judges of quality
There’s a new photo sharing site on the block.
There’s a difference, though. This one screens your submissions.
In theory, this is an idea that solves the problem of having to wade through millions of snapshots to get to stuff of higher quality, like you might say is the case with somewhere like flickr. It can also encourage beginners to be more critical of their own work, and push them to improve so they can survive the rigorous selection process.
But surely, when there are human beings applying selection criteria to hundreds and possibly thousands of pictures, there are going to be issues of taste. Not only that, but rules about what constitutes quality. Oooh, I get an uneasy feeling when I think about that. Is it just me, or does it smack of camera club competitions? You just know what the judges are looking for, pander to that and you”’re in, do something original and break their rules and you’ve no chance – shamed, even.
It’s almost like a pop-idol for photography. I suppose any public mass submission enterprise is going to be – and even though there is no screening on flickr there’s still popularity competitions, and we all know the type of work that wins those.
Of course I’m not saying it shouldn’t be allowed – and I could quite simply ignore the site and continue on my merry way, but it just brought up some interesting ideas that I thought were worth pondering.
So, what am I really saying here? I suppose the main thing is that I think it’s a shame when people who are new to photography end up aspiring to these kinds of ideals because that’s what is being held up as the best quality in the amateur photography arena, rather than developing their own ideas. Aiming to be published on a site like this is going to encourage new photographers down a sort of funnel, into a particular style and I’m not sure that’s entirely healthy.
I’m probably being a bit ranty and could do with an alternative viewpoint… anyone?