| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/11/2004 01:17:40 AM · #1 |
The rules state:
"Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, and computer artwork. "
In the current challenge (Backlighting), there are 6 - 9 (depending on interpretation) literal photographic depictions of works of art. Some are quite good photos and all clearly meet the challenge.
Could we get sight counsel clarification on when such a depiction breaks or falls within the rules. What is a creative depiction or interpretation?
I'm not looking to borrow trouble but I am confused about this.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
09/11/2004 01:32:23 AM · #2 |
Request disqualification if you believe they break the rules.
However, in my past experience, if the artwork in question is three dimensional, it will not be disqualified. About the only types of 'literal representations of art' that get disqualified are photographs of two dimensional work such as posters, paintings, etc. They are also usually 'straight on' photos where there is no creative use of the camera or exposure to capture the art...
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 02:08:51 AM · #3 |
yeah...john pretty much summed it up. But you should note that everything is subject to interpretation, so SC votes on each entry that is suspected of violating this rule individually on its merits.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 03:46:00 AM · #4 |
Here is a thread, "Am I being picked on?", started by train after a disqualification. It covered the subject of photographing artwork from a number of angles. It should give you a feel for what is likely to be considered a violation and what isn't.
This is just to give you a better understanding of what has been done in the past. However, do not concern yourself with trying to decide for the SC (and not request), if you feel it is a depiction of a work of art then request a DQ as John suggested. With matters left to interpretation the more examples the better. (Hmm, just realized we only see the negative examples -- it might well be valuable to see the decisions, and reasons, for those not DQed as well. It would help drastically in understanding things such as this.)
David
/edit: added last paragraph.
Message edited by author 2004-09-11 03:51:45.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 06:17:23 AM · #5 |
The artwork rule is generally judged as follows:
If a photograph is composed in such a way as to compel a reasonable voter to judge the artwork represented in the photograph rather than the photographic representation thereof, the image probably will be disqualified. Otherwise, the photograph probably will stand.
To put this another way: If the photographer could have produced the same result by using a scanner rather than a camera, the image is most likely a literal representation and will be disqualified.
While this rule does allow disqualification of 3-dimensional works of art such as sculptures, it is difficult to come up with such a photograph that would violate this rule.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 10:44:51 AM · #6 |
Okay, thanks.
If I've understood you, the rule only applies to 2-dimensional art work, not 3-dimensional things like sculpture, art glass, and such. That clears it up for me. Wonder if the word sculpture should be dropped from the rules or if the 2-D nature of protected artwork would clarify the rules.
Thanks again. |
|
|
|
09/11/2004 11:12:05 AM · #7 |
Notice that the SC folks said difficult, not impossible on sculpture. Just cause we haven't seen an example yet does not mean that one couldn't exist. :)
We are a creative bunch afterall.
Clara
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 03:14:57 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The artwork rule is generally judged as follows:
...
While this rule does allow disqualification of 3-dimensional works of art such as sculptures, it is difficult to come up with such a photograph that would violate this rule.
-Terry |
As a potential example:
Have you seen those sculptures that are simply random objects until viewed from a specific angle? There is one in a church yard in a town about 1 1/2 hours from here. It doesn't look like anything but a bunch of white rectangles as you drive past on the freeway, but as the perspective changes as a person drives past they 'move' together to form a cross, and then move apart again. This is an artwork that while 3D in nature, is meant to be viewed only from one specific perspective. I would take pictures of it, but I won't be that way anytime soon -- if I find some elsewhere I will link to them.
Would taking a photo from the one perspective it is meant to be viewed from violate this rule (provided nothing else was in the shot to add to it)?
David
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 03:41:39 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Would taking a photo from the one perspective it is meant to be viewed from violate this rule (provided nothing else was in the shot to add to it)? |
I personally can't see any problems with that - IMO, the most important criteria when gauging the artwork rule is context, ie things like background, lighting, and other elements in shot. A 3D-artwork nearly always background and lighting that'll differ enough to make each shot unique, even if the artwork is designed to be viewed from a certain angle.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 03:56:10 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Britannica:
Would taking a photo from the one perspective it is meant to be viewed from violate this rule (provided nothing else was in the shot to add to it)? |
I personally can't see any problems with that - IMO, the most important criteria when gauging the artwork rule is context, ie things like background, lighting, and other elements in shot. A 3D-artwork nearly always background and lighting that'll differ enough to make each shot unique, even if the artwork is designed to be viewed from a certain angle. |
Ok, that's what I thought as I posted, but just wanted to here thoughts that were not my own. :D
David
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 06:27:25 AM EDT.
