> You might refer to the opportunity for the author to submit its work > anonymously, which is surely fair and which is much different than something > decided as general rule for the competition. Also that, but not primarily.
> Furthermore, there's a big misunderstanding about "bias": when I judge an > artifact I like to do that in a certain context, and the context includes > (among some aspects) the identity of the creator. This does not definitely > lead to a bias, this lead to a better understanding of the genesis of the > piece I'm going to vote. > In my opinion, if anyone thinks to be able to assign a fair "vote" without > contextualising with the author identity and background, well to me it's at > least naive. > > Voting for an artifact is not like voting for the better colour for the > façade of a public building. > > Does anyone of you like contemporary art and visit fairs, exhibitions, > galleries and so on? > I can assure you can find a "pole stuck in the ground" and quoted hundreds > thousands dollars, because it comes from a whole artistic path of the artist. > And it's not just "because the market". Certainly, it may be relevant to include the artist's background and motivation in the analysis of their artworks, and I fully agree that for some pieces of art the value lies solely with the artist and not with the work. Which may lead to high prices, or conversely in extreme cases to cancelling the art works or even destroying them. It is also possible to analyse a piece of art without knowing anything about the artist. Some arts people seem to believe that is main or even only right way to do it. > In other word, if you think you can "detach" a piece of art from its creator, > and still be able to judge it, well... to me you have no any idea of what art > is. Fair enough. Personally, I like to read books based on their contents, seeing films without knowing the actor or instructor names, and as for paintings, I'm pretty sure that most people appriciate art as is, and not due to the painter's name, and yes, I acknowledge that "most people" at best have a vague notion of what "art" is. I also really like to see the evolution of works by a single artist, to see how they develop and to relate that with the artist's life. That is interesting, and, as you advocate, says something, perhaps deeper, but at least different about the works. The two viewpoints of art are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes you just have to let go and appriciate an object on its own. Going on to include the artist in the analysis provides more aspects in the interpretation, but you also loose something, get biased, and risk evaluating the work based on misunderstandings about the artist. In a competition, however, if the artists are not anonymous, you accept that it is not the works alone that compete, but also their names, celebrity, sex, race, religion, lgbtq+ status etc. I can only assume that those establishing anonymous art competitions are arts professionals who know what they are talking about. As for origami, it is fine that we have both kinds of competitions. I find it of greater importance that they think about origami in terms of art. The works have brief descriptions, and some of those contribute to the analysis you ask for by providing some context, even if it is just a bit. Mostly we see people think about origami as fun, utility or ingenuity. Even in the present competition I feel that many of the works are there because "I could fold that", and not because of some deeper meaning or goal. I'm currently consulting for an origami exhibition at an arts museum (https://www.museumforpapirkunst.dk/dk/hands-on-origami), and I love that the works there are included because some arts professionals believe they should be there. By the way, note that at the link https://cfcorigami.com/award-entries-2023 they are not too dogmatic. Some of the works are known from other contexts (I recognise some of them), and others are not really anonymous, with names mentioned in the description or in the accompanying diagrams. Best regards, Hans
