Bob W, wrote: >I'm one of those people. Although I haven't contributed to the pug >very often,
You've been on the list as long as me... why the hell not then? :-) I've been attempting to hold up my end... hold up my end? (sorry). >I would never contribute to a gallery constituted the way >you describe, or to a competitive gallery. The reason for this is that >I have chosen to show people a photograph which they may or may not >like or find interesting. Whichever way you want to cut it, what >you're suggesting is to have people judge one photograph against >another against some arbitrary standard. If the number of inclusions >was unlimited it would be even worse, assuming some people were chosen >and others weren't - the unchosen ones are told, in effect, that even >though space is unlimited they are not good enough to fill any of it. How's this different from most other things in life??? :-) Smiley intended. Why should the gallery be a socialist construct? :-) Maybe the photo is not good enough... >Equally, I can hardly imagine there would ever be a month when no PUG >was published because the standard of entries simply wasn't high >enough - can you? So despite what you claim, it is a competition >between that month's entries for a limited space. Sure. In that case everybody would get in. We'd call it "Kitsch". > > > but apparently wouldn't mind submitting a picture to the > > gallery that may be > > somewhat lacking, and then are willing to elicit negative comments >or > > constructive criticism about said same photo. > > > >I don't see that there is any conflict at all about this. Whenever >I've had real exhibitions I have been absolutely free to decide what >to show without having to submit it to a panel for inclusion or not, >and at the same time I've been perfectly happy to discuss people's >different opinions about what I've shown, and to read different >opinions in the comments books. This is perfectly normal. I don't see >why the PUG should be any different. > >Having a panel means some people have set themselves up as the >arbiters of good photography. Who has the arrogance to do that? If >anybody would care to step forward I'd very much like to hear them >define what good photography is. Witness any judicial system when it come to arrogance and abitrary judgements, about things a lot more serious than photography. Just about any photo submission I make anywhere is going to be judged and either accepted or rejected. What about the Pentax Canada thing months back? I'm quite sure that not every photograph submitted would have been displayed. If a panel of judges is part of the construct of the system, anyone submitting implicitly recognizes that the panel has the say-so (whether they agree with them or not ends up being irrelevant). I sense you're taking this judging thing a little more strongly than I am imagining it might go. If there were a panel it might be three or five people that simply give a yes/no vote on each submission, with no discussion. You're not going to suck me into a futile philosophical debate over what constitutes good or bad photography. That is often in the eye of the beholder. In the case of a panel though, that group may likely show some balance in that a majority vote would be needed to make the decision. > > > It goes back to asking what a gallery is. Is it a showcase > > or simply a > > photo sharing mechanism? > > > >It's whatever people who submit want it to be. Some people may treat >it as a showplace for their best work, others as a place to show work >that doesn't really fit comfortably on their own gallery, yet others >might decide to show something they're not sure about and ask for >opinions. Why should be it the same thing for everybody? > >People can choose to show or not. If some people don't want their best >work shown next to somebody else's work which they might not like, >then fine, there's no compulsion. They should just bear in mind that >in somebody else's opinion their precious work might be the crap >someone else doesn't want to be seen next to. > >Regards, >Bob Sure that's always the case Bob. I know some people enjoy many of my images, some couldn't care less, some might think they're trash. The one's that don't like them don't hurt my feelings. Well maybe, but I won't let it show. :-) Lets compare the PUG to a nice cool clean glass of water. A few seagulls fly over and poop in it. Is that glass of water as nice now? :-) I know this comparison is over the wall, but I'd like to see the overall quality go up. Hopefully by execising a keen eye before and after pressing the shutter. About the judges thing. I just said I liked the idea, not that I'm trying to make that happen. Anyway, if all you people would stop engaging me on the subject I might shut up. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
