Artwork Rule. Disqualification? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/27/2006 02:29:04 AM · #1

I have a problem with the artwork rule, but I'm not sure why. I've put together some questions below to get conversation going and to hear your opinions. (I'm not on a rant)
Let me know what you think.

Here is the rule just as a reference.
Artwork. Literal photographic representations 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, computer artwork, computer monitors, and televisions. A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc).

Do we need to expand/clarify the rules so shots like these are not mistakenly submitted? Certainly, not very many people would consider the ballot a piece of art, so one could easily think that the rule does not apply in this situation.

This seems a little like a sculpture to me. Certainly the nice green lighting on the seamless helps it stay above disqualification, but if there was a bronze statue of a ballerina in the light bulb's place, would it get dq'ed?

What about this blue ribbon winner? A homemade sculpture?

Architecture is certainly an art form. Of course it would be silly to dq someone for literal representation. Is that because it is big? What about models and miniature sets. Or shoe box dioramas.

This seems like a photo that compels the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc) because everything in the shot is the work. It is a miniature diorama. (Maybe the face looking in saves it)

Last, but not least, we have this sort of photo which tends to do really well as long as the viewers are fooled. There are dozens of ribbons that belong to photos within photos. Heck, I've done it. Clearly, the photo within a photo is almost always a sensational element who's purpose is to sway voters with content rather that photographic decisions.

Let's not even get started talking about performance artist like Erwin Wurm. His basic idea was that he would have these live performance that would be distilled (quite literally) as a photo, blurring the line between the mediums of visual and performance art.

Anyway, when we usually look at a photo, we look at content. "Wow, look at that sunset." But it is not a sunset. It is a picture of a sunset. Is the no art rule in place to stop thoughts like. "Wow what an awesome picture of a picture of a sunset?" If that is the case, don't we need to take a second look at legality of photos like Joey's Gandolf shot. When I saw the picture of the voting ballet (above) for the stupid, stupid challenge, I thought "here is a picture of a voting ballot". I did not think, "here is a ballot" or "here is a photo of paper with text on it".
Sorry for my confusion.

Message edited by author 2006-08-27 02:31:33.

David.C

08/27/2006 02:43:55 AM · #2

The artwork rule only applies to 2D works of art -- 3D art is exempt. The thinking is that photographing a 3D work requires a choice of perspective, if nothing else.

Just don't take a picture of a 2D work of art straight on without putting something 3D in front of it and you should be fine. No ... it doesn't make much sense, but seems to be what it comes down to.

Oh, and one more thing, all physical objects are 3D -- the paint of a painting forms 3D textures and so on -- but if it is 'mostly' 2D it may be DQed anyway.

Edited to add that yes I agree it needs to be revisited in an official manner -- hopefully the long delayed rules rewrite will deal with it more clearly.

David

Message edited by author 2006-08-27 02:47:52.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

08/27/2006 02:46:16 AM · #3

Originally posted by David.C:

The artwork rule only applies to 2D works of art -- 3D art is exempt.
David

What about this in the rules?: This includes, but is not limited to...sculptures....

faidoi

Pentax K10D

08/27/2006 02:47:08 AM · #4

Literal Artwork Tutorial

David.C

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/27/2006 02:49:34 AM · #5

Originally posted by bvoi:

Originally posted by David.C:
The artwork rule only applies to 2D works of art -- 3D art is exempt.
David

What about this in the rules?: This includes, but is not limited to...sculptures....

I agree, this and other parts of the rules are not enforced as they are written -- but instead rely on the participants just knowing what to expect.

08/27/2006 02:51:26 AM · #6

Originally posted by faidoi:

Literal Artwork Tutorial

This tutorial is really great. The art rule section should certainly have a link to this page.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/27/2006 02:57:37 AM · #7

The only thing I really don't like about the tutorial and the rules is that it favors images with a graphic treatment of the content. Shooting something "straight on" is now disallowed and a dq able offense. Furthermore, the only thing that is being measured is the photographer's intent or decisions. Is it not enough to just decide to shoot a dollar bill? How about the decision to back light it with flat light and shoot it straight on? SC says no. Make it edgy, graphic, throw a shadow on there. I don't know if this is kosher.

zxaar

08/27/2006 03:12:27 AM · #8

I also had to think many times before submitting this:

But then was convinced that it was not 'literal' representation (in terms of current rule), and then finally submitted it.

