Taking it a bit too personally, aren't you?

Posted by the ART kritik from dix3-13.essex1.com on June 21, 2001 at 11:43:08:

In Reply to: ANOTHER critic's view... posted by Adam on June 20, 2001 at 20:41:10:

Clearly, Adam, you have some difficulty with art criticism. An artist of your caliber should be able to handle these statements for what they are- an opinion that, as a member of this country, is fully allowable to be expressed. From your rather immature response in regards to Michaelson's statements about how it pisses you off, etc. etc., it seems to me that you take the statements I made personally. If you had read my any of my posts thoroughly, you would know that was never my attempt to attack the decisions of the judges. I just offered my opinions, as someone who has had several art courses and trained in critiquing art.

: There WAS difficulty in making some selections this year, but it's not as though Micah and I were up in arms, clueless as to which to choose.

I never suggested you were "up in arms". I merely stated that there was some conflict in deciding the rankings. Conflict is a difference of opinion, not a physical or verbal battle.

: But I think your criticism of the former work is a bit harsh. The bruhaha over Indy's "David Hasselhoffish" appearance doesn't stand up in my book -- that IS Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, without question. I actually loved his depiction -- I presume Shipper used a photo of Ford at a somewhat younger age. The fact that it is different from the overused still images we've seen again and again makes it feel fresh.

I agree that Shipper's portrayal is indeed Harrison Ford, but not so much as Indy. You yourself stated that Shipper probably used a photo of Ford at an earlier age. I may be mistaken, but I thought this was a Raiders Anniversary contest, meaning that he should appear as he was in Raiders.

: I strongly disagree with your points about the way Indy and Marion look -- it IS them, period. They might not be perfect, but the essence of a portrait, for me, is to capture the soul of a person, not to carbon copy a photo. It might not be an exact duplicate, but it's the spirit of a thing that matters.

You have all rights to disagree with me, but Marion does not look like Marion. The eyes are clearly too far apart which detracts from its appearance and does not resemble Karen Allen as much. I am not sure he "captured the soul" of Marion as you say. Of course, my criticism is in no way meant to offend Mr. Shipper. I do enjoy his painting despite this fact and love the layout of the characters. The minor flaws in his painting do not detract from the overall feeling of the painting and I believe his work did an excellent job of capturing that Raiders spirit. What I object to, is that your commentary does not address these issues, but makes haste to point out every flaw in Austin Power's work- as if you were defending your decision more than providing as objective as possible of a commentary.

: Austin Powers' work, while impressive, just didn't excite me the same way -- it seemed a bit clumbsy, cluttered, and the representations little more than attempts to duplicate still photos. It didn't have the style, sophistication, or finesse.

"Seemed" that way to you. Exactly why I proposed more judges because many people in forum felt no such opinions of his work. I also see in the choices of the top six and in your statements in particular, a biased attitude against pencil drawings as opposed to color. I am aware you work in color, and your statements reflect this preference.

: Now here is where I feel I must sound a bit defensive, because your comments are extremely presumptuous. You're painting a picture that Micah and I were bickering over the selections, or clueless as to which entries to select, and such was not the case. In fact, we individually ranked what we felt were the best, and both of our set of selections were the same -- it was just a question of the ranking.

If you took my statements in such a manner, then I apologize. I never meant to make it appear as if you two were "clueless". Far from it. But you did have some difficulties in deciding the order of the top six, right? And more judges would be a more democratic format.

: As this is Micah's webpage, he is the one who has the authority to determine how things should work. Happily, we've worked together in making these things come to life, and I think we've done them with good judgement. If other people should be involved, that's his decision, not mine or yours. I do feel, however, that anyone who donates a prize has earned the right to participate in the judging -- simply by virtue of their generousity, and being able to select who is deserving of their contribution. It didn't occur to me to include the other kind contributors this time around, but maybe that's how it will be done if we have another contest. Frankly, I believe that your suggestion simply results from a distain of our selections. If we were to do it again, knowing then what we know now, I sincerely believe we would have chosen the same works.

You are correct that it is ultimately Micah's decision and I have nothing but respect for him for creating and maintaining this website for so long. I agree with you that those who contribute a prize should have the opportunity to judge, but then they should also have the right to decline and assign a judge perhaps. The number of judges being equivalent to the number of prize contributors would probably be a format that works. Something to consider in the future. And my suggestions hardly result from my disdain of the selections made, but they were influenced by it. I see a considerable weakness in this format and think it is something worth correcting. I was merely putting it out there to read, whether Micah wants to adopt it or not is entirely up to his judgement.

