> > 1) I don't think anyone was suggesting a contest gallery, per > se. There's a > subtle differentiation. A contest involves winners and > losers, usually a > limited number of winners. What I believe has been suggested > is that there > be some criteria for making it into the gallery and that a > select number of > people would decide whether a photo was included or not. The > number of > inclusions could be unlimited. > > I find it interesting to contemplate that apparently some > would not like > others deciding whether their photo was 'good enough' to be > in the gallery,
I'm one of those people. Although I haven't contributed to the pug very often, I would never contribute to a gallery constituted the way you describe, or to a competitive gallery. The reason for this is that I have chosen to show people a photograph which they may or may not like or find interesting. Whichever way you want to cut it, what you're suggesting is to have people judge one photograph against another against some arbitrary standard. If the number of inclusions was unlimited it would be even worse, assuming some people were chosen and others weren't - the unchosen ones are told, in effect, that even though space is unlimited they are not good enough to fill any of it. Equally, I can hardly imagine there would ever be a month when no PUG was published because the standard of entries simply wasn't high enough - can you? So despite what you claim, it is a competition between that month's entries for a limited space. > but apparently wouldn't mind submitting a picture to the > gallery that may be > somewhat lacking, and then are willing to elicit negative comments or > constructive criticism about said same photo. > I don't see that there is any conflict at all about this. Whenever I've had real exhibitions I have been absolutely free to decide what to show without having to submit it to a panel for inclusion or not, and at the same time I've been perfectly happy to discuss people's different opinions about what I've shown, and to read different opinions in the comments books. This is perfectly normal. I don't see why the PUG should be any different. Having a panel means some people have set themselves up as the arbiters of good photography. Who has the arrogance to do that? If anybody would care to step forward I'd very much like to hear them define what good photography is. > It goes back to asking what a gallery is. Is it a showcase > or simply a > photo sharing mechanism? > It's whatever people who submit want it to be. Some people may treat it as a showplace for their best work, others as a place to show work that doesn't really fit comfortably on their own gallery, yet others might decide to show something they're not sure about and ask for opinions. Why should be it the same thing for everybody? People can choose to show or not. If some people don't want their best work shown next to somebody else's work which they might not like, then fine, there's no compulsion. They should just bear in mind that in somebody else's opinion their precious work might be the crap someone else doesn't want to be seen next to. Regards, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
