|
 |
Warp wrote:
>
> Tina <you### [at] foad org> wrote:
> : The only score this /should/ lower is technical
>
> I have noticed the cross-contamination of judging categories in the IRTC
> long time ago, tried to express my views (and most people agreed) and tried
> to think about solutions, but there seems to be none feasible.
This is simply the result of the totally unnatural separation between
art, tech, and concept, especially tech/art.
For example, think of detail level. A good detail-level enhances the
concept, as it helps refining the idea. It requires good technical
skills to model the details. And choosing appropriate details, getting
the right documentation, is an artistic task.
The demonstration is valid for most elements of an image. The
categories are totally dependant from each other ! The process of
making an image is not broken into these three steps, why should
the vote be so ?
An image with excellent concept and poor realisation is worth
nothing ! How can you evaluate the concept if it's badly represented ?
The reverse is true too.
Gilles Tran's latest winning image is a good example of that. The
*idea* is not striking, but, due to high artistic and tech skills,
the "contrast" concept is present everywhere, in every aspect of
the scene. That's why, though the overall concept is not higly
original, it deserves a high concept note.
The solution ? A single note (/100) for each image !
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
