Criteria and Selection Mechanics

["David A. Youngker" <nestor10@mindspring.com>]

I've been subscribed to the List for about a week now, picking my way
through the archives to reach the current state of the decision-making
process. I have no immediate concerns about the selection and narrowing
process of the main category headings - it seems to be moving along on a
path fairly parallel to my own thoughts - but I do have a couple of
questions now that it's reaching the "Criteria Description - Judging
Guidelines" phase.

One of the initial topics of discussion centered around the entry
photographs and their physical formats, but little has been said about the
actual composition of the photos themselves. The closest thing we have to
this was when we touched on comparisons of SLR and similar formats to the
use of "one-shot" throwaway cameras and low-res digitals. Discussion was
abruptly curtailed when people like Karen and Erik mentioned playing around
with the lower-quality equipment in order to generate guidelines that would
give the "Homers" of the hobby a fair shot at a judgeable entry. But I'm
beginning to think that perhaps it's time to give some real consideration to
the mechanics of applying our evolving guidelines to the format of the
contest's entries.

I say this because I don't get the impression that people have given true
consideration to the fact that this is not a "live" competition. This
"feeling" is reinforced when people suggest judging criteria along the lines
of "internode lengths", "fish deportment and health", "damaged plants" and
others of a similar vein. How does a judge determine such items while
viewing a couple of submitted "Snappy" photos that *try* to convey a sense
of the aquascaper's efforts?

All of the judging in this competition revolves around the static approach
of the submitted photographs. The judge cannot, in essence, move around the
tank, and this severely limits the ability to accurately determine the
"grace" of the entry. If something catches the eye, whether it be a problem
area or a highlight, the judge cannot change viewpoints in order to inspect
the area more closely. If, at the initial viewing, the fish aren't fully
"displaying", the judge cannot wait a moment to see if they're merely
resting and will begin to "flash" again or simply too stressed to even care
to display.

Additionally, a devoted practitioner of the discipline of aquascaping may
determine that items such as "composition" hold more than their simplistic
meaning. They may consider that "balance" and "use of space" are integral
components of a more complex presentation that are affected by *viewpoint*.
A tank that's designed as a room divider may "open up" and make different
use of space when compared to a tank that's destined for a more confined
area such as a corner. Ever seen a tank that looks completely different and
conveys opposing senses of depth when viewed from left, right and frontal
angles?

The tanks that will be entered into this competition aren't travelling "show
tanks". For the most part, rather than being designed for "frontal" viewing
or with a mobile judge in mind, they will be designed to beautify the space
that they *permanently* occupy. Nor will every photographer exhibit the
patience of Amano, waiting for 30 or so hours and using multiple rolls of
film in order to get the moment "just right", when all of the fish are in
perfect position to harmonize the tank.

And as if that weren't enough, we have to balance a judge's ability to
effectively consider an entry while keeping in mind that the winners will
eventually be published in one form or another. While it may be worthwhile
to publish as many photographs as possible of the category and "best of
show" winners, in order to ably present them for the "beginner's"
consideration and as teaching or exposure aids, do we want to print the
runners-up as a list of frontal views?

I believe that we need to start focusing (no pun intended) on the submission
photography again in terms of the developing judging criteria - it seems to
me that we're getting to the point where one definitely affects the other.
Along those lines, I would suggest two sets of photos. One set would consist
of "standardized" angles for the judges' sake, placing both advanced and
beginner's tanks at the same "advantage points" to establish equal judging
and viewpoints and required as an "enforced" criteria for submission. The
second set of photos would then be at the contestant's option, intended to
show off the design focus of the aquascaper and helping to further Karen's
"Wow" factor (although I realize she hates that terminology).

-Y-

David A. Youngker
http://www.mindspring.com/~nestor10
nestor10@mindspring.chkr.com
".chkr" is for mail-bots

PS -
For the sake of anyone invited to join the list at a later date, it would
help when picking through the archives to *not* have the subject line of
every thread change with each response. The current state of the archive is
very convoluted and disjointed because of this practice...


  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest