Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> How about just two categories "artistic" and "technical",
> where "artistic" encompasses the concept as well? If this
> puts too much emphasis on the technical aspects, weighted
> averages such as 2:1 or 3:2 could be used. Using fewer
> categories also reduces tediousness of voting when a
> successful round attracts 50 to 100 entries.


How pretty art is, is different from how clever/witty it is -- just as 
how effective a technique is in accomplishing an effect is also 
completely different from how technically involved it was to produce. 
How do you compare a well chosen/applied simple technique against an 
overly ambitious (read Rube-Goldberg-inspired) technique which showed 
better promise than first-shot results?   I think it would be nice to be 
able to credit different types of things in their own distinct 
categories so people know in what ways their work is good or not good. I 
do agree though that too many would make voting tedious.
2c,
Charles

Post a reply to this message