Art Contest Frequency

[Guest]

.....

 

[My Erotic Trail]

Halo_N_Horns began a wonderful concept of an art contest featuring a "secret ingredient", which could be overtly represented or subtley implied in any visual medium.

The winner of a contest would designate the ingredient for the following contest.

Originally there was a weeks time to create followed by a week for voting.

This poll is to vote on weekly or biweekly contests.

If I were to propose a NEW ingredient on Monday. and Post the entries to the 2nd contest "window" <(secret ingredient).
Then we (not ME this round) could spend the week of March 6-10 creating AND voting on the "window" entries.

OR have a brteak from creating..and just vote.

I voted <grin>

 

[Guest]

......

 

[SensualCealy]

I voted! But now its even! lol
C

 

[bulgingjocks]

I like the idea of a contest everyweek but at the same time i know i will burn ideas up very quickly, i just find that the vote time might be alittle long. That might change though when more contestants so the longer vote might be needed, we will see on this one.

But your right though, you dont have to enter everyweek, if so that means you could be a candidate to be the Head Cook, i dont know just an opinion.

 

[Guest]

.......

 

[Guest]

........

 

[Meat Whistler]

I was thrilled when someone posted a link to this board on the GB. As a lover of the visual arts, I was enthusiastic about viewing the galleries. I was commenting to a friend that I was very interested in this type of board, and it was mentioned that there were several contests. I then began to notice just how many contest threads there were - over 13 out of 48 threads started here.

Isn't that a bit excessive? I believe this is the type of board that could cultivate creativity and thought-provoking discussion. Why clutter this board with so many contests that really don't promote anything other than winning and/or discouraged artists? It seems this board is being used as more of a contest board than an artistic one.

I propose that the board only have one contest every month. I think it is slightly excessive as well, but I feel it is more appropriate than one contest/week.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I was thrilled when someone posted a link to this board on the GB. As a lover of the visual arts, I was enthusiastic about viewing the galleries. I was commenting to a friend that I was very interested in this type of board, and it was mentioned that there were several contests. I then began to notice just how many contest threads there were - over 13 out of 48 threads started here.

Isn't that a bit excessive? I believe this is the type of board that could cultivate creativity and thought-provoking discussion. Why clutter this board with so many contests that really don't promote anything other than winning and/or discouraged artists? It seems this board is being used as more of a contest board than an artistic one.

I propose that the board only have one contest every month. I think it is slightly excessive as well, but I feel it is more appropriate than one contest/week.

Your comments are well noted, and thank you for them.

Some of the original intent for the contests was to give some challenge to the artists here. Sort of like being in an artists guild where each member is pushed by the other members to always be producing and/or challenging their own skills. Yes, these are "contests," so to speak, but they're not for win or loss so much as they are for what I've just described. There shouldn't be any discouraged artists, unless their egos are just that far out of whack to begin with. Win or loss just isn't the primary goal of these contests. The joy of the process of creation, and the end result is all that really matters.

Also, the contests were originally set up as being held every two weeks, in a way. One person to choose an ingredient that has to be in each piece; One week to create each piece; One week for everyone on the planet to vote on the piece they like best. I guess the only real contest happening is between the voters to have their favorite piece win.

The artists here took to this whole idea like children in a candy store, which is a good thing. Weekly contests was just part of the evolution brought on by the artists themselves.

So, in the end, even though a deep and meaningful purpose isn't readily apparent in the contests or their frequency, it is there and it does run deeper than most will understand.

All good?

 

[bulgingjocks]

I think there is a misunderstanding on how many Running contests there are at one time. At the present there is only 1 a week, the rest of the contest threads here in the Visual Artists Corner are closed.

[edit: most of this HnH brings up so check out all his posts particularly in the first Contest thread]

Also on what HnH said in truth there is only 1 running contest a week, and even then you are not forced to run every week. At the present im finding the current 'contest' format very good, and at first feedback was limited but now as confidence grows and the people involved being very friendly and supportive it has been quite good.

