SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Do on line art competitions really highlight the best art works?

Various art websites and artist networks conduct competitions both on and off line. Very often, I noticed, they are conducted to increase the number of members of the networks. The organisers of these competitions provide links to the competing artists' work and ask the artists to invite their friends to vote. And only after the "friends" visit the page, they realize only members of the networks can vote. So they join the network to vote for their friends. This happens in non-juried competitions. And the more friends an artist has, the more votes he would get. The winning entry need not be the best in the competition. A win doesn't reflect the artistic talent of an artist.
On some networks, the work of the best campaigner gets more votes and not the best art work!
And some juried competitions too have faults. Recently one of my friends told me he participated in a competition organized by an art website based half a world away from his country. As his work was very good and got rave reviews from critics in his place he was confident he would win and get a prize. But in the end his work didn't even get noticed because the jurists belonged to "another culture" and found it difficult to understand the significance of his work! My friend was very disappointed.
So what do the members here think? Do on line art competitions really high light the best art works or are they just money spinners and member bringers?

Views: 68

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, the artists here are unable to participate in some of the competitions in the world because they are asked to pay huge amounts of money as entry fees!

Minnie W. Shuler said:
I do not think so. That is not to mention the artists who may not be able to afford the entry fees. Some of them are for making money for the site.
You may not get a prize but at least you get an instant audience. Yes I too have experienced the so called culture barrier but at least have the satisfaction that my work has been viewed. Certainly better than paying money to an art gallery in the form of rent and organizing your own exhibition. Then paying a 40% commission if your work gets sold! There is also the benifit of peer exchange of views and review. And where do you store all of your unsold work? But yes I agree online polls and judging the work merely on the basis of the votes gathered is an imperfect system. Campagning is unethical and should be banned. Still I feel that benifits of such competitions far outweigh their drawbacks! Nobody has succeded in designing a perfect system for judging art - as invariably such judgments have to be subjective. But what is the alternative? As for artists taking the failure to win such competetitions - I only say that they must possess stouter hearts!
Media highlights the wrongs that go on in the world. Why? To make people take notice & corrective measures.
Likewise we too try to bring it to the notice of the artists all the fault lines in the art world. It is for all the concerned people to discuss & take measures to stem the rot. If somebody says I am comfortable to stay in the rut, it is up to him or her!
You say benefits outweigh the negatives. If you allow substandard stuff to shine art world would stink. I am sorry I cannot keep quiet. I am a space woman not a box woman! I will definitely raise my voice.
You may not be an expert in dance but you know which one is better- classical dance or cabaret. Likewise there are some parameters to judge which art works in general are good & which ones are below average- they may not be 100 % accurate though.
Well, as people in the scientific world say - if you aim at the sky you will at least reach the moon. If you aim for the roof top, you will only reach the window. If some people are satisfied with just PEOPLE VIEWING THEIR WORK it is up to them.
I will give my unsold work to museums in Europe. They are asking me to send my art from science works to keep in art school museums.
If you want your work to be viewed you can exhibit them on your own website or other art websites. If I say websites & networks are highlighting my work & are using them as ads to attract people, what do you say? If the work has substance, it will stand out, definitely get noticed, go places & viewed by the whole world.
I have just read this:
Art educates people to be creative. A lack of creativity is a handicap for science. Science creates new paradigms of thought. Resistance to new paradigms of thought is a handicap for art.

Ramakrishna Yellepeddi said:
You may not get a prize but at least you get an instant audience. Yes I too have experienced the so called culture barrier but at least have the satisfaction that my work has been viewed. Certainly better than paying money to an art gallery in the form of rent and organizing your own exhibition. Then paying a 40% commission if your work gets sold! There is also the benifit of peer exchange of views and review. And where do you store all of your unsold work? But yes I agree online polls and judging the work merely on the basis of the votes gathered is an imperfect system. Campagning is unethical and should be banned. Still I feel that benifits of such competitions far outweigh their drawbacks! Nobody has succeded in designing a perfect system for judging art - as invariably such judgments have to be subjective. But what is the alternative? As for artists taking the failure to win such competetitions - I only say that they must possess stouter hearts!
All is possible. Yet it seems to me that my work on-line is not so good, because the computer can't display the colors correctly nor does it render texture or other fine detail. I've not ever seriously considered showing by that medium.

As for art paradigms, perhaps the "dog wags the tail" Was there art before there was science as we know it? It is an interesting topic.
Yes, art is as old as man himself. Even cave men created patterns & figures. Before that men created art works in the sand. Science developed later when man started thinking differently & methodically.
Krishna

simple said:
All is possible. Yet it seems to me that my work on-line is not so good, because the computer can't display the colors correctly nor does it render texture or other fine detail. I've not ever seriously considered showing by that medium.

