In the previous thread there was a lot of discussion about the positivity of curation. I followed the comments and as a newish member learned a few things. First it seems that curation is at the heart of this site, though there is also a hierarchy that modifies publishing and selectiing, which I don't fully understand. Curation is thus a democratic vote and  so we can all feel that part is part of the community, at least until it gets to the hierarchy which seems more opaque.

I have curated a number of images and I have to say that I find it challenging. I saw a published image I recently curated and rejected; no problem with me because I am not an expert, thankfully my vote didn't change the outcome.

When I curate I get a smallish view of the image and a chance to accept or reject. I can also get an opportunity to critique and comment on the image. I try not to reject out of hand because of my biases and try to comment to the artist about why.

So, curating, I get an image on the screen that I don't like by my own selection bias, what to do? I don't like Sunrise or Sunset pictures because they are almost never special to me. I don't like seeing the same type of image over and over. I don't like photos with people walking away. I am not very interested in Birds and most landscapes are not unique. So I have big biases, not necessarily shared by the community (I read some comment about 12,000 members, not sure if accurate).

So, if an image for curation comes up, I am often faced with an unfair vote based on my biases. I want to be fair to the author but if I don't like it I don't want to publish it. How do other people handle that? What is fair? Should I see that other similar photos are published and accept or try to find a techinical reason to reject? Should I be finding reasons to publish or reasons to reject? Should technical perfection be the criteria or the impact of the image itself?

Should we know how many votes are being cast? and the for vs against?

I would be interested in how others handle this essential chore.

Hi, William

It is interesting for me to find out there are about 12.000 members in the 1xcom community - I was always wondering. I liked your comment because you are frank and admit to some things that, most probably, are shared by at least 80% of these 12.000 members, such as 1.not knowing very well what makes a good photo, 2. having biases regarding the subject and perhaps 3. what is the most important aspect that makes a photo eligible for publishing.

From am artistic point of view the subject of photography is less important; what matters is the novel approach to treating it and capturing it in a photo: the photographer's vision. In painting, photography, literature, films and other arts the subjects have always been the same: people, animals, their interactions, nature, landscapes, seasons, birds, architecture and so on. The 1x.com platform is about fine art photography; fine art photography strives to re-create and not to simply reproduce a moment/scene/element of reality/nature. It is about elevating a simple glimpse into reality into an upper aesthetic meaning resonating with something deeper in our minds. I also curate photos and I can say that most photos show a lack of basic technical knowledge of digital photography. Then a vast majority are of an overwhelming banality - simply snapshots with no artistic considerations - composition, light, colours. Meanwhile most of the photos selected for publishing/award ( I say most because there are some who may have been selected by mistake) express an idea, a message, an emotion, a vision of the photographer as an artist. Photography is here a medium for creative expression - be it birds, wild animals, landscapes, sunsets, buildings, portraits, nudes, plants, etc. This is where the second phase of the curation process comes into focus. The curators are people with artistic education and a discerning eye/artistic taste acquired in decades of exposure to the visual arts. So basically they know what has aesthetic value in the realm of photography, something that a great number of photographers submitting here have no clue, otherwise they would not submit such terrible photos. I believe one cannot become an artist without having worked very very hard to acquire "artistic taste" - by reading about art, visiting museums, exhibitions, analyzing up close the works of other artists working hard to understand what is going on. This is important because it allows one to look at their own work with a critical eye. You may not favour certain subjects in photography but try to browse this site and you will see photos of birds, sunsets, sunrises, street scenes that will blow your mind, breathtaking photography. Look at those photos featured in the Magazine of this platform. Photographic art doesn't happen in the camera but in the mind. It is the result of 1. artistic vision and 2. the skills needed to be able to communicate your artistic vision. Perhaps my comment will help you understand more about how the curation process functions on 1x.com.

I just rembered the 12,000 from a post, so I might have it wrong. I am, ha ha, 3,000th in standing here I get no respect. I like your assertion that 1x is a platform for fine art photography and believe it is fundamentally true, although I can't define art or fine art or fine art photography.

I am afraid that I can't tell  "art" from "not art" much of the time. (The art critics didn't like Impressionists at the time).  I do try to determine the author's intent and curate from there. There may be a chasm between the author's intent and the expression of it and then a comment is needed. To curate to fine art is a high bar. So, you seem to suggest that there is a back stop of more experienced who will equal out the proces:

"Meanwhile most of the photos selected for publishing/award ( I say most because there are some who may have been selected by mistake) express an idea, a message, an emotion, a vision of the photographer as an artist".

I guess I just don't see those aspects of images much of the time in either published or selected images even though I agree that those are excellent features of art. I just can't see an idea, message, emotion in a Bird or Sunset image. I think of them as  artful documentary images that do fit a Fine Art rubric.

As a consumer of images I can like or not like as I please but as a curator I have to isolate those images into their own genre to try to curate and I find it difficult to separate my bias from the image.

I took the time to find your website and explored your images. Wow, nice work. I especially like the abstracts but the quality is fabulous. I am a retired physician, Pulmonary/Critical Care and started more photography after retiring. Being OCD I have tried to find the essence of both art and photography, what a journey for a science guy. Lots of interesting things about neurobiology of perception that draws us to images. Maybe too analytical to get the vibe of an image, huh?

There is a lot of material available on the internet about fine art photography - what is, what difference between it and documentary photography. As I said before, it takes time to study art but it is worthwhile. Photography did not fall from the sky as an art but it continued trends from already existing visual arts and then developed its own domain.  In landscape, still life or portrait photography. So maybe some knowledge of the visual arts in general, especially painting, would contribute to a better understanding of fine art photography. Like everything else, understanding photography is a journey. A fascinating one, I should say.

thank you for taking the time to look at my website and for the appreciation.

Ludmilla, I don't want to leave the impression that I am artisically naive. I have for the last 5 years looked at a lot of those sites (you cite, hmm), read a lot and thought a lot about what  art and fine art and fine art photography means well before using this site. You say:

"fine art photography strives to re-create and not to simply reproduce a moment/scene/element of reality/nature. It is about elevating a simple glimpse into reality into an upper aesthetic meaning resonating with something deeper in our minds." Ludmilla S

And I think that is a fine concise description but like all concise descriptions there is much in the details that befuddles our understanding. I used the idea of the impressionists, who were not admired by the classicists and the Beatles were not appreciated by the classicists, etc. while the unappreciated took over the world.

You say: "From am artistic point of view the subject of photography is less important; what matters is the novel approach to treating it and capturing it in a photo: the photographer's vision." Ludmilla S

I feel that these statements are in conflict and goes to the problem I have with curating.

