gonzo wrote:
 
>   artistic - does it make me want to look twice or do I
> automatically head for the back button,

Sounds like your criteria for artistic is very similar to mine for concept.
I can't use yours because I often find myself heading for the back button
on some very beautiful, well done, but to me boring images.lol

>   technical - are there any glaring artifacts or conversely
> any objects or effects that make me drool,

Have you gotten to the image yet that the guy rendered with *his* *own*
ray-tracer? 

>   concept/originality -  can I tell what it is without 
> reading the file, do 7 other images look the same

Too much of that in this round, IMO.

>   interpretation - does it fit the topic (a pretty broad
> call in this round...)

I ignore whether or not I believe the concept fits the topic. I'm afraid
that a lot of the non-Dali-like images in this round are going to be
perceived as non-surrealist by the unaware. Surrealism imcludes styles as
far from Dali as Joan Miro. I can imagine the ridicule his works would
receive if entered into this round of the IRTC.

> For more strictly artistic criteria I look at
> composition, use of color, visual appeal.

Agreed, except that I would substitute visual *effect*.

> Technical bleeds the least, 

And I think that it's important for that reason. There are always a few
entires that are only slightly more "3D" than mapping a magazine picture
onto a plane. I look for pictures where the entrant has worked hard to
display his own vision rather than *featuring* the work of other people. A
technical image to me is one that is shaped by the intrant's intentions
rather than by his convenience.

> Definitely bleeding now (Creativity/Interpretation )

This is where I find that basing my comparisions strictly on the other
entries in the round rather than judging each against my own interpretation
is most useful.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message