£12K portrait...........

CharlotteM said:
I think that the portrait of a jockey is powerful because it's showing a woman competing in a sport dominated by men. A world where she doesn't compete against her own gender, but rather the 'stronger' gender. It's powerful because it shows the engrained mud and the splatters on her uniform, indicating hard work in the face of adversity. It shows that she has achieved a level in her sport that required endless dedication and hard work. I like the red marks on her face that show things can't be easy. The solemn look in her eyes that show perhaps she did not just win. The subtle emotion present in any sportspersons eyes and expression but at the same time she has a 'stiff upper lip' and is not giving in to the emotion. I love the colours, the way that her silks are muted against the background. The 'quality' that comes from film vs digital. The shallowness of the focus. The softness of everything except her features. I love the line that bisects the image. The bottom half defining her as a sportsperson, the top half defining her personality.

And almost most of all, I love it because it is a portrait of a female sportswoman where she is not being 'glammed up'. Where she isn't showing off her body to try and get respect. Where her beauty isn't even being considered. Where her achievements alone define her.

She is a jockey. She is competing at the very highest level. And she is a woman.

The photograph you linked of the old man just tells me that there is an old man who has perhaps had a hard life and that I should feel sorry for him. I learn nothing about him and it has a kind of old fashioned, slightly racist 'orientalist' attitude to me which is not in keeping with a more modern, globalised world view.

(BTW, what is a 'classy black and white'? I feel this might be a language barrier, but I also feel that you might be indicating that there are 'better' ways to take photos.)
Click to expand...

+1
 
Yv said:
That was pretty much my feeling. Like others, I suspect as a large portrait actually in front of you, it will have a far greater impact and depth than a web sized version.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You're judging a large format portrait on a 800 pixel JPEG. You can't do that.



Laudrup said:
I could have seen the point of shooting her after an epic win or epic defeat, but it seems strange to photograph her with the crux being 'competing in a man's world', but she wasn't even competing.
Click to expand...

Does that matter? It's a portrait, not a documentary shot. We know she DOES compete... she really is a well known jockey... it's not like anyone's lying. It's NOT documentary :)


A great many of you are still judging a photograph's worth based on whether you like it or not though. Whether you like it may be the criteria by which you decide to buy a photograph, or whether you print it or not.. or delete it or not... but it's not how you judge whether it's the best portrait amongst thousands in one of the world's most highly regarded portrait prizes. You think the judges just walk around looking them and then say "ooh.. I like that one"... or do you think there's a great deal of strenuously argued debate about which is best, based on it's artistic merit and craft? These are people who have huge amount of experience and industry relevance, and know what they're talking about to evaluate it on it's merits by criteria... not whether they like it. Even there is a token "guest" judge or two like there often is... they'll be... err.. shall we say "mentored" by the more experienced judges.

As for all these images that are supposedly better on here.... I wonder why they've not entered, and won already? Shouldn't someone be PMing the authors of these images? After all, everyone knows about the award, and how big the prize is. I wonder why they never entered?

"Seen better on here" is just the equivalent of "the one that got away".

If you're better, or know someone who's better... stop whining... get (them) entering.
 
Last edited:
I've entered the Taylor Wessing on and off the past few years. Some of the images in the exhibition, are, in my opinion, rubbish - some of them are amazing. Of course, I didn't get in the exhibition, so you may say this is sour grapes or whatever, however, every time there seems to be:

a disfigured person
a celebrity (often sweating or muddy)
some sort of shocking thing (like drugs or prostitution)
some sort of nudity
some kids
some poverty
an "off the wall" thing like a very strange pose or a mother holding a doll rather than a real baby
some ethnic culture
sadness
happiness
and some very boring studio shot pics

There is little shot with ambient light, or what you might call "opportunist".

It seems to me therefore to be a bit formulaic, rather than purely merit based. While some of the images there are truly stunning, there are too many in my opinion that are ordinary, or only have some sort of value due to the shock or the celebrity, rather than the image.

I quite like the winner - but it is quite ordinary - and if it was of an unknown jockey from an unknown race, but identical in every other respect, I doubt it would have made the final 60. I'm sure its technically good and I don't have to like it to appreciate it - but in terms of being "best" and winning a competition, I think the TW is not a very fair race. In fact one year there was a bit in the rules saying that the judges had been "given guidance on fair assessment" or some such - this was the year after almost all the winners had been photography degree students. Ok, you'd expect them to be good - but some of the images were so amateur and poorly done that it was hard to see fairness in the results.

These things are always subjective of course - but some of the images in the TW are hugely underwhelming and its hard to see how they got into the last 60.
 
I feel that too much weight is given the medium here. It matters not one hoot if it was shot with a esoteric large format film camera powered by pixie dust or a iphone. The reality is that it is very likely it was not submitted and judged as a large format print. It's a good portrait but it is not particularly a impressive portrait. It won the prize, and to be honest that speaks more about the judging process than the winner
 
Last edited:
The prints are the thing submitted and judged at the Taylor Wessing, so it should have been the one you see on the wall that they saw.

I've just been up there today, I stand by what I said above.

While I won't pick apart other photographers work here (its only my opinion anyway), there were some pretty straightforward pictures there, not really things I would say "made the grade".

Also, almost all of the pictures had been commissioned or published before - so I would say that the judging doesn't exactly seem fair. It seems to be a bit "awards for the boys".

Saying that, as usual there were some stunning images there that were certainly very deserving and very well taken and printed. The overall theme seemed to be muted colours and serious faces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top