On 6/9/2016 5:30 PM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:

> Don't get your hopes up.

Couldn't get any higher, old chap.

> Compared to the people that enter those contests, I'm
> a two-bit hack.
>

Have you seen any of mine?

> I have enough projects awaiting completion without starting a new one.
>
> I was more interested in seeing what others could do with the idea.
>

That is just selfish, IMO.

>
> One important thing to remember: Context is everything.  Ideally, you shouldn't
> have to explain which category your object falls into, and the main problem is
> that your object supposedly rewrites the history of your context.
>
> If you use a fictional context, then you have to give enough information that
> viewers understand why the object is interesting.  An Ozymandias can be easier
> in this regard - Like a plank in a shipwreck, a dilapidated starship in a
> medieval village needs little explanation.
>
> Of course, to qualify, the starship might be buried in a mound like a viking
> longship.
>
> If you want to use a historical context -- or something from modern day depicted
> as it might be seen thousands of years from now -- one idea might be the
> Millennium Seed Vault.  Or you might imagine a time capsule satellite returning
> to earth.
>

You are setting the standards quite high.
I look forward to seeing your entry.

> It might not be suitable for a contest, for the simple reason that one might
> have to do a series of images to elaborate on the context, before dropping the
> other shoe and showing the artefact.
>

Multiple entries are allowed.

> It would definitely be a challenge.

The name of the game.

> But I doubt that I am up to it, personally.
> Sorry to disappoint.
>

Shucks! blush! :-P



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message