wanted to invoke some sort of shock value. maybe they werent making enough money from entry fees and thought this sort of scandal would get them a lot of press, bringing attention to them. no press is bad press eh?

if the contest was an "art" contest...i could kinda understand. not agree mind you, but at least somewhat understand.
is it a photograph? eh.... alternative technique i guess. so, maybe? maybe? by a thin stretch i suppose one could make the argument.
is it a portrait? no $%@&#% way. not by any stretch of the imagination.

but hey. wasnt my contest, wasnt my money, wasnt my decision, and it wasnt by popular vote.....so, congrats....grandma?