Your first statement suggests a benchmark about elevating to something deeper in the mind (think the Image of God and Man in the Sistene Chapel, a benchmark to me of artistic brilliance based on the image and story), while your second statement about unimportant "subject" suggests that the artist defines the artistic merit more subjectively. So, If I don't understand the feature that raises to something deeper, then I am left with technique or just trust the artist's vision.

In the Sistene Chapel the first thing that strikes one is the amazing colors and size of the work and the careful detail and careful rendering of human bodies and clouds and borders etc. But the message, (Christian, religious) of God touching man to be in his image is a higher message and so brilliantly imagined and it is seered into my brain. Other images affect my vision: Renoir's the Boating Party is a favorite of mine, Seurat's Sunday in the Park, unique technique to remind us of happiness. Scream by Munch, all of Vermeer, Monet's pictures of modern French Railway station. Yes, appreciating image is necessary for good photographic art which has similar aspirations.

I believe that the Image, the Subject is important and in many images it is what conveys the message, story or feeling.

In curating, if I don't understand the intention of the author, I don't want to diminish the work. So between the poles of subective artistic freedom and an onus to be relevant,  the curator must strive to be fair and yet not permissive. I find it hard sometimes because of my biases while I try to be fair to the artist.

Outside of curation, 1x does let one find the author's work and see the context of their artistic vision. Seeing your work gives context to your comments, for example.

Trevor, in your first post you mentioned not being attracted to certain subjects such as sunsets, birds. I pointed out that it is not the subject that makes the photo. It is not the subject that makes the painting or the literary novel or poetry. Subjects are universal and have been repeated over and over again. The artist approaches the subject that she finds best for the embodiment, for carrying a certain idea, emotion, vision. So it is important to the artist. Yet in appreciating art or deciding whether an image is worth anything, the subject is less relevant than the other artistic elements. And btw I have one of my most beautiful images in curation right now and it is "appreciated" with only 3% by the members :-)  Should this mean anything at all to me? Am I to try and understand the curation process or just follow my path? To me the floral compositions I create are allegories of mental and emotional processes. This one is an island of renewed hope emerging from or sinking into the blackness, something I tried to express through the composition, colours, entangled elements. It is intricate and dark and I hope it defies prettiness. If it will be added to my 1xcom portfolio or not, I really don't mind. Sorry, it is curated at 2%. Can it be seen as such a bad image by those curating? Hard to say. And irelevant.

Ludmilla, Sorry, I may not have undestood what you were saying. "Subject" to me meant the subject of the image (the dog in the kennel) and I guess you were talking about subject as the theme, like "Beauty, Love, conflict, envy, Hope, poverty, etc" or maybe the artistic intent.

If I were to curate your image, thanks for sharing, I would find the precise rendering of the flowers exceptional, and the depth of the image makes it pop nicely in three dimensions, and the colors are bright and true. But, I would not see your interpretation without a clue, if I were curating. It would take reviewing more of your work and understand your titles etc. I would think it excpetional in that genre so I would probably "publish". I would interpret your artistic intent to be to render the beauty of our natural world in a single image.

I will add a photo that I liked, not chosen. I did get several dozen commnets, so It did its job. This is an image "Toward the Heavens" is of a Church Steeple. Church steeples are architechtual symbols of reaching to the sky for the greater glory. I couldn't get a clear shot of the steeple because of the bulk of the church and competing so I got what I could

 

What I felt was that the sense of wanting to touching eternity was croweded out by the superstructure of the Church. I did sell it in gallery, the purchaser thought it was "different".

William Trainor PRO

Ludmilla, Sorry, I may not have undestood what you were saying. "Subject" to me meant the subject of the image (the dog in the kennel) and I guess you were talking about subject as the theme, like "Beauty, Love, conflict, envy, Hope, poverty, etc" or maybe the artistic intent.

If I were to curate your image, thanks for sharing, I would find the precise rendering of the flowers exceptional, and the depth of the image makes it pop nicely in three dimensions, and the colors are bright and true. But, I would not see your interpretation without a clue, if I were curating. It would take reviewing more of your work and understand your titles etc. I would think it excpetional in that genre so I would probably "publish". I would interpret your artistic intent to be to render the beauty of our natural world in a single image.

I will add a photo that I liked, not chosen. I did get several dozen commnets, so It did its job. This is an image "Toward the Heavens" is of a Church Steeple. Church steeples are architechtual symbols of reaching to the sky for the greater glory. I couldn't get a clear shot of the steeple because of the bulk of the church and competing so I got what I could

 

What I felt was that the sense of wanting to touching eternity was croweded out by the superstructure of the Church. I did sell it in gallery, the purchaser thought it was "different".

 

 

 

Your photo has nice colours. Otherwise the composition lacks. The frame is too crowded, the subject skewed, giving the impression of a careless shot. With an elaborate and more considered preparation it could have been a good shot: leaving more space for the sky, selecting perhaps only the tower on the left and the spire in the background. The building on the right doesn't bring anything to the photo. I like the blue of the spire next to the blue of the sky which is a different hue, this is interesting and it should have been given more voice. If you have the opportunity maybe you can try it again. The colours are really lovely.

And yes, by subject I meant dog in a kennel, bird in the sky, sunset landscape. What these carry as message/idea is up to the viewer to interpret if the author doesn't mention as a comment to the photo. As for my flowers. I want the viewer to see flowers, leaves, branches and twigs floating in a dark space, weightless, carried by a breeze or just suspended. 

Reads like a critique, Ludmilla. Ever considered to write these in the dedicated critique forum? 

https://1x.com/forum/critique

We're always happy to read guest contributions....

Ludmilla, You wrote: "To me the floral compositions I create are allegories of mental and emotional processes. This one is an island of renewed hope emerging from or sinking into the blackness". This is a higher aspiration for art. Aesthetics and beauty are excellent aims for art and I felt you had satisfied that goal. I used my image as an illustration of an "attempt" to symbolize something like your "renewed hope emerging from or sinking into the blackness". I had many comments on this image, many, but not all, having similar comments as yours about composition, colors et. My aim was to present an appealing, but not beautiful, image that had a puzzle or question hidden in the image, as you had hoped in your "emerging from blackness".

I didn't succeed in the message but if it disturbed the viewer or puzzled the viewer then it succeeded at some level. My curator undestood the conflict  represented in the image:  that religious purity of appealing to the heavens (the Steeple) is surrounded and overwhelmed by the heavy, superstructure of the church, a provocative idea in a single image. Like your hope to convey something more than a collection of colored images I wanted to represent a message. No one sees that or thinks it is silly or banal. But no comments about that aspect. So what is the point of curating or critiquing about the photographic aspects while the artisitic intent is ignored? I would be more useful to say "that is silly" or "I see what you are trying and it doesn't work".