Follow Ups:

Final comments on my views -- please read Adam 13:07:18 6/21/2001 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: Clearly, Adam, you have some difficulty with art criticism.  An artist of your caliber should be able to handle these statements for what they are- an opinion that, as a member of this country, is fully allowable to be expressed.  From your rather immature response in regards to Michaelson's statements about how it pisses you off, etc. etc., it seems to me that you take the statements I made personally.  If you had read my any of my posts thoroughly, you would know that was never my attempt to attack the decisions of the judges.  I just offered my opinions, as someone who has had several art courses and trained in critiquing art.

: : There WAS difficulty in making some selections this year, but it's not as though Micah and I were up in arms, clueless as to which to choose.

: I never suggested you were "up in arms".  I merely stated that there was some conflict in deciding the rankings.  Conflict is a difference of opinion, not a physical or verbal battle.

: 
: : But I think your criticism of the former work is a bit harsh.  The bruhaha over Indy's "David Hasselhoffish" appearance doesn't stand up in my book -- that IS Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, without question.  I actually loved his depiction -- I presume Shipper used a photo of Ford at a somewhat younger age.  The fact that it is different from the overused still images we've seen again and again makes it feel fresh.

: I agree that Shipper's portrayal is indeed Harrison Ford, but not so much as Indy.  You yourself stated that Shipper probably used a photo of Ford at an earlier age.  I may be mistaken, but I thought this was a Raiders Anniversary contest, meaning that he should appear as he was in Raiders.   
:   
: : I strongly disagree with your points about the way Indy and Marion look -- it IS them, period.  They might not be perfect, but the essence of a portrait, for me, is to capture the soul of a person, not to carbon copy a photo.  It might not be an exact duplicate, but it's the spirit of a thing that matters.

: You have all rights to disagree with me, but Marion does not look like Marion.  The eyes are clearly too far apart which detracts from its appearance and does not resemble Karen Allen as much.  I am not sure he "captured the soul" of Marion as you say.  Of course, my criticism is in no way meant to offend Mr. Shipper.  I do enjoy his painting despite this fact and love the layout of the characters.  The minor flaws in his painting do not detract from the overall feeling of the painting and I believe his work did an excellent job of capturing that Raiders spirit.  What I object to, is that your commentary does not address these issues, but makes haste to point out every flaw in Austin Power's work- as if you were defending your decision more than providing as objective as possible of a commentary.

: : Austin Powers' work, while impressive, just didn't excite me the same way -- it seemed a bit clumbsy, cluttered, and the representations little more than attempts to duplicate still photos.  It didn't have the style, sophistication, or finesse.

: "Seemed" that way to you.  Exactly why I proposed more judges because many people in forum felt no such opinions of his work.  I also see in the choices of the top six and in your statements in particular, a biased attitude against pencil drawings as opposed to color.  I am aware you work in color, and your statements reflect this preference.

: : Now here is where I feel I must sound a bit defensive, because your comments are extremely presumptuous.  You're painting a picture that Micah and I were bickering over the selections, or clueless as to which entries to select, and such was not the case.  In fact, we individually ranked what we felt were the best, and both of our set of selections were the same -- it was just a question of the ranking.

: If you took my statements in such a manner, then I apologize.  I never meant to make it appear as if you two were "clueless".  Far from it.  But you did have some difficulties in deciding the order of the top six, right?  And more judges would be a more democratic format.

: : As this is Micah's webpage, he is the one who has the authority to determine how things should work.  Happily, we've worked together in making these things come to life, and I think we've done them with good judgement.  If other people should be involved, that's his decision, not mine or yours.  I do feel, however, that anyone who donates a prize has earned the right to participate in the judging -- simply by virtue of their generousity, and being able to select who is deserving of their contribution.  It didn't occur to me to include the other kind contributors this time around, but maybe that's how it will be done if we have another contest.  Frankly, I believe that your suggestion simply results from a distain of our selections.  If we were to do it again, knowing then what we know now, I sincerely believe we would have chosen the same works.

: You are correct that it is ultimately Micah's decision and I have nothing but respect for him for creating and maintaining this website for so long.  I agree with you that those who contribute a prize should have the opportunity to judge, but then they should also have the right to decline and assign a judge perhaps.  The number of judges being equivalent to the number of prize contributors would probably be a format that works.  Something to consider in the future.  And my suggestions hardly result from my disdain of the selections made, but they were influenced by it.  I see a considerable weakness in this format and think it is something worth correcting.  I was merely putting it out there to read, whether Micah wants to adopt it or not is entirely up to his judgement.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]