I washoping some DQ requests for it.

samtrundle

Canon EOS-50D

08/27/2006 08:33:45 AM · #9

I have to say I do have a little problem with many of the photo-of-a-photo shots. While these shots are clearly legal under the current editing rules, they may well border on infringements of copyright, leaving the photographer liable to damages or forcing them to disgorge any profits made from the photo. Of course I will add the disclaimer to that statement that I don't know the first thing about US copyright laws, I think the fair use provisions are more lenient than those in Australia (and I'm no expert on Australian copyright laws either!).

In any case, I think it's slightly disingenuous to submit a photo that derives its impact almost entirely from a photograph someone else has taken.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

08/27/2006 09:05:14 AM · #10

I don't think

should have been DQed as my image

wasn't DQed. In my opinion, both are very similar - straight on, non-interpretive, parts of a whole. The church door is three dimensional but that doesn't make it any less a literal representation of artwork.

I know the SC has a difficult job already but I really think they need to revisit this section of the rules.

For the silhouette challenge, I could use a picture of a beautiful sunset or a full moon, put a black two dimensional cutout in front of it, and snap it. If I did it well, it would score well. And it wouldn't be literal artwork as I 'added' an element so it wouldn't be DQ-able. But it would be a picture of a picture, so to speak. Granted, this would be impossible to police; so, with regard to the use of pictures or monitors, it is the members who must do self policing.

kenskid

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/27/2006 09:48:39 AM · #11

On the "ballot" entry..I think if you would have had your hand in there with a pencil - putting a check mark on the ballot - It would not have been a dq....

The rule is good. If we didn't have the rule and a challenge came up with the title "Smile"....I could take a picture of the Mona Lisa and enter it. If it was legal to enter that shot, then voters SHOULD vote on it and give it a fair score even though it was not technically my work!

Originally posted by dahkota:

I don't think should have been DQed as my image wasn't DQed. In my opinion, both are very similar - straight on, non-interpretive, parts of a whole. The church door is three dimensional but that doesn't make it any less a literal representation of artwork.

I know the SC has a difficult job already but I really think they need to revisit this section of the rules.

For the silhouette challenge, I could use a picture of a beautiful sunset or a full moon, put a black two dimensional cutout in front of it, and snap it. If I did it well, it would score well. And it wouldn't be literal artwork as I 'added' an element so it wouldn't be DQ-able. But it would be a picture of a picture, so to speak. Granted, this would be impossible to police; so, with regard to the use of pictures or monitors, it is the members who must do self policing.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

08/27/2006 10:24:53 AM · #12

Originally posted by kenskid:

I agree with you. But my church door image is as much a literal representation as "ballot" or your "smile." My point was if one is DQed, the other should be also. Just because the original was 3-D doesn't make it less a literal representation. One could argue that I chose my point of view and shadowing but there really is little shadowing and my pov is as straight on as the one in "ballot." I too added nothing to the image. You could argue that my editing added to the image but an inverted $ would be DQed. Editing doesn't matter.

I understand that a line was drawn between two dimensional and three dimensional with regard to literal artwork. 'Interpretive' VS. 'literal' is a difficult call to make. I just don't think that three dimensional objects should be excepted from the artwork rule. But then you can start throwing in anything as artwork - rubber duckies included ;) - and you end up with a mess of seemingly arbitrairy DQs worse then the current.

I don't know how to fix it. I don't know if it needs fixing. Maybe just clarifying on the 3-D part (the tutorial is great for 2-D objects) or removing sculpture from the list of literal artwork.

DeniseBernadette

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/27/2006 11:04:09 AM · #13

My personal opinion, is that your church door shot shouldn't be dq'd. I think the difference between something that's 3d, and something that's striaght on 2d, is the lighting and the shadows. Even though it's a straight on perpective, there could have been a lot of things done differently with the angle it was lit from, changing the shadows and highlights. You can't really change something like that with a flat piece of paper. Now if they had folded up the corners of that peice of paper, and turned it to the side a bit, and created some shadows, it probably would have been different.

If something like the church shot was dq'd, where would the line be drawn? They can't just say that we're never allowed to take a shot of something from a head on perspective.. would it stop at buildings or objects? Flowers or animals? I don't know... it seems like it would be going a little too far.

