Will you judge a photography contest? Do you compete with other photographers? While competition is acceptable in photography, it has significant drawbacks that prevent you from succeeding.
Competition is often considered standard practice in photography. It seems like an innocuous way to encourage people to make progress. Indeed, competitions are very common, and the idea of them fits in with the relatively modern Western conception of how the world should be run. If we are competitive, it is because we want to be better and achieve more. However, the proof is that there are better ways forward. Sociological and evolutionary theories are changing the way we think about competition.
Curse Contest In Modern Daily Life
We are used to competition. At work, studio employees compete for bonuses and promotions. If we were asked to do photography work for another business, we would say we “won” a contract. The idea of competition is that there can only be one winner. This is consistent with the until recently maintained belief, derived from evolutionary science, that everything is in competition for resources.
But now we know that is not the case.
Nature cooperates more than competition
Many organisms and plants cooperate to develop. This can be seen in the multispecies associations of herds of animals on the savannas of Africa. Sea creatures of different species group together to protect each other from predation and predation. It also occurs in plants. A recent discovery has shown that hyphae spread between tree roots in the forest. These filaments associate with many plants, creating webs known as “common fungal networks”. Plants use these networks to exchange sugars, nutrients, and water and to warn each other about predators and infections. Gardeners now know that some plants grow better when planted near other specific species.
Humanity has succeeded through its ability to cooperate and form groups. Societies work best and most effectively when they band together instead of competing factions and trying to win, thus causing their opposition to lose. When people take advantage of competition to put their own race or religion above others, it always ends in suffering. It is a sad truth that in politics, the people who are best at competing and winning elections are not necessarily the best at serving the people who voted for them. Instead, they continue to compete to secure their spot at any cost. On the international stage, competition leads to the worst results in war.
For most people, competition means losing, and that’s bad news
Competition is about winning. Of course, that also means losing. Although one person wins, most lose and suffer bad influences. Failure has both psychological and physical impacts. In addition to the damage done to a person’s ego, failure also raises blood pressure, increases stress hormones, and causes a drop in dopamine and testosterone. It also leads to exaggerated negative thoughts that cause anxiety and depression. Of course, there are ways to deal with that, and sportspeople hire performance psychologists to deal with failure. But most of us are not fortunate enough to have such help.
So, given the adverse effects, why would you want to compete in photography?
Apart from the arguments in favor of cooperation over competition above, photography, more than any other art form, does not fit it. It depends on how the photos are rated.
Why AI can win photo contests
A photo covering many different aspects is judged in contests. There are camera skills of the photographer. Then there is the application of design principles. That means the photographer decides how to emphasize the subject, use proportions, balance the image, elements of contrast, use repetition, represent movement, and use positive and negative space. pole. There’s also the use of colors and tones, plus the choice of themes. These can be assessed. However, taking pictures based solely on these parameters is photography with a sausage machine. That’s why AI can create lifelike images. Each of those factors can be mathematically formulated and reconstructed by an algorithm.
Furthermore, if the contestants take pictures to fulfill the ideals of a referee, that leaves little room for experimentation and invention.
Why AI can’t win photo contests
But one factor goes beyond making a photographic work unreproducible and unappreciable. That is art.
The expression or application of creative skill and human imagination, typically in visual form such as painting or sculpture, to produce works appreciated primarily for their beauty or strength. their emotional strength.
Oxford English Dictionary
Art is a product (e.g. a photograph, sculpture, writing, painting, etc.) or an activity (e.g. dance, musical performance, acting, etc.) performed for the purpose of conveying a message and/or for an aesthetic purpose. Art is the created expression of an idea, an emotion or an opinion. It is influenced by and is part of the artist’s culture, environment, and socioeconomic status.
There are personal stories that photographers tell in their work. That is problematic in a contest because the judge may not be able to understand the story the photographer is telling. They may completely misunderstand it, or apply a meaning that is not in the mind of the photographer, or fail to understand the intention of the photographer. The feeling the judges get from the photo is unique to their experience, so they have no idea how the photographer felt when they took it. Likewise, machine-generated photographs cannot create art, only imitate it because they have no emotion, culture, environment, society.
Why shouldn’t people judge photos?
Just like any other art form, if you look at photography from different parts of the world, different ethnic groups in a country or even different towns, you will find the difference. big. Open a new tab in your browser now and do a Google Image search to take pictures of Japan, Brazil, France and Namibia. You will see a marked difference in the dominant styles.
Even at the local level, each person’s experience is unique and those experiences will be reflected in their work. Others will not fully understand the artist’s personal experiences, feelings, and views because their life experiences are also unique.
So, how can one judge art, the most important aspect of a photograph? Doing so relies entirely on the biased subjectivity of the judge and is therefore invalid.
Furthermore, if we were to judge, ask yourself how would you choose between Ansel Adams and Takashi Mizukoshi, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Man Ray, Annie Leibovitz and Nadav Kander, or Vivian Maier and Diane Arbus. The idea that one photographer or photograph can be more beautiful than another seems absurd when we look at these photos.
There are Good and Bad Judges
We should also consider the motives of the judges. The best judges will do whatever it takes to encourage everyone to participate. They will accept the diversity of styles and realize that what appeals to them the most may not be the winner.
However, some judges poorly use their position as a power trip. I have met many people, including children, who have been suspended from taking photos because of malicious comments by the judges. I also once saw a photographer whose work was repeatedly graded in club competitions because the judges saw them competing for the “best of the club” spot.
Competitiveness Outside competitions also don’t work
When I say competition, I’m not just referring to picking winners in a club gallery or a web challenge. It also happens in the commercial world, holding some photographers back. For example, I mentioned earlier about Google images from Namibia. Do the same for any African or Caribbean country, and there will be a bias towards photographers who are not native to that region. Competition has led to photographic colonialism when photographing in the developing world. Those who live in and are most familiar with that world are denied exposure to tell their own stories by dominating outsiders.
In society, socioeconomic factors also act as barriers to success. While the photographer is more important than the set of lenses they use, the sad truth is that advanced cameras and beyond, high-quality lenses give photographers an edge over those with cameras. basic with cheap kit lenses. Therefore, while not an absolute truth in all circumstances, if you come from a wealthy family, you are more likely to achieve success than those who live near the poverty line. That’s sad because the second group probably has some compelling photography stories to tell. It is a generalization; For example, Tish Murther broke free from the constraints of her lowly starting point with the help and support of others, not through competition.
Hard work and cooperation will win
Recently, I heard two stories that showed that determination and cooperation, not competition, lead to success. The first was on an 80-year-old BBC Radio program called Desert Island Discs. On the program, Steven Spielberg was interviewed and told how, at a very young age, he was independent and supported by others to succeed in his career. The other is a Disney+ TV show called Light and Magic. It tells the story of a group of mismatched creators who worked together to form the team that created ground-breaking special effects for Star Wars and became the Light and Magic Company. Karma.
When you read the stories of most great photographers, they didn’t achieve greatness through competition. Although there are a few exceptions, they get there through hard work and determination, and almost always with the support of others.
Not everyone will agree with my point of view. Many people believe in a culture of competition in all walks of life. If you do, it would be great to hear your thoughts on why you think so. Or convinced by my challenge to the popular belief that competition is the best motivator?
I thank Fstoppers reader and contributor David Pavlich, an advocate of photography contests, for our brief conversation that inspired me to write this article.
