my husband and I are currently trying to introduce digital art to this area and educate our local Art League (which we joined to help reach this goal) on this medium...they are fascinated and extremely impressed and are eager to add this category...they are even interested in having contests if we are able to find digital artists in this area... what they are needing, and what we need help with, is where to find a sort of guideline that we can show them or information to help develop one, for judging this type of art...if anyone knows of anything along these lines, or even know someone who is familiar with this area that we can contact to get some pointers, it would be much appreciated!!

The following is PURELY my own opinion: Judge it by the same standards that 'real-world' art is judged by. Guaging the use of composition, use of color, lighting, etc. should be familiar territory to art judges. Whether a piece of art is displayed on a monitor, or on a canvas, or printed out on paper, should have no effect on a judge's ability to discern the -artistic quality- of the piece. If the art show/display has category divisions based on the artists' age, do the same for digital art. If they have categories for 'beginner', 'intermediate' and 'advanced', again, do the same. The artist, when entering the show, can decide which category is appropriate, and the judges can concentrate on the appropriate response for that category. Again, this is my own opinion, and can be held to scorn without fear of offending me. grin

thankyou for responding...that is my personal opinion too, but I thought it best to ask the experts, or at least those with much more experience in this area than myself...I've been known to be wrong a time or two ;P

well said Rosemaryr :)

I agree about judging it on standard merits. Composition, lighting, etc. There is, however, something to be said for understanding the medium a least somewhat. I believe it can give a deeper appreciation of the technical aspects and how skillfully they were handled. I think that applies to all media, by the way. Knowing how watercolors work (and don't work) makes assessing watercolor paintings easier. Same with understanding colored pencil, graphite, oils, acrylics, etc. Understanding the medium (at least a bit) adds just that much more in the way of appreciating and critiquing it. :-) bonni

elizabyte makes probably the most important point- how the sotware works, it's strengths and limitations.

At this point in history then, can cross software judgeing exist. Is the bias of investment blinding users to the end result?
An example, if a max user hits the hdri light and makes just a shinny car without any enviroment, is that better then a poser user who puts together a multi figure, multi proped image that is pretty and a good composition but without hdri?
If you see what I mean. Is there a tendency to praise the sparkelies over the effort and construction? HDRI adds realism only- it isn't anything more then an 'element' of composition.
Your example of the oils vs water color is good. Does the lack of detail make the water colors 'less' because the oil based makes sharper lines? Or is it only valid to judge the art WITHIN the limits of the media?
And are many people capable of doing that anymore in the art world, let alone the software universe. Would it be more valid to have non-software users judge?
This conversations timeing is extreamly valid ATM for me and a few others who are asked to start judgeing images at another site.

I'd love to hear your further opinions and observations. Especially about the bias of investment.

geo

Message edited on: 10/19/2004 12:29

Good point about knowing the technical abilities of computer art, bonni. I should have thought of that. Knowing, for example, that 3d renderings make it very easy to show correct perspectives,or reflections in a mirrored object, allows an art judge to 'discount' that as a factor, and increase the weight given to other aspects under the artist's control, such as composition.