Anyway I have trouble with curating if I can't figure out the artistic intent and yet want authors to get published if their aesthetics are exellent.

Thank you, Mike. Yes, I have written a few critiques, there where I felt my input could be useful. Will do it again.

I suppose in all realms of art we have to figure the artistic intent by ourselves and appreciate form and content as we understand them. 

I tried to curate a few more images after writing about it above and have not been able to get into it. Curation should be at the heart of the 1x algorithm; it makes it more democratic rather than autocratic (and yet imperfect.) As a consumer of images at this site, not a "photographer" and not a consumer of "published or Awarded", I see that images are often banal but as a 7th level curator who strives to "give back", I try to figure out why that image? but it is too time consuming and too hard. It is easier to just vote up or down. I read the previous thread about how people are devastated about their 2% rating and some with 500 published complain that their next one wasn't published and rejection seems to unkind.  I wonder how scuptors would view our images: "Seems too flat"? ; Movie producers: "to still"?;  painters: "too easy"? 

In Plato's Cave Allegory, prisoners were chained into watching shadows in two dimensions on a wall as the representation of truth. One escaped and went to the real world and discovered that the world was much more colorful and complicated than the images on the cave.

"The narrative assumes the freed prisoner would return and try to liberate their fellow prisoners, now knowing how much more of the world exists outside the cave. However, in its conclusion, Socrates and Glaucon agree that the other prisoners would likely kill those who try to free them, as they would not want to leave the safety and comfort of their known world." From an analysis summary.

I am not the escaped prisoner who understands "art".

"We are all just prisoners hereOf our own device" Hotel California, Eagles

But as curator of the banal, and the recipient of "critiques" and an observer of style conformity in many cases (repetition in the chosen images), I feel there is a series of  conformity standards. As Seventh son of a seventh son, I its not my job to change it.

I'll shut up now.

William,

I enjoy reading your posts. This one, with a reference to Plato and a quote from ♫ Hotel California ♫ has quite a range.  I did not know Plato's cave allegory.  To update it, perhaps the internet, news channels, and social media are casting the shadows on our cave walls.  The real world is still out there.  It may be rich and exciting, but the shadows are so entertaining . . . . and addictive too.  

It seems you're on a quest to find photographs that inspire you - that you consider worthwhile examples of the craft and art.  I'm curious about the type of image that would satisfy.  For myself it's 'meaningful' - an image that teaches something about life - that explains us to ourselves.  Like a bit of poetry that you read once and it sticks in your head forever because you know it to be true. 

Some photographers are inspired by technical perfection - perfect sharpness, composition, exotic locations, complex techniques, and so on.  Others look for moody abstracts that can not be explained, but only felt.  Some like documentary or street photography for the stories they can tell.  (or the opening sentence of stories that we, as viewers, can imagine in full)

Do you have some favourite photographers or photographs?  'Inspiration' is too big for just one.  It's more like a montage with each element contributing a little to the whole. 

. . . . Steven T.

William, 

There is nothing one can do about "banal" photos, as you name them (kindly); just vote them down in curation. I agree that even among published and even awarded photos there are many who have no (great) artistic merit and have been selected for some obscure reasons I have no knowledge about; but the majority of awarded and published photography is very good and inspiring in all categories. In curation I also encounter mostly mediocre photography in curation and wonder why even try to explain to their authors why their photo is bad, in what words, you cannot educate artistic taste in a few words, you cannot teach photographic technique in a few words. They have to figure it by themselves before submitting it and probably invest more in educating themselves before aspiring to be considered fine art photographers. I suppose many people have in sight some commercial aspect of photography or prestige and this is ridiculous for so many reasons. 

I am sorry to ramble on but there are frustrating elements in my 5 year quest to understand "Photography". Sometimes it is like: "I've looked at clouds from both sides now and I still don't know clouds at all", Joni Mitchell. I loved film photography 30 years ago and developing and printing was a magical chemistry experiment. I was too busy with profession and other interests like skiing, hiking, sailing, running to make photography a primary avocation. I did keep good cameras etc. Since retiring I took it more seriously and added digital and post processint to the "skill" of photography but then the whole question of "art" challenged me. I joined a photo club, joined an art group and spent hours looking at visual arts and especially photography. "I still don't know photography at all".

What I do know is that my quest is not that of a "photographer" in the general sense but more of a "hobbyist photographer". Real photographers do Weddings, Product photography, Real Estate photography and if they love the processs do "Fine Art Photography" the same as I do, unless they are lucky enough to be Peter Lik, Cindy Sherman or Andreas Gursky et al. If you aim to make your images "Art", or something resembling it, you could look at the Bresson's, Adams, Eggelsons, Ray's, Steichen, Stieglitz, etc. Or look at lots of current photos to see what is being done. Flikr, 1x, 500photos are approachable, 5 years of looking! You can also go to Galleries, eg Saatchi Art, to see what is being sold as "art". Read articles, see video's, discuss with artists, But still, "I don't know art at all".

But that is my quest, not 1x's. Photographs have at least two broad categories: documentation and artistic rendering. They are not mutually exclusive at all but they start at different places. I judge (don't hit me) that Bird and landscape and travel photography (and wedding and real estate) start as documenting observations with the best technology and frequently get exceptional artistic rendering. Bresson, Gursky, Sherman, Eggleston have rendered ordinary aka Banal images into fine art, I suppose. Gee, how about Vermeer? I don't think that one has to, or even should, copy the old masters to get "art" out of your images. I do think that "Uniqueness" is an element and should be one of several step to "Art". (Another rendering of Ansel Adam's visions is just not art. A picture of another's art is not new art.) Good technique is another necessary but not sufficient condition.

Steven, I like your comment: "For myself it's 'meaningful' - an image that teaches something about life - that explains us to ourselves.  Like a bit of poetry that you read once and it sticks in your head forever because you know it to be true." I think that is another step toward art.

1x might have two purposes, one would be to showcase those images that approach "art" and second to be a place where people, especially hobbyists, can share techniques and get reasonable feedback. I think feedback is either being "published" or "Awarded" or not, or being "critiqued". If you need to polish technique, there is plenty of advice.

