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

[pixmedic]

that contest was a setup. im calling shinanigans. a publicity stunt perhaps. shock value. there is no way that contest was above board.
I do a contest that is purely subjective and decided by only 2 people, and im still calling bull$^*% on that one.
its a hard enough stretch to even say that it might resemble something a little like a "photograph" (very very technially subjectively speaking)... but a portrait?
come on now...
that contest wasnt pushing borders or definitions, it was $***ing on legitimate photographers everywhere.
I hope this rediculous plan backfires and everyone boycots the hell out of the judges work/contests/whatever from now on.

 

[vintagesnaps]

That's a good point about a photograph being a recorded image of light. I suppose it depends on what someone considers to be a photograph, a photographic work, or a photographic process. This definition seems to describe it somewhat differently; it refers to "action of light on a light sensitive material."
Photography – Art Term | Tate

This one is described as an award with 1st prize being acquisitive and funded by the family of Olive Cotton; a Director's Choice Acquisition funded by the Friends of the Tweed Gallery; and Judge's High Commendations. It's an exhibition held by The National Gallery of Australia; it's not a sponsored contest by a company or business.

It says in the Conditions of Entry pdf under Entry Eligibility that entries need to be 'photographic'; it doesn't say they have to record an image or even fit any particular definition of photography, which seems to leave it open to possibilities.

 

[limr]

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, if I have to do the mental gymnastics equivalent of discovering the theory of relativity just to kinda sorta fit this piece of work into the definition of "photograph" or "portrait," then chances are it doesn't belong in either.

 

[pixmedic]

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, if I have to do the mental gymnastics equivalent of discovering the theory of relativity just to kinda sorta fit this piece of work into the definition of "photograph" or "portrait," then chances are it doesn't belong in either.

there is no respect due either the judge or the judges decision.

 

[limr]

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, if I have to do the mental gymnastics equivalent of discovering the theory of relativity just to kinda sorta fit this piece of work into the definition of "photograph" or "portrait," then chances are it doesn't belong in either.

there is no respect due either the judge or the judges decision.

Agreed. That was aimed more towards the folks in this thread who are trying to argue in the judge's defense I may disagree with them, but I still respect them.

 

[DanOstergren]

[
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.

Right, but the car was a car to begin with. The artist did not start with a photograph, just a piece of film with no photograph imprinted on it as a canvas for a drawing. At the end of the day it's still a drawing, not a photograph, and it took no photographic skill whatsoever to create. In the context of a photography contest, photographic technique should matter quite a bit and there was none used.

 

[petrochemist]

That's a good point about a photograph being a recorded image of light. I suppose it depends on what someone considers to be a photograph, a photographic work, or a photographic process. This definition seems to describe it somewhat differently; it refers to "action of light on a light sensitive material."
Photography – Art Term | Tate

Their definition actually states "an image produced by the action of light on a light-sensitive material" so you'll note it refers to an image as well in the same sentence you part quoted.
Further down it also goes into the derivation of the word: "The word photograph was coined in 1839 by Sir John Herschel and is based on the Greek word ‘phos’, meaning ‘light’, and ‘graphê’, meaning ‘drawing’ – so ‘drawing with light."

A fully exposed negative has no drawing, and while the price winner makes up for that with the subsequent scribbles they weren't done with light so don't upgrade the film to a photograph.

If only I'd thought to enter a 'sculpture' made from a pile of waste camera bits, that would have been as related to photography & not been 2 dimensional so could have broken another requirement - how could it not win!

 

[runnah]

But...what is art?

 

[limr]

But...what is art?

 

[ClickAddict]

But...what is art?

Irrelevant to the argument.

People offended by this entry winning are not claiming that it's not "art" they are claiming it's not a "photograph". just like they would if someone entered a painting in a sculpting competition. Yes, both are art... no, both are not sculptures. (And to use some weird explanation that you are sculpting the paint would be such a stretch as to be offensive.)

 

[Gary A.]

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.

A shoe has sole.

 

[runnah]

But...what is art?

Irrelevant to the argument.

People offended by this entry winning are not claiming that it's not "art" they are claiming it's not a "photograph". just like they would if someone entered a painting in a sculpting competition. Yes, both are art... no, both are not sculptures. (And to use some weird explanation that you are sculpting the paint would be such a stretch as to be offensive.)

I would argue that the irrelevancy of the argument is what makes irrelevant relevant.

 

[webestang64]

But...what is art?

Art = 5% Talent, 95% BS. (My college art appreciation teacher told our class this as a joke, but I took her seriously).

 

[vintagesnaps]

I wonder about some people having had such negative experiences with art - at least it seems like it. I always loved to draw and paint, etc. and took art all through school as electives. But nobody has to go to art exhibits or museums or do anything with art if they aren't into it. So if someone doesn't like this one or agree with the choice or whatever, then you don't have to like it or support it; it's their museum and exhibition and up to them I think. Although I can understand people not agreeing with this choice; it is a stretch.

 

[Overread]

The problem with art, in my experience, is that its a subject where its possible to teach the subject with very few skills at teaching. In fact I think a lot of art teachers rely on a lot of "justification" of artwork from their students whilst typically fawning over those who show "natural talent". I think this overcome two key weaknesses in the system

1) Time - it seems there isn't time to properly teach artistic methods - eg sketching/painting/photography/etc...
2) Lack of technical understanding on the part of the teacher - both with regard to method and artistic quality.

As a result art has quickly become a kind of magic. No other line of work people say "well you just have to be born a natural electrician" so much as in art. Even on sites like here one encounters many who consider composition to be a kind of either luck or mystical mythological power that other people have that can't be learned. Or which requires a kind of brain type defined by if you write with your left or right hand etc...

However the teaching system also has a third weakness which is that it seems that many art teachers and schools want to encourage students so much that they actually give up with critique and improvement and instead focus on praise. Praise is good but when its heavily put on and you're writing essays to justify otherwise weak bits of art; that thinking sticks. It grows and nurtures a whole generation or three of artists who feel that art is more about justification and argument than skill.