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

[DanOstergren]

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?

I believe there was only one judge, and it's a guest judge.

 

[Overread]

If you watch the video he's grinning like a Cheshire cat though the whole thing. Pretty sure he knows he's made a mockery of it and is just amazed he's been allowed to get away with it.

It's either marketing (if so its daft because its negative marketing and despite what they say - yes there IS such a thing as bad marketing/exposure); bribery; total incompetence; or someone just trying to give £20K to someone they wanted to give it to

 

[vintagesnaps]

My first thought was that this was a bit of a stretch to say the least.

I did find the process somewhat interesting, and I agree about this being an alternative photo process. I've done lumen prints and those don't use a camera, so I don't think of them as strictly photographs; but an alt. photo process or photographic work could describe them.

To me this would at least be a collaborative effort since the subject (the grandmother) made the markings on the negative then the photographer/artist took it from there. It did say somewhere in the submission info. that an entry could be done by one person, or a duo, or a group. But to me the image doesn't particularly represent the grandmother, it just seems to be random markings more than reflecting her personality.

I noticed it said this was being held by a gallery but the place is actually part of their system of national art museums, etc. The judge has experience as a curator and has worked in that system. I don't think he would have anything to gain by doing anything other than making the choices.

The info. for entering submissions says "The Judge will be looking for excellence in photographic technique, creativity and originality..." - well this is creative... and original, I'll give it that, although I think it's pushing the boundaries of what a portrait is. It also says "The decision of the Judge is final, in both the pre-selection and final judging, and no discussion shall be entered into." So I guess that's clear enough! lol I guess don't enter it if you don't agree to go by that.

In the exhibition catalog (a pdf on the site) there's a discussion by the judge (on pg. 3 titled 'Boom Time', and don't ask me what the title means...) about the decision making process. He talks about 'poses' used for today's selfies, and the procedure of posing chairs used for taking daguerreotypes that created a style of portraits (the ones where the people are grimly staring into the camera, more from trying to sit perfectly still for a long exposure than their lives being all that dreadful!) - about how the tools or procedure can affect the way that portraits have been done. Well, it was interesting reading and the guy has some expertise...

I dunno, I've done submissions to juried exhibits and it's a crap shoot. I look up the jurors, and the gallery info., etc. etc. and I still sometimes end up without a clue as to what ends up getting chosen, and why mine didn't, or why it did! Either way, it just depends on the juror(s), and the gallery/art center, or on how the choices will work displayed together as an exhibit, and seems fairly subjective.

 

[Derrel]

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.

OMFG...I went to the article and looked at the "portrait" of the old woman...reeeeee-doooon-culous!!!! Wow. Just amazing that such crap would win a "portrait" contest. Seriously effed up stuff. I think it's hard to overstate how stupid and undeserved this "win" was.

 

[weepete]

@Overread:

Hmm, I'm gonna have to disagree with you, I do think its a photograph as it has been created on film and then developed. If an impression of someone can be a physical impression or just physical things they've left behind it works as this was a physical impression made by her grandma. The impression of a people on a landscape is something often talked about and encompasses how they changed the stuff that was around them for example.

If you ask one of my mates about his gran, he'll not tell you what she looked like but will tell you she made the best stew. One of his overriding memories is something that's not a likeness and every time he eats a good stew he thinks of his gran. So I could see how a portrait could be interpreted differently.

 

[Overread]

Wee try looking at it another way then; without any story of who made it or why or how it came to be would you get any sense of a person from it? Would you think it spoke of a person or was just random doodles. In my view once you have to have an essay with a bit of artwork to justify the artwork then chances are the art itself isn't all that good.

In this case you've a few doodles and spit on a bit of film which apparently was then developed (honestly not quite sure what they did to develop it other than just enlarge it and copy for a print).

 

[SquarePeg]

Terrible choice. Not a photograph and not a portrait, IMO. If I was an entrant I'd be furious. Having only one judge leaves the contest vulnerable to this type of "look at me" move by the judge and does the contest itself so much more harm than good.

 

[vintagesnaps]

When I've done submissions to juried exhibits there's often only one juror, sometimes two, it depends. It's clear in this exhibit's entry submission information that the judge's decision is final, no discussion. I suppose if I'd entered it I may not agree with the choice or like it, but I'd have to accept it.

I can't say I agree with the choice since it pushes the boundaries of what a portrait is awfully far from portraiture. I can see where people that do portraits might look at it and think - this thing is what won?! The process interests me but that has nothing to do really with the portrait aspect. It does open the door I suppose to possibilities of what could constitute a portrait, and got me wondering if anything similar has ever been done.