You can use these contests themselves as away of trying out new styles or mediums that you would not normally delve into and see how, the 'public' view them. While at the same time see how adaptable your current style and/or medium is to each ingredient in the contests to challenge your own work. Some artists actually ask in teh contests for critism, most likely to see where they are going right or wrong.

The voting itself is just abit of ego boosting/bragging rights, which if the ingredient that works with you, will bring out that competitive spirit to show to yourself that you can make the 'best' of that topic. For others you might just ignore the voting and just use the contests themselves to further your artistic flair.

Just my rant on the whole contest debate. Hope i didnt offend anyone in some way.

 

[Guest]

.........

 

[Meat Whistler]

***

Also, the contests were originally set up as being held every two weeks, in a way. One person to choose an ingredient that has to be in each piece; One week to create each piece; One week for everyone on the planet to vote on the piece they like best. I guess the only real contest happening is between the voters to have their favorite piece win.

The artists here took to this whole idea like children in a candy store, which is a good thing. Weekly contests was just part of the evolution brought on by the artists themselves.

So, in the end, even though a deep and meaningful purpose isn't readily apparent in the contests or their frequency, it is there and it does run deeper than most will understand.

All good?

I certainly understand that this is your* board and you are free to do with it as you please, but as a lover of the visual arts, it is very disenchanting to see this type of board (with the potential for large community participation) take this type of approach.

I don't think this board has a meaning that most won't understand. I think the general theme of this board is quite apparent with the number of threads dedicated to contests. Sure, one can learn many things from contests and from interacting with like-minded artists, but it is disappointing.

*The use of the word your or you is used in the general sense.

***

There is no misunderstanding on how many contests are being run at one time, nor what their purpose is.

I think the idea of hosting one contest/week is excessive for a board that only has a small group of members, and for a board that has the word "art" in its title. Sure, art is something different to everyone, but I take art somewhat seriously and the thought of having one contest/week in an art community is discouraging. I can see where this board promotes creativity through trying a new medium or subject. However, is one week really enough time to produce something truly meaningful?

***

HnH said "candy store"

Common Meat WHistler! jump in and indulge your sweet tooth ..and give US some!!!

I love the discussion too...and have STARTED putting commentary in my Gallery.

AND....the corner is also a place for authors to request illustrations and author to get inspired to write "to" illustrations.***

I admit to not knowing your sense of humor. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, fun-loving, or serious. Regardless, I still feel the same way, but do appreciate the enthusiasm on this board.

I do visit a large fine art community on the 'net and perhaps that's just where I flourish. I will continue to stop in at the VA community on Lit, if only for a few moments to browse the different galleries.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I certainly understand that this is your* board and you are free to do with it as you please, but as a lover of the visual arts, it is very disenchanting to see this type of board (with the potential for large community participation) take this type of approach.

I don't think this board has a meaning that most won't understand. I think the general theme of this board is quite apparent with the number of threads dedicated to contests. Sure, one can learn many things from contests and from interacting with like-minded artists, but it is disappointing.

*The use of the word your or you is used in the general sense.



There is no misunderstanding on how many contests are being run at one time, nor what their purpose is.

I think the idea of hosting one contest/week is excessive for a board that only has a small group of members, and for a board that has the word "art" in its title. Sure, art is something different to everyone, but I take art somewhat seriously and the thought of having one contest/week in an art community is discouraging. I can see where this board promotes creativity through trying a new medium or subject. However, is one week really enough time to produce something truly meaningful?

The insinuation that the artists here are creating pieces that are less than meaningful and carry any less seriousness than any other artist's endeavors is little more than insulting. I'm curious as to what you consider to be meaningful art, and how long that meaningful art takes to be created. I've seen impressionistic paintings that took years to be finished only sell for a few thousand dollars, while I've also seen abstract "creations" that took less than an hour to create sell for tens of thousands, or more. What's very menaingful to one may mean absolutely nothing to another.

I had a conversation much like this with another artist here some months back. Artists create. They have to. If they're the types of artists who look to pour all sorts of over-thought imagery into their works because they're trying to convey messages or specific themes and thoughts, or trying to illicit specific emotions, then those are one kind of artist but no better or worse than the other kind.

