The Absurdity of Contests and Judging in the Arts

Summary

Contests in creative fields are oxymorons. Attempting to objectively score a contest which consists of a subjective artistic medium is futile. Artistic contests scored by crowd sourced scoring merely accelerates a march to the lowest common denominator.

Detail

• Books written about how to win photographic contests describe how to include mass appeal pizazz rather than how to make better photographs.
• Consider a "contest" judging the composers Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Schoenberg, and Stravinsky. Would the selection be one of the three composers who revolutionized twentieth century music or the composer of the composition with cannons and church bells? Such a contest is not meaningful.
• Fund raising is often disguised as "contests" particularly for steep entry fees.

A perceptive article by Stephen Dougherty [1] describes three common scenarios where judging of art contests is skewed by the preconceptions of the judges:

1. Competitions sponsored by artist-run organization that are judged by a committee of signature members, officers, and/or "master" artists. The competitions help to perpetuate the standards held by the those invested members. [Refer to Professional Photographers of America example below.]
2. An unaffiliated artist who is admired by a majority of people in the host organization is invited to serve as the only juror or awards judge. In these situations, the juror's prior knowledge of an applicant's artwork or his/her personal relationship with that applicant is added to the set of standards used in selecting winners
3. [Often] museum curators, published critics, or university professors serve as jurors and awards judges. In those cases, the final selection is almost impossible to forecast.

An article by Ed Swarez [2] makes the following observation:

• Contests are often partly curated before you ever send your work in
• Who are they to tell me I am not worthy of being shown? I do not believe anyone has the right to tell me I am not good enough to be put into a public show [or that my work has "merit"].
• They are a great way to generate money for the organizers
• Waiting for the response
• There are no substitutes for effort. [It is always about the work itself.]
• You do not need to be judged. People like your friends and other artists can do that for you and do it constructively.

A particularly blatant and pernicious example of absurd contests in the arts is the Professional Photographers of America's (PPA) Print Competitions. Variations of these competitions are held on the national, state, and local level.

• Prints are assigned a point score between 0 and 100. Assigning an objective numerical score to a subjective medium is already nonsensical. A "merit" image has 80 or more points. A specific "merit" image constitutes one "merit" point.
• PPA publishes "The 12 Elements of a Merit Image." A numerical score is never broken down by the twelve elements. The obvious conclusion is that there is no relationship between the twelve elements and scores.
• Scores inevitably are between 75 and 85. This consistent and limited point range is mathematically impossible, particularly if itemized twelve elements are actually used.
• PPA print competitions are an attempt to enforce a single approach to photographic style. The single approved style drifts with time, but the current style is always enforced.
• Judges are trained by paid PPA classes which enforces the single style and defines restrictive judging criteria. Paid PPA classes are also available for how make images conform to the PPA narrow aesthetic.
• PPA judges often believe they have been imbued with a transcendent omniscience.
• Print competition per-image fees are assessed at national, state, and local levels. Print competitions are thinly disguised fund raisers.
• The PPA aesthetic as defined by both the twelve elements and judging practice is antithetical to universally accepted principles of art and design.
• In the real world, aesthetic approaches to photography and art encompass a wide range. The PPA attempt to establish a single narrow aesthetic is absurd and malicious.
• In practice, PPA print competitions function as malevolent badgering. Images and creators are disrespected.
• A conspicuous irony is that PPA judges are themselves unqualified to evaluate photographs because of inappropriate training and organizational badgering.
• "Merit" points are also awarded for volunteer service to the organization.
• An accumulation of merit points results in the granting of pretentious spurious PPA "degrees." Spurious "degrees" are Photographic Craftsman (Cr.Photog.) Master of Photography (M.Photog.) Master Artist (M.Artist, Master of Wedding Photography (Photographer.)
• "Degree" winners receive a ribbon with medallion. Additional pins and bars suitable for adding to the ribbons are also awarded. Elaborate rules exist for what can and cannot be added to a ribbon. Ribbons with add-ons are conspicuous idols designed to enlarge the ego of the recipient and intimidate and insult initiates. The concept that the work itself is paramount has been completely vanquished.
• PPA is not an accredited institution. If a PPA member is interested in actual education, the member should pursue a BFA or MFA from an accredited institution rather than spurious PPA "degrees."
• A great deal of time and money needs to be invested to participate in PPA print competitions, "training," conferences, etc. This large investment in time and money makes it increasingly difficult for member to retain perspective and/or walk away. The entire system is cleverly design to trap members via escalating levels of irretrievable investment. Escalating levels of irretrievable investment insulates the entire system from changes to its own structure. Hence the entire system perpetuates arbitrary conventions held by invested members.
• The entire PPA competition-training-conference-merit system is at worst a cult and at best a fraternal organization. The closest fraternal organization to the PPA is the Shriners, where Shriners ornamental hats and conspicuous titles correspond to PPA ribbons and spurious "degrees" respectively. The difference is that Shriners sponsor genuine charitable organizations where the PPA sponsors only member egos.

{1] Dougherty, Stephen. "Art Competitions: Unfair, Prejudicial, and Motivating." Stevedoreart.Com. 11 April 2018, stevedohertyart.com/blog/132116/art-competitions-unfair-prejudicial-and-motivating.

[2] Swarez, Ed. "Art Competitions Are a Pointless Waste of Time - Don't Enter Them." Swarez Art, 18 Jan. 2020, www.swarez.co.uk/art-business/art-competitions-and-exhibitions/.

Jeffrey Sward, December 2017. Revised March 2020.