As for art paradigms, perhaps the "dog wags the tail" Was there art before there was science as we know it? It is an interesting topic.
I just read this:
Ignore non-artist authorities if you want to be a good artist. Juries, the grantors, the gallery, the direction from above are just so many fingers in our pie. All external measures are dangerous because they not only push us to performing, as opposed to creating, but their sense of worth takes over our own. This is precisely what Parisian artists fought against. It impinges on our freedom to create in the way we want to.
How true?!
I am an artist. I paint on subjects some of which are unique to India. For example look at 'Janmashtami Celebration'. The subject matter is alien to a person who has not had an exposure to Indian Culture and Festivals. Similarly in 'Lady on a Swing' a non Indian may not appreciate that it is the picture of a lady in a draped saree at the top-most apogee of the swing, and as such miss the whole point of the spirit of the picture. A foreign reviewer graded it 2 on 10, where as an Indian reviewer rated it 8 on 10 because she understood what I meant to convey. That is what I mean by culture barrier

Minnie W. Shuler said:
So, you think with all of the negatives it is still worthwile? Please explain the culture barrier in more detail.

Ramakrishna Yellepeddi said:
You may not get a prize but at least you get an instant audience. Yes I too have experienced the so called culture barrier but at least have the satisfaction that my work has been viewed. Certainly better than paying money to an art gallery in the form of rent and organizing your own exhibition. Then paying a 40% commission if your work gets sold! There is also the benifit of peer exchange of views and review. And where do you store all of your unsold work? But yes I agree online polls and judging the work merely on the basis of the votes gathered is an imperfect system. Campagning is unethical and should be banned. Still I feel that benifits of such competitions far outweigh their drawbacks! Nobody has succeded in designing a perfect system for judging art - as invariably such judgments have to be subjective. But what is the alternative? As for artists taking the failure to win such competetitions - I only say that they must possess stouter hearts!
I haven't had a look at your work so I am unable to comment. Wouldn't I have had the opportunity to view online had you posted it online? Should I go to Hyderabad just to take a look at your work?How many artists' would I view that way. As for posting work to my own site - I am not a programmer - nor do I have the time. And how many eye-balls would I get. Is it not better to post your work to established art sites that possess the wherewithal to edit and maintain a site? As for donating your work to a European site, why not an Indian site. I am sorry but you are speaking in two tongues. On the one hand you want to donate your work to a European Museum because it attracts more viewers, but don't want to post it even to free sites - who employ a technical advancement - and appeal to to wider audience. It is hypocritical - you claim to be a scientist analyzing art - yet reject a technologically advanced platform.

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:
Media highlights the wrongs that go on in the world. Why? To make people take notice & corrective measures.
Likewise we too try to bring it to the notice of the artists all the fault lines in the art world. It is for all the concerned people to discuss & take measures to stem the rot. If somebody says I am comfortable to stay in the rut, it is up to him or her!
You say benefits outweigh the negatives. If you allow substandard stuff to shine art world would stink. I am sorry I cannot keep quiet. I am a space woman not a box woman! I will definitely raise my voice.
You may not be an expert in dance but you know which one is better- classical dance or cabaret. Likewise there are some parameters to judge which art works in general are good & which ones are below average- they may not be 100 % accurate though.
Well, as people in the scientific world say - if you aim at the sky you will at least reach the moon. If you aim for the roof top, you will only reach the window. If some people are satisfied with just PEOPLE VIEWING THEIR WORK it is up to them.
I will give my unsold work to museums in Europe. They are asking me to send my art from science works to keep in art school museums.
If you want your work to be viewed you can exhibit them on your own website or other art websites. If I say websites & networks are highlighting my work & are using them as ads to attract people, what do you say? If the work has substance, it will stand out, definitely get noticed, go places & viewed by the whole world.
I have just read this:
Art educates people to be creative. A lack of creativity is a handicap for science. Science creates new paradigms of thought. Resistance to new paradigms of thought is a handicap for art.

Ramakrishna Yellepeddi said:
You may not get a prize but at least you get an instant audience. Yes I too have experienced the so called culture barrier but at least have the satisfaction that my work has been viewed. Certainly better than paying money to an art gallery in the form of rent and organizing your own exhibition. Then paying a 40% commission if your work gets sold! There is also the benifit of peer exchange of views and review. And where do you store all of your unsold work? But yes I agree online polls and judging the work merely on the basis of the votes gathered is an imperfect system. Campagning is unethical and should be banned. Still I feel that benifits of such competitions far outweigh their drawbacks! Nobody has succeded in designing a perfect system for judging art - as invariably such judgments have to be subjective. But what is the alternative? As for artists taking the failure to win such competetitions - I only say that they must possess stouter hearts!
"You say benefits outweigh the negatives. If you allow substandard stuff to shine art world would stink. I am sorry I cannot keep quiet".
There are market forces at work. The inefficient will automatically get eliminated in the race to win eye balls - just as the weaker species do in the scheme of nature. The scheme of economics (The Theory of Efficient Markets) favors the strong in the market-place. Do you know that Van Gogh did not sell a single painting during his life-time. Did that in anyway decrease the greatness of his art? What about the unknown master creators of Ancient Temple Art? Did they get the recognition they deserve? Did we stop admiring their work? The world is an imperfect place. We can't change it. We can only manage it from within (The Theory of Risk and Reward).

