On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:11:48 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
We note the "might", and we recall your track record! :-) John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
