|
Print Competition
Success
by Bill Hurter
I have a theory regarding print competition success that cuts across the lines
of talent and technical innovation. It accounts for why photographers have
“big years,” in which everything they submit for competition scores well.
As one of the primary organizers of WPPI’s Awards of Excellence annual 16x20
print competition and the International Wedding and Portrait Photography Awards,
a semi-annual 8x10 print competition, I get to see a lot of the same people
competing year in and year out.
Inexplicably, I see scenarios like the following. Photographer “A,” who has been
competing for the last several years with minimal success, all of a sudden
starts placing prints in the 90s and starts to win categories and awards.
Not much is different between the submissions that earn this photographer
accolades and the submissions of the past that didn’t. What is different
is how the images strike a chord (and accord) in the judges. With the
combination of style, intrinsic beauty, and a certain timeliness (perhaps a
sense that the images are on “the cutting edge” would be a better way to
describe it), this person’s prints are now being regarded very highly—and by a
majority of the judges!
Call it experience on the part of the photographer, or maybe it’s just that the
photographer’s time has come. But it seems to be a matter of uniqueness.
It’s been my experience that the first time judges see a technique or visual
concept executed to perfection, they fall in love with it, to the exclusion of
many other types of more familiar image-making. Take the evolution of
wedding photojournalism, for example. To be sure, this category is
popular—hardly a studio in the land doesn’t offer some type of
“photojournalistic” wedding coverage. But as this genre evolves, we have
been seeing elements of both fine art and fashion photography joining together
to change the landscape of wedding photojournalism.
As judges grow more accustomed to seeing an evolved style of image-making, they
become more discerning—more adept at separating great examples of the “new” art
form from merely good examples. That’s what judges do—they become more
discerning, honing their critical powers of observation and understanding.
I have seen award-winning photographers who have won everything in some years
win nothing in print competition in other years. I used to think it was
poor print presentation or perhaps even a “bad year’s crop” of images that
caused these photographers to slide so drastically. But I think it has
more to do with the quality of uniqueness. If a print looks similar to
many that have gone before it, there is the tendency to view it as commonplace,
even though it may be quite original and distinctive.
Anyone who enters their work in major print competitions must take into account
the times and attitudes of the judges and the print viewing audience. For
example, no one can deny that the tragic events of 9/11 changed all Americans’
lives. Those changed attitudes are noticeable in judges’ comments and in
their scores. Specifically, I noticed a swing in popularity this year
towards images that project a solid sense of home and/or family values.
On a root level and almost subliminally, judges ask themselves several things
about each print they evaluate: “Is this contemporary or have I seen it before?”
“Does this photograph move me?” “Does the image possess style?” And of
course, the big one, “Does the image have impact?” This, of course, is
over and above the basic technical aspects of the print, which, if not carried
out flawlessly will negate the asking of the above questions. When a
photographer suddenly bursts onto the scene, scoring well each time out, it is
because a majority of judges are answering favorably to these questions.
What is perhaps the most interesting aspect of print competitions is that they
are anonymous, at least they are within WPPI. The judges do not know who
the photographers are. Yet with consistency the theory of uniqueness seems
to play out—one photographer who scored an average of 91 among 11 prints in 2000
did not get one single 80 in 2001. And this year, I noticed that every
time a certain photographer’s prints came up, they got a warm glowing praise
from the judges. This photographer has been entering for four or five
years and has never won a major award. It’s astounding to see that a panel
of judges will agree consistently about the work of a photographer in a given
year. Perhaps the answer is more simple than you’d think. Be unique!
Bill Hurter
4/26/2002
|