If you want to polish as an artist, I feel much less so. Should anyone take 1x "Publish or Awarded" as a marker for artistic achievement? or rather as feedback to the general taste of this particular community? For the hobby photographer, 1x does a terrific job and the techinical tips and tricks are really quite good.  But for me:

I've looked at photos from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It's photo's illusions I recall
I really don't know photos at all

Ludmilla, I don't agree. I think that in curation or critique, one should look out for the community of fellow vision questers. Each submitted image is someone's vision. Imperfect doesn't mean useless. Banal can be art for Eggleston. If I look at an image and opine that the composition isn't right or the colors aren't good or that distraction makes my eye fall right out of the frame! (funny image if you think about it, I like to use the image of eyes rolling around on the floor when someone says "he rolled his eyes") or it could be cropped, doesn't give the artist much feedback on the value of the image itself. Even fixing some of those conditions would not result in a good, artistic image in most cases. So why not say: I like the quality of the image but it isn't that good a subject (theme) don't waste more time. Or there is an inherent flaw in the image itself that won't work. I find that if I curate, I feel obligated to see what the artist was trying to do, even if another sunrise, and discuss its value. That is so time consuming but should be valuable to the artist. I get very little feedback most of the time.

You say : "I find that if I curate, I feel obligated to see what the artist was trying to do and discuss its value".

Most of the times there is no artist, there is no value. At least 80% of the photos submitted on this platform are just ordinary snapshots trying to reproduce what was before the photographer's eyes and win praise for that. 

Ludmilla, thank you for the discussion. It still raises questions for me not solutions. I have a friend who is a very creative photographer and I asked her what she thought "Art" was and she replied that ~ "any creative endeavor is art". That doesn't seem right. Your answer, if I am correct, is that art is much more defined and maybe similar to an answer at one place I googled said has Five characteristics: Technique, Concept, Emotion, Newness and Media. I don't think it is so proscribed, nor so random, but I have no idea. Here is a discussion of Aesthetics by a Philosophy instructor on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/MF8kz-mTIp4

I don't think that this site is exclusively a repository of Fine Art Photography, (although I haven't found that site yet) but it is a source for very good photography with some examples of FAP. It seems to be democratic in that curation is done by members and screened by senior members or some such. To the degree that it is not regulated by 5 characteristics, that works for the most part. I have curated for several exhibitions and it is not easy (I didn't have the 5 rules in pencil on my sleeve).

I have my own biases; just today I opened Curate and first two  were "Nudes". My bias is that I don't like nudes as "Art Photograpy" although it is a legitimate form. The human form is a fine Subject but I think it is rare to have it become Art. Well there is the "Naked Maja" by Goya, And the "Birth of Venus" by Botticelli,  but photos are too real, to me. So I decided to not curate because my bias would rule, not my artistic eye. 

Anyway, I agree with you that the photos here are in general excellent but not all are "Art" so the curation system works to some degree. I don't know if you look at the results often, but I have for the past several years looked at all, each day. And I was disturbed to noticed some skews in the outcomes that seemed to favor some artists, which got me to write in the first place but it is a small amount.

Defining Art is a long, complex, philosophical, maybe Metaphysical discussion and maybe not for this forum. So sorry for long windedness.

Art is art. Everything else is everything else.

William,

Interesting discussion.  Thank you for starting the thread and for your thoughts.

You wrote about the suggestion that art has 5 characteristics . . . .  Technique, Concept, Emotion, Newness and Media. 

Many years ago I read some James Joyce, and one of the characters spoke of the 3 necessary elements for beauty as 'Wholeness, Harmony, and Radiance'.  This was from Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274 AD, but he wrote it in Latin . . . "Ad pulcritudinem tria requiruntur integritas, consonantia, claritas".   One website stated that Aquinas defined Beauty as 'that which pleases when seen'. 

Wholeness, Harmony, and Radiance are vague terms that will mean different things to different people.  To me, wholeness is about the idea of a photograph - is it complete and understandable?  Harmony could refer to composition - is the image well crafted, comfortably balanced in its frame?  Radiance is the tough one.  I don't think it refers to beautiful lighting, but more to whether the feeling or idea glows from within the photo.  Does the meaning or feeling reach out to you?  Does it speak to you softly, or grab you by the throat to say "Hey . . . look at me!" ?

Best quote of all if you just substitute 'Photography' for 'Music' . . .  "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture" .   Quote Investigator.com gives that one to musician and humourist,  Martin Mull, although other possibilities are Frank Zappa, Thelonious Monk, and others.  So Thomas n porter's succinct comment above is right on. 

Just my rambling opinions.

. . . . Steven

Steven,

Thanks for the comments I have tried to curate some more and kept Ludmilla's ideas in mind. I still have a conflict. I think of Photography and Art as in a Venn Diagram. Two universes that overlap. All art is not photographic and all photography is not art, where they intersect is "Art Photography". Within the universe of photography there is also Good and not-as-good photography (fuzzy Venn boundaries? who decides?) and another subset of 1x (published/awarded) which might intersect with good photography (and not-so-good) and with "Art photography".

So the Curation process: Flickr has "Explore" photos, similar to Published 1x. I wondered how hundreds to thousands of people would see submitted image and began to realize that if you didn't join Groups and didn't "follow" people it would be hard to get anyone to actually look at your image, let alone "vote" for it.

1x has a Curation system that is at least partially democratic, I suppose, and then more "senior" curators tweek the choice, though certainly all might vote for thier friends as well, but more egalitarian.

But put that aside since the world is just not "fair". When you "'curate" a photo what part of the Venn Diagram do you use? Art, Good or 1x? (probably not "not-as-good").

Of interest: I had looked at Flickr Explore almost daily for years and then 1x as well, so I am a consumer of these images. I notice, I think, that images on 1x Published are on average Darker than those on Flickr Explore. I also found that "sunrise, sunsets" are way more numerous on Flickr. Prortraits more numerous on 1x. Not statistical because the scatter is wide and still a small sample. But there are different "styles" or "artistic visions", which is not unexpected.

Photography is essentially "documentation" and perhaps Painting/Art is as well, (just not eg, Jackson Pollock) How acurate or technically perfect doesn't change that. So, if you are to "curate" an image and it is documentation but technically well done or no worse than others previously published, there is no argument against publishing unless there is something else. (I would like to use "Uniqueness" or perhaps "artistiry". Uniqueness sometimes comes as new "techniques" of say post processing or camera movement (but they are evenually beat to death) and sometimes as unique depictions or stories in the image itself. Artistry is very subjective and I can't define it, nor want to, but sometimes I get it. Still Curating is tough (or easy). 

Uniqueness at 1x sometimes seems to be "a custom not infrequently noted by the breech" when a not unique image or technique is overused by an artist and still selected.

