Photography contests

I just read a book on how to win photography contests. It's well written, with lots of examples, maybe 200. Of all those, only one or two pass the "wall test". This test simply asks "Would I put this picture in a frame over my mantle?"

The criteria for winning a contest have almost nothing to do with the creation of art. While some of the principles are good ones ("Take pictures of what you love to see"), most of them have only to do with how to get a judge to look favorably on your particular photograph.

It has to have immediate appeal. It has to be an unusual point of view. Of course it should be technically perfect, or at the least be interesting in its imperfection. It should have as subject matter something that will appeal to the judges, who have seen every postcard photograph ever sold. It has to be composed well.

The prize-winning pictures certainly met these specifications. But were they art? Absolutely not. They were great postcards or pretty scenery or unfamiliar countries or unusual landscapes. But they were not "wall-hangers". After you look at them for 3 or 4 seconds you've seen everything you need to see. There's nothing more to look at. There's no depth or mystery or deeper meaning implied.

Then I look at some of the art that's in museums and it nearly universally recognized as "beautiful". A lot of it is simply pretty. Some is great, and that's because a deeper and more universal meaning is hinted at or implied. In Michelangelo's "Pieta" the universal sense of sadness and loss by a mother for her son, even the son of God, is poignant and powerful. However, the Rembrandt "Night Watch" is not. It's just a picture of a bunch of men who wanted their membership in a particular group recognized. We treat it as "a masterpiece" because the books all say it is great art. However, when I observed the people who came to look at it, after only a few minutes they lost interest. It was interesting and old, and that was about it. Even if I had a wall big enough to put that picture on, I wouldn't. It simply doesn't hold my interest.

I would have to agree with you if you pointed out that I simply am too obtuse or too tasteless or too uneducated to appreciate the quality of such work. How would I know that I'm simply artistically inadequate? On the other hand, how many of the readers of this blog note have copies of such great works of art on the walls of their dining rooms?

Just catching the attention of the viewer with a pretty piece of eye candy is not enough to treat the eye candy as serious art. Being an interesting photograph is not enough, or photojournalism would hang in people's living rooms. Where I struggle is with the issue of what the standards for genuine art in photography are?