The other kind of artist is the one who creates for the joy of creation. This is the purest of artists in the purest of senses. The pieces aren't over-thought so much as they are simple (whether well detailed or not), pleasant to look at, and first and foremost, a joy to have created whether or not anyone likes the piece.

If you're so serious about art, perhaps you should try not being so serious about art. There's far more to enjoy that way.

 

[Meat Whistler]

The insinuation that the artists here are creating pieces that are less than meaningful and carry any less seriousness than any other artist's endeavors is little more than insulting. I'm curious as to what you consider to be meaningful art, and how long that meaningful art takes to be created. I've seen impressionistic paintings that took years to be finished only sell for a few thousand dollars, while I've also seen abstract "creations" that took less than an hour to create sell for tens of thousands, or more. What's very menaingful to one may mean absolutely nothing to another.

I'm not surprised my statements were taken out of context. I know many masterpieces were created in short periods of time. However, they were usually not created out of a contest on a Visual Arts forum. Different strokes, really.

***The other kind of artist is the one who creates for the joy of creation. This is the purest of artists in the purest of senses. The pieces aren't over-thought so much as they are simple (whether well detailed or not), pleasant to look at, and first and foremost, a joy to have created whether or not anyone likes the piece.

We don't agree on what the purest kind of artist is and/or how an artist should be. I think anyone can be an artist, even if they over-think, are complex, and don't produce work that is pleasant to view.

If you're so serious about art, perhaps you should try not being so serious about art. There's far more to enjoy that way.

I put on my not so serious about art hat when I visit this forum. I enjoy all different types of art, both highbrow and lowbrow, but I don't feel artistic or creative when I'm surrounded by a plethora of contests on a Visual Arts board. Again, I do visit a large community of fine artists and perhaps that forum is more suited to my interests. I just find it disappointing that this forum is riddled with contests and I guarantee there are others out there that feel the same way I do. I was simply voicing my opinion.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I'm not surprised my statements were taken out of context. I know many masterpieces were created in short periods of time. However, they were usually not created out of a contest on a Visual Arts forum. Different strokes, really.

What context were you intending? The strokes are no differen at all. Art gets created no matter what the occasion, or lack of.

We don't agree on what the purest kind of artist is and/or how an artist should be. I think anyone can be an artist, even if they over-think, are complex, and don't produce work that is pleasant to view.

Let's bare in mind here that "pleasant to view" is all relative. I find many creations of violence or suffering to be as pleasant to view as many pieces of erotica or southwestern art, and so on. But I am curious as to what kind of artist you consider pure, and still curious as to what kind of artworks you consider "serious."

I put on my not so serious about art hat when I visit this forum. I enjoy all different types of art, both highbrow and lowbrow, but I don't feel artistic or creative when I'm surrounded by a plethora of contests on a Visual Arts board. Again, I do visit a large community of fine artists and perhaps that forum is more suited to my interests. I just find it disappointing that this forum is riddled with contests and I guarantee there are others out there that feel the same way I do. I was simply voicing my opinion.

"Highbrow" and "lowbrow" exist only in the minds of the viewers and the critiques. It does not exist in the minds of those who are actually doing and creating the works. That's always been one of the greatest mistakes of those who view but do not actually create. By the way, what context were you looking for when you wrote that last paragraph?

 

[Meat Whistler]

What context were you intending? The strokes are no differen at all. Art gets created no matter what the occasion, or lack of.

I stand by my original sentiment - different strokes.

*** But I am curious as to what kind of artist you consider pure, and still curious as to what kind of artworks you consider "serious."

I don't think there are artists I consider pure or impure. However, you consider a specific type of artist the most pure. So, I would have to ask you that question.

"Highbrow" and "lowbrow" exist only in the minds of the viewers and the critiques. It does not exist in the minds of those who are actually doing and creating the works. That's always been one of the greatest mistakes of those who view but do not actually create. By the way, what context were you looking for when you wrote that last paragraph?