Publication is a crapshoot. I've  I've curated more than 57,000 photos on this site, & what's helped me after doing this is that I look at each of my photos & ask myself, Is there a story here?"  I check for technical issues that are probably the easiest to fix (most of the time), & then I ask the big question, "What does it look like on a taupe wall?"

I've rejected more than 89% of the photos I've seen here.  I believe that the real curators have a sense of what Art is & what it isn't in the field of photography. My published/awarded is 27 photos & I'm happy with that since I've not been here a year yet.  I don't care about process, bias, whatever. If you put a good photo up here, it *will* be selected even if the member curators give it a 1%-4%.   

William,

You may be thinking about all this too deeply.  Perhaps we should not be asking 'is it art?' , but asking whether a photograph is worthwhile, will it enrich those who see it.  Will it, in some small way, make the world a better place? 

From your forum posts it seems you're looking for a definition of art.  I don't think that's possible.  (see rule 1 below)

Steven's  'rules' for art . . . .  

1.  Art cannot be defined precisely.

2. Just because it's weird doesn't mean it's art.

3. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean that it is not art.

I vote on photos almost every day because I want to see the new pictures.  I want to see what 1X members are up to.  I sometimes see a brilliant photo, and/or get an idea for a photo that I could try to make.   It's unfortunate that we can't just look at the photographs - we have to click either Publish or Reject before we can see the next one.  I wish there were a third choice - 'Skip'.  Of course F5 will renew the page and bring up a new photo, but it is slow. 

I'm sure we all have different standards for what makes a good photo.  Technical photographers will appreciate technique.  Those who travel to photograph may admire pictures of exotic locations.  Wildlife or Macro photographers may vote mostly for those photos while ignoring fashion, portrait, architecture, street, etc.  I understand that it's the Head Curators who make the final decisions.  Hopefully they are able to rise above their personal preferences and see the value in a photograph regardless of genre. 

I've often thought that good photographs are like good music - lyrics that tell an interesting story or, better still, inspire us, make us feel something, or teach us something about LIfe.  If the lyrics are wrapped in a clever and 'hummable' rhythm and unforgettable melody, then so much the better.  

. . . . Steven

PS:  I got your Shakespeare reference (with help from Google).  Thanks for that. 

Steven and Thomas, thanks for your thoughts. Yeah, I am overthinking it; all this should be "fun" because most photographers here, send images, not expecting to be curated by National Geographic and get $100,000 an image (Hmm?, I don't sell here). We seem to be a community of photo enthusiasts who want to get their images seen, appreciated and improved in a community. The Curation process is a very postitive aspect of 1x and gives all sorts of "artists" a good chancd at a "look". (The results are binary and "blind" unless you get a comment, though). 

Thomas, Steven and Ludmilla removed the viel of curation a bit and showed the spectrum from the "curator" side. Ludmilla discussed ?"Art" as a part of her "benchmark" and Thomas seemed to use ?Appeal and Steven articulated: ".Story... Inspiration...teach us something about life". I can't define "Art", not trying to, and it might not matter.

My main point was that curation is a really good feature here and should ideally be unbiased but he benchmarks are varied. We heard complaints about curation in the previous thread. I notice a lot of similarity bias and some Style bias but that is more likely controlled by the whole group. Collectively, the community has a "Style" that probably evolves as influential benchmarks change and there are favorites that are collectively appreciated. 

I have come to the conclusion (after careful consideration) that the curation process is assisted/done by a programme, not real people; and that this programme functions according to its own (imperfect) algorithm. And by this I mean especially the "expert curators" part. Considering the huge number of submitted photos, it would be impossible even for "member curators" to cover it all in the 3-5 days time the curation takes. Let alone for a small number of expert curators to cover it all. So it must be some algorithm involved which functions with a great factor of randomness. I submitted a photo which was appreciated by the expert curators with only 2% and not published. After a week or so I re-submitted it and it was approved with 79% by the expert curators to be published.

I am convinced that the curation process is random we are here philosophizing about whatever.

There may be the occasional intervention of the real/human expert curators but, being in short supply, it is sparse and occasional, just enough to encourage useless speculations about the art of photography curation, as we are doing here.

Of course I would like to be proved wrong if somebody would provide an argument against it.

I am also sure that many expert curators are aware of how it really functions but abstain from comments.

1x.com is a very nice gallery and its Magazine rocks! Yvette is doing a fantastic job, so do all those who write interesting articles illustrated with great photography.

But the curation process lacks transparence and is random in a murky, not very elegant way.

I think you are absolutely right especially for the "published" images. But does curation affect the algorithm? probably.  I wonder about the "Awarded"; I sense a preference for some of those images awarded, which might suggest more random human input. I guess if you "curate" you get points, LOL. Perhaps the algorithm gives weight to those with more points which might explain some perference and smooth out variations mathematically, hmm. But if there are enough curations and the algorithm uses them, then the more curations the closer to a "good" curation. Sorry, overthinking again. I agree that the gallery is nice and the Magazine is great. That is all we can know as truth.

Good morning, William & Ludmila. As a former programmer, I find it difficult to believe that a program that incorporates an algorithm that selects photos for publication/award could be written. Even given the explosion of AI-based tools, one might be able to use the image-to-text abilities of some common AI interfaces to generate a set of words or even a simple narrative, but then what?  When I critique a photo (& I am not an expert curator), I often begin by describing the photo from my POV.  This approach brings me into the photo, & allows me time to evaluate the photo. 

So, for example, a program might scan a photo & generate the words: black & white, tree, snow, field, & shadows.  For another photo, it might generate the words: boat, bow, red water, mountains, & sky. So what does the program do with these words? I can't imagine how one would go from a text-based description to a decision regarding whether to publish. Maybe I'm not thinking out of the box, but I've never seen a compositional model that distinguishes good art from bad art. In fact, I've never seen a computer program that could say, "I just like it." 

Anyways, my $.02.  Cheers.

Ludmila,

I've read your posts with interest.  There is much confusion about the Curation process.  I'm 'crew' here, but have never been given any insight into how the process works.  I'd like to share what I have learned on my own.  I can't vouch for its authenticity. 

First the 'Expert' curators.  Who are they?  You can see in the 'Top List' which members are voting steadily.   In the 'Learn More' section under 'Start Curation', it looks like 'expert' curators are those who have accumulated 70,000 points.  Since you can get 6 points per photo, and more if you write comments, it's possible to collect that number of points farily quickly.  Having lots of points doesn't qualify one as a competent judge of photographs.   I've been voting on photos here for years, and I guess I'm considered an 'expert' curator.  I've never been informed of that - or of what responsibilities are expected of an 'expert' curator. 