But I don't know if it will have big impact, and the only reason many things even get seen is the way things go viral. And the judge has had death threats apparently - I mean, come on... over this!? If people don't like it then they don't have to go to the exhibit, or make any donations, or find a better way to express themselves than making threats.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Am I the only one that took art a lot in school? lol Anyway I wondered, and yes, there have been unconventional portraits done before this. I read about them being described as representative, or symbolic, or conceptual portraits. Found more than I'll share but this one is from 1916 and is not a photo anything, it's a painting, but is it a portrait?
http://www.the-atheneum.org/art/detail.php?ID=154177
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/theater-art/2016/09/01/questions-identity-bowdoin-caOl

Or this photograph from 1920, is it a portrait? apparently the photographer, who later also did photo montages, thought it was, in representing someone. And it's not just a work by the photographer but by the person who created the subject photographed.
http://www.francesnaumann.com/ELSA/elsa05.html

I noticed there are entries that are inkjet prints, C prints, a couple of Polaroids, and one that's a print on linen, so various techniques were accepted. To me this one isn't a representation of the subject that portrays her personality or life, so in that way I don't find it that effective as a portrait. But I get the idea of it being an alternative photographic technique, and maybe the innovative aspect of it was a deciding factor. I bet there are art teachers who will be discussing this in their classes this fall!

 

[weepete]

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.

You're right Dan, whither I like it or not has no bearing on anything, however since others were expressing an opinion I thought I'd express mine.

Though as I said to Overread I do think it's a photograph, and I do think you can stretch the meaning of portrait to encompass this work. There are already portaits out there that don't include a face, abstract portaits which are not necessarily a likeness of the person are pretty well established and there are a few studies and excercises of concepts like self portraits without the self.

It is tenuous and right out there on the edge but it does raise some interesting ideas if you look at it from a specific angle.

 

[weepete]

Am I the only one that took art a lot in school?

Nope, I also did it for a while in college. I can't see the links for some reason though, it may just be me but they just redirect to my ISPs search page. Weird.

 

[weepete]

Wee try looking at it another way then; without any story of who made it or why or how it came to be would you get any sense of a person from it? Would you think it spoke of a person or was just random doodles. In my view once you have to have an essay with a bit of artwork to justify the artwork then chances are the art itself isn't all that good.

In this case you've a few doodles and spit on a bit of film which apparently was then developed (honestly not quite sure what they did to develop it other than just enlarge it and copy for a print).

Ok mate, I appreciate not everyone want's the deeper stuff, lots of people prefer the more straight forward art. Part of the reason why I liked this is it did not take me long to get thinking about what exactly a photographic portrait is and if there is a bit more to it than a physical likeness.

What it brought to my mind was a bit like going into someones house who has passed away and seeing their belongings but no photographs of themselves, or cave paintings, or and thumb imprint on utilitarian pottery. It brings to mind an echo of a person for me.

Photographically my thoughts quickly go like this: would I consider a shot taken in a camera with a lens cap on and then developed (say as part of a roll) as a photograph...yes. What about if the photo was taken of something but not with a shutter or a modern camera (like a pinhole camera?) ...yup, still a photo. What if it wasn't even a box but just happened to be an exposed film for just enough time through other means but captured a recognisable image then yes...still a photo. Would I consider a negative a photo...no...why?...not been developed yet.

Conclusion: Its not a camera or the content that is a defining factor, but the development of a film. (what about digital??! ok so it's a defining factor but not the single defining factor)

 

[bribrius]

Tough one. Apparently the judge was seriously tired of seeing the s.o.s and wants people to be a little more creative entering if they want 20k. Lets see what people put in for entries next year.

 

[DanOstergren]

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.

You're right Dan, whither I like it or not has no bearing on anything, however since others were expressing an opinion I thought I'd express mine.

Though as I said to Overread I do think it's a photograph, and I do think you can stretch the meaning of portrait to encompass this work. There are already portaits out there that don't include a face, abstract portaits which are not necessarily a likeness of the person are pretty well established and there are a few studies and excercises of concepts like self portraits without the self.

It is tenuous and right out there on the edge but it does raise some interesting ideas if you look at it from a specific angle.

How is it a photograph if light wasn't ever used to imprint an image?

 

[DanOstergren]

Am I the only one that took art a lot in school? lol Anyway I wondered, and yes, there have been unconventional portraits done before this. I read about them being described as representative, or symbolic, or conceptual portraits. Found more than I'll share but this one is from 1916 and is not a photo anything, it's a painting, but is it a portrait?
http://www.the-atheneum.org/art/detail.php?ID=154177
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/theater-art/2016/09/01/questions-identity-bowdoin-caOl

Or this photograph from 1920, is it a portrait? apparently the photographer, who later also did photo montages, thought it was, in representing someone. And it's not just a work by the photographer but by the person who created the subject photographed.
http://www.francesnaumann.com/ELSA/elsa05.html

I noticed there are entries that are inkjet prints, C prints, a couple of Polaroids, and one that's a print on linen, so various techniques were accepted. To me this one isn't a representation of the subject that portrays her personality or life, so in that way I don't find it that effective as a portrait. But I get the idea of it being an alternative photographic technique, and maybe the innovative aspect of it was a deciding factor. I bet there are art teachers who will be discussing this in their classes this fall!

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? As well, it took absolutely no knowledge or skill of photography for the entrant to create this image. Photography had nothing to do it, other than the film that was used as the canvas for the grandmother's scribbling. I don't see how scribbling and spitting on film makes a photograph, in any way shape or form. 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. I agree that it is a form of artistic portrait and I even really like the piece, I just can't see how it could ever be a photograph if nothing on it was recorded using light.