POW discussion - remove original comments

[matt_kime]

I think it would be a good idea to _not_ display the comments posted prior to a photo

being selected as a POW. Often times these comments are generally of the

"wonderful!" one word sort. Usually, the photo has already received high praise, which

only encourages more of the same. I believe this may play a large role in why people

still take the POW to be an award for best pic.

[pen name above]

Matt,

 

Herd mentality huh?

 

Your thought certainly resonates, however goes against the tide. On the subject of POW discussion, the same high praise would probably ebb and flow ceaselessly even if the POW was removed.

 

Kind regards,

[justin_ames1]

i have had two POW evaluations deleted. in one, i simply state that the selection was ridiculous, i.e. did not deserve recognition for excellence and/or merit aesthetic preoccupation. ok, i can see that a bare bones type comment may be unacceptable. in the current week's (august 17-24) selection, i found the photo so bad, so lacking in any artistry whatsoever, i panned it in the following words:

""the composition, if so it can be called, is perfectly summarized in the tilted horizontal sliding so amateurishly through the image's background: blurred bystanders lose face or turn entirely away to avoid either the object of the photographer, or the photographer himself, perhaps disdaining both. the accordion unfolds some dubious, laconic tune, to which hussy and husband grimace in a caricature of rapture; one's eyes are drawn to the haggard frolic of the female with a quiet revulsion, shocked, despite the typicality of the expression, into a prurience both brutal and banal in its implications. everything reeks of bloated indulgence (is it the photographer's?, isn't it?), even to the accordionist's violent mouth and hostile gaze. to complete the instamatic character of the scene, a hot square perches in the background, winking at the viewer, offering a coda to the poorly structured visual disharmony it is uncomfortably a part of, and, in its poorly digested position, recapitulates the lack of aesthetic elements anywhere in the image. everything is disheveled, out of balance, unfocused: expectable, perhaps, in a neophyte's renditions, or a devil's, but unacceptable in any kind of art. as one is not permitted to question the aesthetic sentiments(!) of the gnomes (elves), nor use words like "bad", "ridiculous", or "ugly" to describe a photograph, i'm scanning a thesaurus for similar, albeit less emotionally charged synonyms to describe what i see. a man is compelled to lie voluminously these days, not only about his ethics but also his aesthetics. the more artless the specimen, the less it strives, the more diminished its attainment, then the more apt it is to receive high recognition, and trumpets full of hosannahs.

 

if this be so, then let me huzzah! for god's sake, let me huzzah! for, by any true measure of design, poetics, or dynamics, this "snapshot" entirely begs another justice.""

 

it is true that the POW guidelines for prohibit "vicious" attacks upon the photographer; apparently the gnomes/elves feel it permissible to allow the photographer to make "vicious" attacks on MY sensibilities, however. i do no regard this as a "vicious" attack, but as a summation of the qualities of this image that beg both compositional and technical competency--after all, POW insists that the selections are made on compositional grounds; and to my mind, that's precisely what it lacks, and i described it. i examined this year's POW's, and found that an unusually large number (by hasty count, 14 of 30) of them are black and white cameos of miserable, ugly, socially disregarded, or otherwise depraved folks, presented in a style ala bresson. there is a panoply of photographic styles and genre: why, i ask the panel of auditors, is it your prerogative to place such undue valence on what is one among many categories? and why is it your prerogative to both stifle disagreement among the viewers by censorial fiat, and by providing an abbreviated rating scale as well?