What would be very useful is an article about 'How to judge a photograph'.  An official explanation of the Curation process would help too.  Here in the forum there is a lot of guesswork.  Knowing the number of members who voted would be another step forward.  Knowing that your photo was judged by 4 members or 48 or 400 members would make a big difference to the acceptance of a Rejection notice. 

There is information in the FAQ section under 'How does Curation work?'  It's worth reading.   The Head Curators who make the final decisions for the 'Awarded' category are shown in the 'About' section of the website.  You can read their biographies and see their galleries.  They don't discuss their decisions because they are already overworked as volunteers, and can't get involved in back-and-forth 'discussions' that would inevitably follow from trying to explain to photographer why their photo was not accepted.  

Some links to articles about Curation from the 1X magazine.  Some are old now, but still worth reading . . . .

https://gallery.1x.com/blog/permalink/9176

https://gallery.1x.com/blog/permalink/8538

https://gallery.1x.com/blog/permalink/8283

https://gallery.1x.com/blog/permalink/7948

https://gallery.1x.com/blog/permalink/9142

And one more - a comment from 1X Founder, Ralf . . . .  https://1x.com/forum/site-related/awards

I think many thin-skinned members (like myself) may have given up on posting photos to Curation.  I miss the old version of the site where we were allowed to choose which of our own photos we wanted to show other members in our personal gallery without having to have them judged first. 

. . . . . Steven

Hi Steven.  Thanks for being so available in these forums.

You mentioned what would be the most important addition to the curation dashboard -- that is, *How* many people see, & more importantly, vote up/down on an image. The value add there would be astronomical.

Cheers, Tom

There was even an article in the 1x magazine inttoducing the AI algorithm curation. Check it out. It must be fully (dys)functional nowadays.

and I have also found an exchange about it in an older forum post from 1 year ago...

worth keeping an eye on.

Thanks for posting this section of the article Ludmila. That is so very sad. I wonder if that is why images done with a Lensbaby Velvet 56 or 85 don't do well? Whenever I have submitta floral image with intentional soft focus, it doesn't make the cut and I get told that the problem is technical quality!!! 
Lucie 

Good morning, William & Ludmila.

I've argued several different ways that an algorithm can not distinguish between reject/punished/awarded. I would not die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. 🤣

Back to our magic good art/bad art discrimination machine:

You feed it images, lots of images, & then the AI "magic" begins. For example, a program might scan a photo & generate the words: black & white, tree, snow, field, rabbit, & shadows.  For another photo, it might generate the words: boat, bow, rock formation, red water, mountains, & sky.  

Even if we were to push the model by allowing dozens or hundreds of words or modifiers, I still cannot imagine an algorithm that would generate anything actionable. What if we not only collect descriptors & their modifiers but we could also use a weighted set of descriptors & their modifiers?  This is starting to get computationally expensive.

So, what does the program do with this weighted word set? I can't imagine how one would go from these data to a decision regarding whether to publish. Maybe I'm not thinking out of the box, but I've never seen a compositional model that distinguishes good art from bad art. In fact, I've never even seen a computer program that could say, "I just like it." 

I’ve started doing some testing with AiCUS – the software tool that has apparently been evaluated at some time by 1.x.com – See: 1x Launched an Advanced AI Curator!

1x Launched an Advanced AI Curator. It’s not clear how much this tool is being used:

I’ve done a back-of-the-napkin calculation (I’ll likely finish it tonight or tomorrow.) of the results of AiCUS versus rejected,  published, or awarded. Here is a quick breakdown:

Developed by DeepMountain, AiCUS is an AI software for automatic photography aesthetics assessment.

Based on the architecture of a multi-column deep convolutional neural network, AiCUS has been trained for over 700,000 human-curated photographs across more than ten categories & formed its own aesthetic criteria for assessing a photograph. Most importantly, AiCUS models are being constantly trained with new datasets and training strategies, so their performance will continuously improve.

Currently, AiCUS provides two platforms for photograph assessment: AiCUS Landscape - specifically assessing landscape photographs, & AiCUS Universal - assessing all other category photographs.

However, I found no difference in the scores of several photos regardless of the choice of  Landscape or Universal.

The score given by AiCUS ranges from 0.0 to 1.000:

• [0.9, 1.000] - Exceptional
• [0.7, 0.8999] - Excellent
• [0.5, 0.6999] - Good
• [0.4, 0.4999] - Fair
• [0.0 - 0.3999] - Poor

I wanted to evaluate whether or not the AiCUS results matched my rejected, published, or awarded status, so I created three sets - rejected, published, or awarded. Then I fed the photographs into AiCUS & AiCUS returned a score.

That score is the entry “score” at the bottom of each file.

Awarded

filename: Windmill-nosig-1200.jpg

--- size: 786x1200

--- score: 0.7804

filename: Train Tracks & Thunderstorm-1200.jpg

--- size: 791x1200

--- score: 0.2175

filename: Singing the Wind Awake-1200..jpg

--- size: 831x1200

--- score: 0.0242

filename: drop #0678.jpg

--- size: 2284x2534

--- score: 0.1658

So, one awarded photo scored relatively highly – 0.78 or Excellent.

The other three awarded photos all scored below the Poor threshold of AiCUS.

Published

filename: Rubber Duckies-nosig.jpg

--- size: 2262x3088

--- score: 0.4173

filename: Migration Road-1-nosig.jpg

--- size: 3897x5600

--- score: 0.4845

filename: Childhood's End-nosig.jpg

--- size: 3187x4912

--- score: 0.295

filename: Bluebird.jpg

--- size: 988x818

--- score: 0.0284

filename: Bird-Flying.jpg

--- size: 870x898

--- score: 0.0337

So, in the published photos (I promise I’ll do this with all my published), two photos made it to the Fair category,

While the other three photos scored well below Poor.

Rejected

filename: Cutting Hay-nosig.jpg

--- size: 3136x5252

--- score: 0.2683

filename: Comb.jpg

--- size: 2378x2203

--- score: 0.0689

filename: AI Now Comes to You.jpg

--- size: 2305x3338

--- score: 0.7257

filename: _Z620063_4_5_Painterly 4.jpg

--- size: 4016x6035

--- score: 0.0319

filename: Colored-Ragweed Texturized #2.jpg

--- size: 675x1000

--- score: 0.3329

filename: Anna-nosig--texture-gigapixel-art-scale-4_00x-1200.jpg

--- size: 1200x816

--- score: 0.3289

So, in my rejected photos, one photo scores the second highest in this short records set. The remaining 5/6 photos scored in the Poor category.

