Rant: The Santa Fe Prize for Photography and the Death of Common Sense

[Lazy_Eye]

<div>I was really taken back by the newswire announcement on the AMPHO size of the site announcing that <span class="blurb">Leigh Anne Langwell won the Santa Fe Prize for Photography. The winning artwork is not even a photograph and has no business competing with the work of photographers for this prize. It is a very nice piece of art work that uses photo sensitive materials as a media base, but it is not photography in any sense of the word. </span></div><div><span class="blurb"></span> </div><div><span class="blurb">What ever happened to judges who have the slightest bit of common sense and fair play? Worst of all is that there were some real photographs by real photographers that were very worthy of a prize and some deserved recognition. There are plenty of competitions for fine arts that do not admit photographers, and the Santa Fe Prize for Photography should be exactly what it states- a prize given to photography. </span></div>

[DrJalapeno]

<div></div><div></div><div>Here's a link that gets to the heart of Lazy Eye's rant--</div><div> </div><div><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sfcp.org/programs.cfm?p=SFPrize">Santa Fe Center for Photography</a> -- click on Leigh Anne Langwell's 'Portfolio' link for her comments and more images.</div><div> </div><div>I completely agree with you, and thank you for bringing this to our attention. This travesty is made even more unsettling when one views the portfolios of the five finalists! http://www.pbase.com/johnsgallery/image/11227741.jpg</div><div> </div><div> </div><br><br><br><br>Message Edited by DrJalapeno on <span class="date_text">04-22-2007</span> <span class="time_text">06:40 PM</span>

[pixeldawg]

<DIV>I agree, guys. Just because they judge doesn't mean they have taste...</DIV>

[Landscaper]

<div>&quot;Just because they judge doesn't mean they have taste...&quot;</div><div> </div><div>Or common sense.</div>

[scott450]

<div>I have often wondered why some photographs win the contests...</div><div> </div><div>mabey they sould let us vote on them?</div><div> </div><div>hmmm...</div>

[OJS]

<div>Scott, maybe there could be an &quot;American Idol Photographer&quot; contest, as long as Simon was not the judge. :D</div>

[Barefoot]

<div>Whether or not we agree with her selection as the winner, I have to take issue with the statement that this is not photography and she is not a real photographer. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines photography as the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy, especially light, on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip). Photograms are the most elemental of all photographic processes. You will find this type of image in photography museums. In fact, that's how I first got interested in playing around with it; I saw a body of work at the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego and purchased the light sensitive paper that day. If you haven't tried it, it's a lot of fun and really makes you think about light.</div><div> </div><div>I think her different approach set her apart from her peers, and was probably a big factor in her win.</div>

[tobin_lam]

<div>I really want to agree with you but after looking at the definition of &quot;photograph&quot; and &quot;photography&quot;, those are indeed photographs. I can't find anything that says the photograph must be made using a camera. Her techniques seem very unique and unorthodox but that isn't grounds for disqualification. I wish the juror's statement was more helpful but it doesn't really say anything useful.</div>

[peirceman]

<div>I have to agree with Tobin, this is clearly photography. With that said, these photos don't elicit any emotion for me whatsoever. As I try to get away from critiqueing photos and start commenting on how they impact me, these do nothing.</div><div> </div><div>For me, photography has always been about communicating.</div>

[AstroImager]

<DIV>Hmm.&nbsp; It's clear we all have our own tastes.</DIV>
<DIV>I found her images to be beautiful, creative, and very very original.</DIV>
<DIV>And absolutely "photography."&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>While there was an awful lot of good stuff in the portolios of the other finalists, it's clear the judges went for orginality this time.&nbsp; She makes images unlike anything produced before, and that obviously impacted the judgement.&nbsp; I happen to agree with them -- you don't have to, that's fine.&nbsp; But it's their prize, and they're the ones who decide who it goes to :)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Paul</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

[Landscaper]

It would be interesting to know whether any criteria were published as part of the contest announcement. If so, then hopefully originality was mentioned. If not, then it was a cr*pshoot for every contestant.<br><br>It's been a very long time since I entered a photo contest. Looking at the various contests, their winners, and the prior criteria (if any), I've resolved never to enter a contest that doesn't spell out what the judges will be expected to look for. I can't imagine any self-respecting photographer wanting to subject his work to a judge and whether that judge has acid reflux from his breakfast.<br><div></div>

[suci]

<div>I always considered photograms to be elemental to photography. I cant say i would imitate her work although they are very striking and unusual images. Strange turn of events; while some of us still struggle with digital manipulations being accepted as photography others discount traditional darkroom work as such .What is next Film in a pinhole camera not photography?:cool:</div>

[peirceman]

