Thoughts on Judging and Originality
There has been some controversy lately on QA concerning judging and originality, as some of this years top winners at IQF in Houston were pretty much direct copies of the work of other artists.   Nothing illegal there as the works were either in the public domain or used with permission. However this renders the new work NOT original as the decisions about subject, composition and sometimes color were already made by someone else.
My entry, “Jesse At The Lake” was inspired by a photo that I took myself and used artistic license to tweak the composition and the colors. All of the design decisions were original and my own. This prompted me to have another look at the judge’s sheets and all three judges marked the “Original in Design” space with a check mark for satisfactory. I feel it was very original and deserved a “+” mark. This is not a subjective decision that a judge can decide. Either it is original or it isn’t. I wonder how that space was marked on the entries in question. Entrants are required to disclose where the inspiration came from, and a simple check on that would have revealed that the works were recognizable copies and totally lacking in originality. As such they should not have been rewarded with an award in a category that requires originality.
November 21st, 2014 at 10:39 am
My goodness, where has respect for others’ works gone! I wonder if “No Photos Please” should be the next step at quilt shows?? With all of the wonderful new gadgets, computer inspired tools, etc., it is quite easy to duplicate whatever is seen! If the design isn’t original and the work is all mechanical…there should be a new classification for such!! Perhaps “Made by a Robot”!!??
November 21st, 2014 at 12:18 pm
To be specific, as one example, perhaps you are referring to Summer Wind by MARINA LANDI and MARIA LUCIA AZARA of SAO PAULO, SP, BRAZIL (http://www.quilts.com/fqf14/enVivo/IQAWinners/images/full/04b-MasterInnov.jpg) which won “The Baby Lock Master Award for Innovative Artistry ($5000)”.
No doubt about it, this a visually stunning piece. But except for the color of the background it appears to identically reproduce (with permission) the original painting by Anne Bocek (actually called La Playa http://www.saatchiart.com/art/Painting-La-Playa/14817/1467343/view). The impact of the ‘art’ is entirely due to Bocek’s image and the fidelity with which it has been reproduced. I would have expected ‘innovative artistry’ to involve more of the quilt artist’s own vision.
November 22nd, 2014 at 8:39 am
Susan, yes that was one of them, but there were at least three or four more. Copying was definitely rewarded this year!
November 25th, 2014 at 9:47 pm
Absolutely. We share your opinion. We attend 5 or 6 quilt shows per year and see hundreds of quilts, and we are amazed to see many quilts that are not original designs. Moreover, they often do not acknowledge the design source on the card. At small guilds it is typical; but we even have seen quilts juried into national and international shows that we recognize as being made from commercial quilt patterns – and the card does not even acknowledge the pattern source! I think that quilt show judges should require a disclosure of the original art or design source, and there should be a penalty owed for non-disclosure, and they should not judge a quilt as “original in design” when it is not. It’s not accurate, and definitely not fair. The amount of effort and creativity needed to create a truly original work of art far exceeds that required to make a reproduction.
November 26th, 2014 at 7:06 am
Well said, thank you!