To sum up:

AiCUS was wrong (Different result than expert creators).

Awarded:     75% of the time

Published     60% with two close outliers in the Fair category. This number will likely go up as I add more published photos.

Rejected       83& of the time.

Utilizing a tool that is demonstrably & randomly incorrect 60-83% of the time – likely one correct decision out of five – one would think that the expert curators would likely not be using this.

Anyways, my $.02.  Cheers,

thomas

Thomas,

So is it possible to know whether AiCUS has a role in the curation process? Was its use an experiment soon abandoned or is it still used?

I submitted to its valuation two of my best images and AiCUS placed them at the bottom of the appreciation scale. The result being absurd.

Thomas,

this is VERY interesting! Where did you get AiCUS ? is it downloadable? 

It makes me even more doubtful about the future of the 1X platform or at least my place in it !

Thanks for doing this test!

Lucie

Good evening, Lucie.

The link to the tool that does the scoring is here: Deep Mountain

The link is there, but it's very light.  You'll have to mouse around to find it.

Or go to: 

https://www.deepmountain.com.au/aicus

Although I used a small sample set,

the data showed that data from AiCUS & data from our expert curators/critics don't correlate with one another.

The Magical Mystical Algorithmic Art Evaluator doesn't work. Period. Fact. Jack.

I don't think that's a problem.  Even if a program might solve some issues, at the end of the day, I trust humans.

Of course, that comes with its own set of little problems sometimes.

Good morning, Lucie

if you google "AiCUS photo curation" you will get the results taking you to a free trial of this aberration.

or go directly to deepmountain.com.au (deep mountain being the developer of the programme)

Wow, interesting! Thanks Ludmilla and Thomasl

I didn't notice if the putative AI curation was for Published or also Awarded.

I suppose that there is another way to conceive of this algorithm. How many submission to 1x are there? If 100 are published/day and 10 are awarded/day the number of submitted may outstrip the number of curations member+expert and overwhelm that system. If 1x uses an AI curation system as a "filter" or pre-selector that might explain some of the observations that I have made and those now brought up.

Aside: One of my college philosphy professors introduced me to a term "angular vision" implying that we see outward at an angle like a pie slice and the person looking perpendicular has a different view and of course this was a metaphor for opinion as well. (I would point out that many commenters in the forum see "curation" from the "Artist submission" viewpoint, inward "why wasn't mine selected".  But I viewing from the image consumer view may be different, outward "why was that selected?").

Whatever "Deep Mountain" uses to develop a curation algorithm would become a "benchmark" and would lead to a regression to the mean of that benchmark. Of course that might happen without an AI curator unless there were a lot of open minded curators curating and kept curator rotation churning.

My observation was that I kept seeing almost identical images, often from the same artist, repeatedly published. This could be explained by fixed benchmarks and if you find the mean of the regression you will be selected over and over. Bad? well fairer than a Curator favoring one artist over another by personal bias of some sort.

In any event I will accept this rationale for now and will consider the few "duplicates" as benchmark outliers (doesn't help the artist to get better just more points).

It would be reasonable for the directors to be more transparent and at least publish the nunber of  curations and the number of submissions to help the artist (and the viewers) put the results in perspective. Also It would be perferable for the Awarded images to be curated by our own expert or member group not AI.

Here is the answer, William. Same image submitted 3 times. Different results every time. Just pick your favourite. Very valuable feedback for the photographer indeed. Worth paying for a subscription. QED. What a joke.

Dear all

For some time, more and more forums have been opened with the same topic : curation. I'm experiencing exactly the same as many others here. Is there an algorithm or not ? Of course the computer works and not the members or exp.curators . Because : Exactly the same there is with the "privileged". There are many who have an award every 2-3 days. Of course, the computer cannot simply generate percentages, but it can remember names ! I've also noticed that recent awards all have a like from the same head curator, I've never seen that before ! It's not about the 5 euros/month it costs here, it's about the obvious and disrespective dismissal of a large number of photo enthusiasts. Or to put it another way, where should you get the motivation if you know from the outset that you have no chance anyway. Of course, the owners know exactly what's going on there. This is also the reason why they never take a stand. Another disrespect. Now the questions : Is it worth complaining about over and over again ? Is 1X still the ultimate standard for high-end photography, or are there alternatives ? Is it worth participating in this big curation show with all the points, graphics and parameters, marks and so on, which ultimately turns out to be a single bubble ?  What advantage we got from a published or award here, respectifly what disadvantage we have if its from another site ?  Is it possible that the current behaviour of 1X unwanted makes other sites stronger ?Just ask yourself a few questions like these ! As long as you see 1X as the real and only deal, they will act like it ! Finally i resume that we have to realize that complaining, even if reasonable, does'nt bring us further, we have to accept or doing something !

For some time, more and more forums have been opened with the same topic: curation. I'm experiencing exactly the same as many others here. Is there an algorithm or not? Of course the computer works and not the members or exp.curators. Because : Exactly the same there is with the "privileged". There are many who have an award every 2-3 days. Of course, the computer cannot simply generate percentages, but it can remember names! I've also noticed that recent awards all have a like from the same head curator, I've never seen that aaabefore! It'sFor some time, more and more forums have been opened with the same topic: curation. I'm experiencing exactly the same as many others here. Is there an algorithm or not? Of course the computer works and not the members or exp.curators. Because : Exactly the same there is with the "privileged". There are many who have an award every 2-3 days. Of course, the computer cannot simply generate percentages, but it can remember names! I've also noticed that recent awards all have a like from the same head curator, I've never seen that before! It's not about the 5 euros/month it costs here, it's about the obvious and disrespective dismissal of a large number of photo enthusiasts. Or to put it another way, where should you get the motivation if you know from the outset that you have no chance anyway. Of course, the owners know exactly what's going on there. This is also the reason why they never take a stand. Another disrespect. Now the question is it worth complaining about over and over again? Is 1X still the ultimate standard for high-end photography, or are there alternatives? Is it worth participating in this big curation show with all the points, graphics and parameters, marks and so on, which ultimately turns out to be a single bubble? Just ask yourself a few questions like these! As long as you see 1X as the real deal, they will act like it! about the 5 euros/month it costs here, it's about the obvious and disrespective dismissal of a large number of photo enthusiasts. Or to put it another way, where should you get the motivation if you know from the outset that you have no chance anyway. Of course, the owners know exactly what's going on there. This is also the reason why they never take a stand. Another disrespect. Now the question is it worth complaining about over and over again? Is 1X still the ultimate standard for high-end photography, or are there alternatives? Is it worth participating in this big curation show with all the points, graphics and parameters, marks and so on, which ultimately turns out to be a single bubble? Just ask yourself a few questions like these! As long as you see 1X as the real deal, they will act like it!