<div></div><div><br></div><blockquote><div><hr>Landscaper wrote:<br>It would be interesting to know whether any criteria were published as part of the contest announcement. If so, then hopefully originality was mentioned. If not, then it was a cr*pshoot for every contestant.<br><br>It's been a very long time since I entered a photo contest. Looking at the various contests, their winners, and the prior criteria (if any), I've resolved never to enter a contest that doesn't spell out what the judges will be expected to look for. I can't imagine any self-respecting photographer wanting to subject his work to a judge and whether that judge has acid reflux from his breakfast.<br><div></div><br><hr></div></blockquote><div>I agree, Photo contests are silly. Comparing one against another is like trying to explain why you like one piece of music over another. Photography is a completely subjective art form and what is art to one might be trash to the others.</div><div> </div><div>I was reading in the latest issue of Lenswork, and one of the regular contributors was talking about getting away from critiqueing photos, (you know, crop this, burn that) and starting to comment on them instead (this is what I see means to me). He stated that if a photograph truly is a work of art, then it is what it is, and it is not our job as an observer to tell the artist what he / she should do, but to experience the art and decide if it moves us. Could you imagine telling Rembrandt what he should have done on a painting?</div><div> </div><div>This article really moved me and made me think about my photography a little differently. Obviously exposure, focus, et. al. are important. I do think, however, that what we try to communicate with our photography, and how well we do that, is what is most important.<br></div><div></div>

[jdryan3]

<div><div><br></div><blockquote><div><hr>peirceman wrote:<div> </div><div>I was reading in the latest issue of Lenswork, and one of the regular contributors was talking about getting away from critiqueing photos, (you know, crop this, burn that) and starting to comment on them instead (this is what I see means to me). He stated that if a photograph truly is a work of art, then it is what it is, and it is not our job as an observer to tell the artist what he / she should do, but to experience the art and decide if it moves us. Could you imagine telling Rembrandt what he should have done on a painting?</div><div><br><hr></div></div></blockquote><div>That Picasso guy needs more curves in his stuff. ;)</div><div> </div><div>But I am going to look up the article. Sounds very interesting.<br></div><div></div></div>

[moltogordo]

Yes we all do have are own tastes. And I think some of our regular contributers, like the responders in this blog (Orv, Paul, Scott, Landscaper, Dr. J et al) are producing better work than I saw in these portfolios. At least to my taste. I'll go one step farther than Scott, who maintains that photography should be about communication. I think it should also be uplifting to the spirit.<br><br>I have become quite bored with shock value, which seems to be a major artistic criteria now, be it photography, painting or music.<br><div></div>

[Fotolopithecus]

<div>There is such a thing as getting too esoteric wherein the normal definitions understood to be one thing by the majority lose any meaning. Fotolopithecus</div>

[ProfessorLynn]

<div>Hi Lazy Eye, et al,</div><div> </div><div>To begin with, I've been a pro photographer for nearly 60 years, grad of 3 photo schools including Brooks and USN Med Photo School, part time teacher since 1965, full time pro photo teacher for 16 years. I was a member of the Biological Photo Assn for 25 years and was one of the teachers of Bio Photo at UCLA. I can be very technical as well as apppreciating art.</div><div> </div><div>This is photography, like it or not, whether I personally liked them or not, remember Man Ray and Barbara Morgan did some of their most memorable work as photograms which this work obviously is as well.</div><div> </div><div>Ms Langwell's work is, to me, of extreme beauty. I'm pretty sure that I don't have the patience to produce the work as she did, but I certainly admire it. I've done abstract and semi abstract work which took many hours to do and others would have said, &quot;forget it, Jones&quot;. Some of my work is on photographic or ink jet papers and might not be traditional photography, but so what, if I like it, that is enough. </div><div> </div><div>I've done just about everything in photography from dead bodies, to portrait, to advertising, to motion pictures, to writing, to inventing, etc. I really appreciate the works of my contemporaries whether they be traditional or &quot;far out&quot;. Give everybody a break, even if it isn't your cup of tea.</div><div> </div><div>Lynn</div><div>(the elder, since LynnP is now out there) </div><div> </div><div> </div>

[rsn48]

<div>Originality in photography is a difficult thing, coping other's work isn't as difficult. When the first red rocks (are they in Utah) came out I was blown away. Now I seem to see these same red rock faces in many many galleries, these red rocks have become almost gliche to me. Or how about sunsets, how original can you be with that after seeing ten million sunset shots over a photographers lifetime.</div><div> </div><div>I took some photos of flowers but heavily cropped them to get more of a grain effect and changed the colour to get more of a &quot;mood&quot; affect rather than an actual rendition. When I showed two of these photos to a buddy of mine, he thought they were pictures of pop corn.... lol! Most photographers copy what others have done and expect that same photo rendition to win photo contests. Think of being a photo judge over the years and all the gliche pics they have seen. Something new and different is refreshing and in some ways easier to judge. I love macro photo's but I've seen hundreds of &quot;bees gathering pollen in the flower&quot; shots; time to move on from that.</div><div> </div><div>If you think what this woman has done, post some of your &quot;original&quot; style photos that don't copy the work of others, something refreshingly creative - I think you'll soon discover originality in photography or in most arts is a very difficult mountain to climb.</div>

[JMS]

<div>Photography- from the Latin:</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Photo, meaning light</div><div>Graphy, meaning to write/paint</div>