Message edited by author 2006-08-27 11:05:01.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/27/2006 11:05:25 AM · #14

Since it is not possible (or not reasonable) to make any judgment as to whether "pre-existing objects" are "art" in the sense that we think of art (creative fabrications, basically), the artwork rule suffers from unfortunate titling, IMO. For example, established art museums are full of "found objects" that are placed in a gallery and called "art" by their maker/finder. I have attended art installations where the centerpieces was a pile of dirt, as just one illustration.

On the other hand, nobody would be likely to claim the aforementioned ballot as a work of art, though I suppose it is conceivable someone might do exactly that in a politically motivated piece of "conceptual art".

For the purposes of this rule, "artwork" seems to be used more in the graphic arts/printing sense; we give the "art" to the printer, and he reproduces it by making plates of it and running it through the printing press. In other words, creativity is neither here nor there; the intention of the maker of the object is never in question.

If the artwork rule is taken too literally, in the sense that dahkota is describing (and I am not saying she is advocating this), then practically nothing fabricated by the hand of man could be allowed as a photographic subject in DPC; we'd all be limited to nature photography.

We have a long history at DPC of considering "fabrications" made by the photographer as being acceptable subjects. These fabrications actually constitute the creation of "art" by any reasonable definition, even if they are not photographed in the end. The apple stock full of needles is definitely an art object, no question about it. The creator of that image set out to make a sculpture, and the sculpture has value even if it is NOT photographed and presented to us. So in a very real sense, the voting on that image was based on the quality of the sculpture as much as it was on the quality of the photography.

You have to ask yourself "Do we really want our allowable subjects to be limited to what is "found", disallowing everything that is "created", whether by the photographer or by third parties?"

If you think about it, what about an image of a face in camouflage paint? Is this not a case of the photographer having created a work of art using the body as a canvas? Why is that allowable, but it is not allowed to create graffiti on a wall and photograph that? The wall is an object used as a canvas, the photographer paints patterns on it and shoots it, how is this different?

Bearing that in mind, using the same example, why have images of graffiti been disqualified in the past, even if they were just sections of the larger graffito? When I go out to shoot photographs, I am often looking for patterns that strike me in some powerful way. I'm sure I could get away with photographing an urban scene of which some portion was comprised of a wall of colorful graffiti, just as I could photograph the same scene where some portion was comprised of a large billboard. So why am I not allowed to make the opposite decision and move in so close that I capture only a portion of the billboard or graffiti? These are, regardless, still found objects that are a significant component of the urban scene.

As usual, lately, I'm asking questions but not proposing answers...

It's my gut feeling that the primary purpose of the artwork rule is to keep us from reproducing our own (or others'), earlier work by photographing prints of it and posting it as current work made within the challenge timeframe. And yet we are allowed to do exactly that if we incorporate the earlier work into a photomontage with an added, 3-dimensional element... The ultimate example of this is Scalvert's "Arabian Nights" shot, where the entire underlying image would not have been eligible for the challenge.

I tend to believe that we could probably do away with the artwork rule as it stands. Sorry for these disjointed ramblings...

Robt.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/27/2006 11:27:04 AM · #15

I got around this in Peas for my X-Ray using a pointer and a pea. Otherwise, this would have been DQ-able.

Of course, that didn't help me with the voters ;)

08/27/2006 11:35:25 AM · #16

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's my gut feeling that the primary purpose of the artwork rule is to keep us from reproducing our own (or others'), earlier work by photographing prints of it and posting it as current work made within the challenge timeframe. And yet we are allowed to do exactly that if we incorporate the earlier work into a photomontage with an added, 3-dimensional element... The ultimate example of this is Scalvert's "Arabian Nights" shot, where the entire underlying image would not have been eligible for the challenge.

I tend to believe that we could probably do away with the artwork rule as it stands.
Robt.

Well said. I second this.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/27/2006 11:42:34 AM · #17

My Abstract Food Out-take

When I submitted this for pre-validation, SC said it would be Dq'ed for literal artwork. What about these examples?

Message edited by author 2006-08-27 11:44:08.

deapee

Kodak V803

08/27/2006 11:44:15 AM · #18

oh goodness...talk about throwing other people under the bus to try and help yourself. Get over it. I woulda given your photo a 2 anyway because it lacks such originality it's not funny.