Marcel, you are pointing in the right direction.

If the so-called curation is done by a computer programme that acts either randomly (as in the examples I gave above) or according to some biased algorythm, then why join 1x.com at all? Photographers want some feedback on their photographic work. They want to know how others see their work, especially experienced photographers' opinion. If curation is a murky process without any relevance, then why be here? Sales from photography are meagre. 

Ah, Photography, to paraphrase the opening lines of Anna Karenina by Tolstoy: "All happy photogrpahers are alike, every unhappy photogrpher is unhappy in their own way". Like Families, photographers live in a house of their own work. By that I mean that their vision is solitary. LIke Michaelangelo painting the Sistene Chapel photographers may travel with others but work alone in our heads. When an image is curated in a specified Group like "1x", it takes the control away from the silo of the photographer and establishes a kind of "style" or "benchmark" that permeates the community. Competition for "best photo" is common in photo clubs and that is also implied in the world of curation. I have curated some shows and installations and some for my photo club and I found it very hard to keep my opinion out of it. It was easy to pluck out those technically imperfect but not easy at all to define more worthy images.

Ludmilla rightly says that "Photographers want some feedback on their photographic work. They want to know how others see their work, especially experienced photographers' opinion". But I wonder what "experienced photographers" means. The "experienced" on 1x could be those with the most photographic credentials or those that defined the "benchmark" by being published more. These criteria are imperfect for curation and no curation system is perfect.

Sales of photos would be another way by asking non-photographer image shoppers to judge, but "Sales from photography are meagre".

I agree that this or any curation system does not address Ludmilla's question. I started this thread with a similar question from a low level curator: how do you curate impartially? The discussion has been helpful for me to see I am not alone. Too bad we are not geographically closer so we could discuss this issue in depth. Maybe a separate category of Forum to tease out the issue of "what are photographs for". Oops, paraphrasing Kurt Vonnegut.

Hi, William

I believe those photographers who are in the top published and awarded here on 1x.com and also act as senior curators/provide criticism have an opinion worthy of any photographer's attention and consideration, regardless of their creative style. They are the experienced photographers I am talking about - those whose body of work has reached artistic maturity, is original and has its own recognizable style, is of consistent quality, expresses a unifying idea, is technically flawless because they have invested serious work and dedication in it along many years. Just look at their portfolios. It is the first thing I did when I became a member of 1xcom. So of course getting them to express their opinion is a most valuable thing I look forward to an value.

Less so the general members' opinion because this category includes a majority of bad photographers/wannabes who wouldn't post such bad shots and expect praise and appreciation if they had any artistic taste or knowledge about photography at all. Let's not forget that only 3% of the submitted photos get to be published. If they are unhappy for their bland, banal and boring snapshots not being published, they should learn first,  try to be critical about their own work and leave vanity aside. Being demanding and critical in what we do is an important prerequisite for any serious activity/project. So is very hard work until your eyes pop. Sorry I am so blunt but I am not in the mood to be politically correct. 

I am surely not unhappy about my work not being published, considering that almost everything I submit is published/awarded. And childish narcissistic need for applause is not one of my traits. I am unhappy about the lack of transparency of the curation process and the fact that I cannot explain how it can yield 3 different results for the same image submitted 3 times. This is for me worrying: the fact that curation may be so much subject to some obscure random factors and variations. Which factors? Perhaps an AI curation programme or an insufficient number of expert curators? I would really like to know.

Ludmilla, Wonderful reply. But as you might guess, I have reservartions. I am a retired physician and in that field we grapple with subjective vs objective truths, mostly yielding to objective studies yet many instances have not been settled. Example: Antibiotics for a "cold". Popular opinion wants to use them, rigor suggests no benefit. Doctors still prescribe and people use them. Sigh!

Photography is a land of Subjectivity. So "expert" is hard to define and rely on, for example the critical reception of the Impressionist painters.

 Objectivity in Photo is technical judgement of images, In focus, good lighting and tone, proper subject, subtracted distractions, rule of thirds, etc. But how come we have so many Blurry photos chosen? My own resolution of that is to judge the image itself as a subjective statement. In my quest to understand this, I have explored a few avenues. First, I have viewed up to 300 images a day on 1x and Flickr etc. I chose 361 1x images over the last 5 years as "Favorites". So out of maybe (50-100/day here x 200/yr d x 5yrs = 75,000) 75,000 images I chose only 361, 1/200, .5%, Pretty subjective. That doesn't mean the 200 were not good or liked by others but there was not much objectivity in how I made choices.

Second, I aked a question: Why do people like color photography over B&W 2-4/1? Or why do we have color vision at all? Which opened up a whole inquiry into visual perception, Gestalt psychology, Limbic system, Visual cortex striations etc. Interstingly it appears that Primate retinas have 3 cones compared to quadapeds 2 cones (B%W vision) so they can see the color red and find berries. (take a photo of a Holly Tree change to B%W and find the berries compared to the color photo).

It has been suggested by studies that the color red is preferred in images. This might explain the popularity of some images or preference for color images.

Third, I wondered if after an image gets throught the Optic nuclei and the Limbic system all the way to the Frontal Lobe (judgement, aka Curation) was there anything artistic there?

In today's Awarded images there is an image called "Serenade" It caught my eye and I analysed my postitive opinon. The picture is one of a Man standing alone in a row boat wearing a Bowler hat in a still water with a small island further on which has two people playing lutes or guitars. The image is almost monochrome the contrast is stark, there are trees in the water on either side framing the main subjects.

I was attracted to the Minimalist, high contrast image framed by the trees. The subjects had a bit of color that made it visually interesting (red?). The compositin of the other trees added to the overall image (Geshtalt?). As I looked at it closely (like a close reading of a poem) I realised that this image of a man in a boat listening to music reminded my of Odysseus bound to the mast listening to the Siren song. Subjectively, that image found its way from "eye candy" of the limbic system, finding berries to the Frontal lobe invoking Homer and made me think about that Odyssey image and how that might be important today, addiction, media influence, episemology.

Way over thought? This resonated for me. Not all images do and this was not to say this was what the artist meant, or that others would see this connection. But this was my clue to a purpose of art and that it can be multilayered like poetry if we can see it. This is separate from technical achievement.