Just a couple weeks ago, the Australian Institute of Photography announced the winner of its annual photography contest, the Australian Professional Photography Awards. Almost immediately after the decision was broadcast, observers were up in arms, including prolific landscape photographer Ken Duncan.
In particular, Ken took umbrage to the nature of the overall winner’s ‘photos’, which were representative of illustrations. In total, there were 18 category winners, including other photos representing illustrations. It was however, the fact that Lisa Saad’s entry won the award across all categories, which drew ire. While few are questioning the quality of the work in its own right, many have expressed disbelief with what seemingly appears to be a blurred line between photos and illustrations.
There is little doubt that work of this nature encourages a great deal of engagement. Its progressive nature provokes the viewer to think, to examine, to question. And on that basis, photographers should not take issue with the creative aspect of such illustrations, nor the wonderful value they provide. However, as a comparison with traditional forms of photography, and particularly within a professional photography contest, it’s simply hard to comprehend how a meaningful evaluation can be made between the two forms of art.
There are overwhelming differences behind the techniques and composition of said practices. On the one hand, illustrative work like that produced by the winner is largely dependent on an excessive degree of Photoshop processing. So much so, the results are often a shadow of the original photos which served as their inspiration, and from which they were developed. On that basis, it is most surprising that the AIPP can compare different categories for an overall winner, where they themselves proclaim the work allows “for significant manipulation and post-processing”.
To also allow for direct comparison merely because that is what “many other advertising photographers around the world, do on a daily basis”, defeats the point of judging like-for-like work. You see, that implies the committee accept processed work should be judged against non-processed work, despite the potential disadvantages with respect to certain criteria such as innovation, creativity and technical excellence.
If you were to remove the digital enhancements in said illustrations, you’re often left with photos that would otherwise fare very differently in the competition’s other key criteria: content and impact. Even if it isn’t explicitly stated, this comparison between art forms is being implicitly promoted, whereas the two should be celebrated within their own right.
Acknowledging that post production has “little relevance” in the final stages of the competition also says more about a desire to ‘unite’ all forms of photography, when there isn’t necessarily a reason to do so. It’s wonderful that the AIPP want to pursue this cause, however, the photography community clearly have a differing view, and it’s as good a time as any for the AIPP to listen to their members. Ultimately, there either needs to be separate overall winners for processed and non-processed categories, or forget about crowning overall winners and let each piece of work be appreciated for what makes it unique.
