Re: Syndicate: Prix Ars .Net Judging Article

[melinda jørgensen <melinda@subtle.net>]

annick wrote
>Although I consider that this discussion about juries is a bit a waist of time
>and bandwith, I will anyhow jump into it (OK, this is a contradiction, but we

 i think its rather healthy that  something that is being bitched about in
private is actually being discussed in a public forum.... but i really dont
have any more to say about it..

>Well, art is made by humans and judge by humans. So, yes, art is totally
>subjective (I wonder what "objective" could be here, judge by machines ? If it
>was judge by artits and only artists, would it be more "objective" ? would
>artists be less part of a committee reflection ? less part of what is done
>around, at the time ? less considering the show/contest rules ?).

there is a concept in commitees called peer assesment, where ones work is
judged by ones peers, which of course brings into play the political aspect
as to whether winning art work is the "best" art , or the artwork done by
the person with the most allys amongst the peers - ie the totally human
factor that we view things done by thoes we like in a more favouravble way
than things done by ones we dont like.. and then of course to be recognised
as a person capable of judging artwork, one must already be involved and
established, and by necessity away from where unknown experimental work is
being done by unknown people outside established networks.

there  is  always a lagg and a temporary status quo around what is  the
'art of the moment.'  perhaps i will tell the story of the young prince/ess
usurping the ageing king/queen, only to be replaced in time by another
younger prince/ess as they become the ageing out-of-date king/queen, and so
on. it is endlessly changing but also fairly stable if one views it over a
longer period of time - the heirarchy and process remain the same, only the
names and faces change from time to time.

melinda