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:
Media highlights the wrongs that go on in the world. Why? To make people take notice & corrective measures.
Likewise we too try to bring it to the notice of the artists all the fault lines in the art world. It is for all the concerned people to discuss & take measures to stem the rot. If somebody says I am comfortable to stay in the rut, it is up to him or her!
You say benefits outweigh the negatives. If you allow substandard stuff to shine art world would stink. I am sorry I cannot keep quiet. I am a space woman not a box woman! I will definitely raise my voice.
You may not be an expert in dance but you know which one is better- classical dance or cabaret. Likewise there are some parameters to judge which art works in general are good & which ones are below average- they may not be 100 % accurate though.
Well, as people in the scientific world say - if you aim at the sky you will at least reach the moon. If you aim for the roof top, you will only reach the window. If some people are satisfied with just PEOPLE VIEWING THEIR WORK it is up to them.
I will give my unsold work to museums in Europe. They are asking me to send my art from science works to keep in art school museums.
If you want your work to be viewed you can exhibit them on your own website or other art websites. If I say websites & networks are highlighting my work & are using them as ads to attract people, what do you say? If the work has substance, it will stand out, definitely get noticed, go places & viewed by the whole world.
I have just read this:
Art educates people to be creative. A lack of creativity is a handicap for science. Science creates new paradigms of thought. Resistance to new paradigms of thought is a handicap for art.

Ramakrishna Yellepeddi said:
You may not get a prize but at least you get an instant audience. Yes I too have experienced the so called culture barrier but at least have the satisfaction that my work has been viewed. Certainly better than paying money to an art gallery in the form of rent and organizing your own exhibition. Then paying a 40% commission if your work gets sold! There is also the benifit of peer exchange of views and review. And where do you store all of your unsold work? But yes I agree online polls and judging the work merely on the basis of the votes gathered is an imperfect system. Campagning is unethical and should be banned. Still I feel that benifits of such competitions far outweigh their drawbacks! Nobody has succeded in designing a perfect system for judging art - as invariably such judgments have to be subjective. But what is the alternative? As for artists taking the failure to win such competetitions - I only say that they must possess stouter hearts!
Very often the person who can gather maximum number of votes from his friends gets selected - not the person who has the best art work! All this is really a waste of time. We don't have time to go to all of our thousands of friends asking them to vote. So we lose. People who have lots of time can do that & win. Not we. I have added a discussion on these art competitions on art lab long back. I don't believe in these competitions. You are a good artist & you know that. Period. There is no need to win a competition to prove that. We have better things to do.

Here is a good example of how the best art works are judged in competitions and for awards. And artists, get ready for a shock because I am going to be proved right

Artist remains unrepentant for judging prestigious prize by tossing a coin

Leading indigenous artist says that awards like John Sulman Prize are not about art

By Elizabeth Fortescue |
 2 Jun 11 

The winning painting,

The winning painting, "The Artist’s Fate", was chosen by Richard Bell

SYDNEY. Richard Bell, one of Australia’s best-known indigenous contemporary artists, has defended his method for judging the Sir John Sulman Prize for subject, genre or mural painting—the toss of a coin.

 

Within days of artist Peter Smeeth being awarded the A$20,000 (£13,000) prize at the Art Gallery of New South Wales in April, Sydney’s newspapers got wind of Bell’s unorthodox criteria. But while there was outrage among some of the finalists, Bell remains unrepentant.

“Most artists know what these prizes are about,” he told The Art Newspaper. “They’ve got very little to do with art and much more to do with the institution.”

Of the 29 finalists Bell selected from 633 entries, more than 20 depicted animals. “I like animals,” the artist said. “I was going to make that the sole criterion but I had to choose some of my friends.”

Bell then took eight pieces of paper and wrote the names of four artists he is friends with on half of them, and two artists whose work he liked and two artists whose work he didn’t like on the others. He scattered the pieces of paper on the floor and tossed a coin. It landed on the slip with Smeeth’s name on it.

Smeeth, whose winning entry was a self-portrait titled The Artist’s Fate, 2011, said that while he was initially “nonplussed”, on reflection he is now happy. “I’ve got the prize and the publicity,” he said. “Every person who judges an art show brings their own agenda to it, same as a cattle show.”

Bell made no attempt to hide his selection method, happily telling the finalists about it at the party on the night of the prize-giving.

Finalists Ken and Julia Yonetani of Katoomba are seeing the funny side. “Apparently our names were on the floor in the last eight,” said Julia Yonetani. “The coin could have been tossed our way.”

Bell is no stranger to controversy. When he won the National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Art Award in 2003, he turned up at the ceremony wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words “White Girls Can’t Hump”. His winning painting carried the slogan, “Aboriginal Art—It’s a White Thing”.

Asked if he expects to judge any more prizes, Bell told us: “I’ve got my darts ready.”

The Sulman prize is one of Australia’s oldest, established in 1936, for works made in the preceding two years.

Source: The Art Newspaper   

I am proved right again! As soon as I entered the art world I realized the truth that there is little difference between "the best art works" and "not so good ones". We discussed this topic on my network too. Best artists and art works?! It is just an illusion! Each and every piece of art is good in my opinion and these competitions and awards are just money spinners for the organisers!

RSS

© 2019   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service