Are you saying that no artist considers their work particularly highbrow or lowbrow? You would be wrong. There are plenty of artists who consider their own work highbrow and/or lowbrow and enjoy existing within that arena, just as many consider their work "outsider art" and promote it as such. You are also ASSuming I do not create.

I would love to continue this discussion on a fresh thread. I posted my comments on this thread for a reason - I think there are too many contests cluttering this board. I would love to continue debating on either front, but I would much prefer a fresh thread about topics of art in general, that way others are able to disagree with my notions without deviating from the original intent of this thread: comments on the contests.

 

[Guest]

..........

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I stand by my original sentiment - different strokes.

Soooo, art doesn't get created no matter what the occasion or lack of? And I'm still curious as to what context you meant that statement?

I don't think there are artists I consider pure or impure. However, you consider a specific type of artist the most pure. So, I would have to ask you that question.

Frazetta: Pure. da Vinci: Pure. Picasso: Impure. Valejo (Boris): Impure. Chuck Jones: Exceptionally pure. I could list all day long ...

I'm also still curious as to what you consider to be "serious art." You have raised two questions that you've dodged in your replies. That's poor conversational etiquette.

Are you saying that no artist considers their work particularly highbrow or lowbrow? You would be wrong. There are plenty of artists who consider their own work highbrow and/or lowbrow and enjoy existing within that arena, just as many consider their work "outsider art" and promote it as such.

They would only be artists who have sold out their egos, and talent, to the almighty dollar.

You are also ASSuming I do not create.

Great that you create as well. Put your art where your mouth is. Put it up to the scrutiny that you've paid us. Fair is fair, oui?

I would love to continue this discussion on a fresh thread. I posted my comments on this thread for a reason - I think there are too many contests cluttering this board. I would love to continue debating on either front, but I would much prefer a fresh thread about topics of art in general, that way others are able to disagree with my notions without deviating from the original intent of this thread: comments on the contests.

The original context of this thread was blown out of the water long before you and I started this conversation. Besides, its still relative. However, if you feel the need ...

I will be back shortly. Quick errand to run.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

... and here I was looking forward to a reply when I returned.

 

[Guest]

...........

 

[Guest]

............

 

[Halo_n_horns]

If there is a serious question on aserious thread...I think it will be welcomed.

but forewarning..I have my own soapbox!

You may need a new soapbox. You've abused the current one quite a bit.

 

[Guest]

.............

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Now it'll be indestructable. Perhaps you should make more?

 

[Meat Whistler]

Soooo, art doesn't get created no matter what the occasion or lack of? And I'm still curious as to what context you meant that statement?

Did I say art doesn't get created no matter what the occasion? No.

Frazetta: Pure. da Vinci: Pure. Picasso: Impure. Valejo (Boris): Impure. Chuck Jones: Exceptionally pure. I could list all day long ...

I think my ideas of the words pure and impure greatly differ from yours, but I find it interesting that you view artists as pure and impure.

I'm also still curious as to what you consider to be "serious art." You have raised two questions that you've dodged in your replies. That's poor conversational etiquette.

I believe I said I take art somewhat seriously. (Please view above if need be.) Taking someone out of context is poor conversational etiquette. If you want to ask me what I consider serious and non-serious art, that is a completely different discussion altogether.

They would only be artists who have sold out their egos, and talent, to the almighty dollar.

Artists who market their work to a group of people with similar interests have sold themselves out? Interesting perspective and again, I disagree.

Great that you create as well. Put your art where your mouth is. Put it up to the scrutiny that you've paid us. Fair is fair, oui?

Have I scrutinized anyone's art? No. I have said that I don't like the idea of having so many contests on a Visual Arts board. I haven't mocked anyone's work, nor do I intend to.

Put my art where my mouth is? My mouth said that I don't wish to participate in a forum full of contests. My statements were that this forum has far too many contests for my liking. If I were to put my art where my mouth is, I wouldn't show my art here.

I'm being completely sincere when I say that you should read my words more carefully rather than jump to your own conclusions about what you think I meant.