Maybe we could have a poll to choose the experts! Then I'll get all my mates to vote for me.
Ah, but the fault in the plan is the definition of "expert". In the name of fairness how can you say who is and is not an 'expert'? Take video games for example - critics are thought of a 'experts' yet when one remarks about a game that others disagree with, suddenly their 'tools' or 'idiots' that 'are paid,' Irrespective of whether a critic is paid for an opinion (look at gameinformer hard for that one), there's some modicum of heartfelt experiential knowledge that goes with it. the long short of that is, until you get to quantum mechanics, everything follows a pattern, and subjective experts will show a pattern in time to those paying attention. I, try and pay attention as I'm sure do others. This plan would survive maybe a month and serve to only agitate and repress members looking to compete fairly. Let's not poison the well, eh?
The best plan is to leave it open to the public so that the metric slides with the current trends. If we pick a panel of judges and discover they lean a certain style, then everyone's creative energy goes to appeasing the judges rather than acting in accordance with honest creativity.
It's true, seemingly, that certain members have a set style they revert to and they're identifiable based on that style.
Moglet seems to go for a washed out image and pulls it off well, while
RG likes color harmonies and contrast with a-bit-of-a 50's "is is touched up with color pencil?" or "hey, this sort of belongs on a Trapper Keeper (popular 80's notebook in the US)" feel - and pulls it off well. Despite these patterns, I find it somewhat difficult to compete with some of the more experienced member's work because I'm not on that level yet. I'm okay with that though. Members like Moglet, GTPhotography, and several others have the challenge to incorporate what they are comfortable with into various themes and I have a personal goal of trouncing at least one of the contests soon, and because if I do then I know I've gotten better with my tools. There are no hard feelings in art - its personal expression with a set of responsibilities.
I think if people look at the competitions as a manner of improvement rather than a system of revolving kudos, no sound arguments will find a place in the discussion about the superficial aspects. No system is perfect but not every system can be 'gamed'.
To the people that consistently (at least since I've been here) complain about "why didn't I get in" or "my shot was better than the winning one"... perhaps to you it was, but from experience when I have felt that way in the past, I have to ask myself several things:
- Have I been concise with my presentation? (don't blame the audience for misunderstanding a poorly executed message, blame yourself).
- Is there anything I wouldn't take away? (It is my experience that I know I'm done, not when I have nothing left to add, but when I have nothing left to remove).
- Can I look away for a couple of days and then return and derive the same message as quickly? (sometimes investment into a project for a period of time clouds perception. Take a break and come back to it with fresh eyes and as the observer, not artist).
- Is this something I'd want my name associated with? (years later you may look back and feel negativity toward some pieces, but if you note progression over time through it, then the piece is simply part of a natural path).
If the answer to these is "no" then the conclusion is that you're not done, not good and need to practice, or have too low a standard and probably shouldn't waste people's time with less than your best - take your pick.
I get that this is just a game and for some, no big deal. I would however, argue that if I'm not going to accept less than my best from things that matter, it makes no sense to accept it from things that don't; there is no sound argument for doing anything half-assed.