|
|
> I give the judging process a lot more credit than you, but agree that
> there will occasionally be some really special entry whose qualities are
> recognized only after closer inspection than the flood of IRTC images
> allows.
>
I get that same feeling. Additionally, I really don't feel very qualified
to comment or even judge a scene very well. But by that same token, I would
imagine that many of us have that same feeling, so I do the best I can.
I'll freely admit that many abstract works will likely fly over my head. I
remember seeing a famous painting called "Red Square" (I don't know the
artist), and to me, it was simply that: a red square. Does that mean that
it was without artistic merit? No. But it was lost on me.
For most of my creations, I try to attain realism. But, I generally don't
want it to be so real that someone would believe that it's a photograph.
For me the best comment would be something like, "It looks so real... But
that simply can't be!" Surrealistic? Hyper-realistic? I'm not real good
with those terms.
Anyway, because of my own biases, I'm sure I would tend to judge other
images according to the level that I would like to attain. e.g. An
excellent model with poor textures, will get a lower score than a less
complex model with excellent textures. Even so, I try to balance any known
bias that I might have, trying to realize what the artist set out to
accomplish. But that is at best a difficult thing to do.
--
Slash
Post a reply to this message
|
|