Brand New!! Breach Of Rules - Taylor Wessing Photographic Portrait Prize 2017

This is nearly a contest where the organisers together with Jury allowed an entry which breached the rules to rest inward the contest together with win ii prizes.

One of the things I do when writing nearly fine art competitions is I aim to brand the procedure to a greater extent than accessible for those wanting to move into together with farther their careers and/or achievements.

To that halt I do 3 things:

I aim to unpick together with brand the telephone recollect for entries a fleck to a greater extent than accessible for people entering for the get-go time
I attempt to present those thinking nearly entering what the measure of move is inward the exhibition - together with the contest they're upwards against.

I've had much praise over the years from people around the globe for making that endeavor - which is NOT why I do it - but it's ever dainty to know that my efforts are appreciated.

The 3rd thing I do is the dependent area of this weblog post.

Basically, I speak upwards for those who may experience they possibly can't when things hap which really shouldn't hap inward damage of the bear of the competition.

I don't similar doing this - but I do think it's necessary.

This shipping service is about how to undermine confidence inward competitions

BY allowing an entry which breaches the rules to rest inward the competition
AND win non 1 but ii prizes!

One of Them Is a Human #1 (Erica: Erato Ishiguro Symbiotic Human-Robot Interaction Project) by Maija Tammi

Maija Tammi's project, One of Them Is a Human #1, is a serial of photographs that places androids amongst 1 human, call for what it agency to live alive.

Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 photograph of an android was submitted as an entry into the Taylor Wessing Photographic Portrait Prize 2017

The portrait is non of a human, but the National Portrait Gallery decided to conk along it inward the contest anyway. In a declaration they say (my bold):

“The Gallery has decided non to disqualify this portrait though accepts it is inward breach of the rules. The rules are reviewed every twelvemonth together with this resultant volition live taken into consideration for adjacent year. This portrait was component of 'One of Them Is a Human #1', a broader serial which presents androids amongst 1 human. It was felt that the dependent area of this portrait, piece non human, is a representation of a human figure together with makes a powerful declaration as a move of fine art inward its questioning of what it is to live live or human together with asks challenging questions nearly portraiture. The ambiguity of this portrait makes it peculiarly compelling.

We review the contest rules each twelvemonth together with as component of this volition verbalize over whether they demand to live changed inward low-cal of the choice of 'One of Them Is a Human #1' for this year’s exhibition. The Taylor Wessing Photographic Portrait Prize is dedicated to showcasing the best inward contemporary portraiture. There are occasions when peculiarly compelling portraits heighten interesting questions nearly the genre of portraiture, together with these may live included at the judges’ discretion

The Judges as good shortlisted the photograph which together with thence went on to win

the 3rd prize of £2,000
the John Kobal New Work Award together with a £5,000 prize for a lensman nether 35.

Maija Tammi with her awards

So a total of £7,000 (presumably inward component funded past times contest entry fees) was awarded for an entry which breached the rules together with was ineligible for entry.

I'll at nowadays larn on to explicate why, inward my opinion, this should non direct maintain happened.

Breach of the Rules of the Competition

I'll explicate what I'm going on to say with a preface which recaps do from my professional person career (I'm at nowadays retired!)

I used to move inward government. Very many politicians larn it into their heads from fourth dimension to fourth dimension that it would live sensible to do something(whatever - zilch to do with competitions per se). The task of officers at a senior grade is to remind them courteously but firmly that they really MUST move inside the police together with the rules of bear put downward - together with and thence explicate to them what they tin together with cannot do together with hopefully render a way circular which satisfies the intent together with plant inside the rules.

It's never an tardily thing to do - but at that spot are real proficient reasons those rules exist.

In damage of competitions inside the UK, competitions that really rely on skill, judgment or noesis are to permitted to operate gratuitous of whatever regulatory command nether the Gambling Act.

However they do demand to comply with some other specific aspects of other police - and Prize competitions together with the law: navigating the labyrinth provides an interesting commentary on this.

If yous convey coin off people yous create a contract (i.e. an offering is made, an offering is accepted together with something of value changes hands i.e. a contest entry fee). In my take in - together with I'm non a lawyer but this does appear similar mutual feel - that makes a contest dependent area to contract police together with as good to the police relating to unfair trading together with consumer protection

Also whatever promotional marketing is dependent area to the CAP Code of the Advertising Standards Authority Ltd / Committees of Advertising Practice Ltd

UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising together with Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) is the dominion majority for non-broadcast advertisements, sales promotions together with straight off marketing communications (marketing communications).

What the TWPPP Rules say

Rule 5.3 of the Rules for the Taylor Wessing Photographic Portrait Prize states real clearly

5.3 All photographs must direct maintain been taken past times the entrant from life together with with a living sitter later 1 Jan 2016.

Put real simply an Android is non living. There is no life.

Hence inward entering a photograph of an android, the submission by Maija Tammi was breaking the rules of the contest past times non beingness inward compliance with Rule 5.3. She as good recognised this fact together with says she made it real clear on her entry that the dependent area was non living.

The fact she made that clear is irrelevant to the activity of the Panel - as the panel has made it abundantly clear that they direct maintain absolutely no noesis of anything to do with the photograph beyond the title.

Ergo, the responsibleness for whatever activity that needed to live taken inward relation to the eligibility of the entry lies with the responsible contest organiser who is non component of the Judging Panel - if such a someone indeed exists!

My take in is that the photograph which won 3rd prize was ineligible to live fifty-fifty considered as an entry never heed winning a prize.

Rule 6.1 states what the Judges tin do.

6.1 The determination of the judges is lastly together with no give-and-take or correspondence tin live entered into at whatever time. The judges reserve the correct to vary the prizes or non to brand whatever award.

Well I didn't move into the contest together with I tin verbalize over their actions at whatever time!

What this agency to me is that judges direct maintain range to vary the prizes ONLY as in, for example, whether they are awarded and/or combined.

However they do NOT direct maintain the correct to vary the rules of the contest i.e. which entries are eligible to live judged.

In other words, piece I do non dubiety they really idea they had the correct include the portrait photograph - because it was a peculiarly compelling portrait together with because it raised interesting questions nearly the genre of portraiture - I believe they were incorrect to do so.

Nowhere does it clearly dry ground inward the rules that they direct maintain the range and/or discretion to:

include an exhibit which would otherwise live ineligible together with breach the defined RULES of the competition
award a prize to a portrait which is ineligible - according to the defined RULES of the exhibition.

If they desire to do something similar this 1 time to a greater extent than inward future, they demand to vary the rules of the contest together with and thence larn them checked past times a lawyer.

Which is somewhat ironic - embarassing fifty-fifty - given that this is a contest sponsored past times a police firm...

What went wrong

In my take in what went incorrect was that nobody exterior the Panel of Judges acted as the "Guardian of the Rules" and reminded the Judging Panel that they cannot, as a thing of fact, vary the rules of submission 1 time they direct maintain promoted the contest together with taken entries together with the fees they accuse for entry i.e. entered into a contract.

An entry which is ineligible nether the rules should non fifty-fifty live considered for exhibition never heed a prize.

Personally speaking, I tin good empathise why the entry interested the judges together with why they wanted to include 1 of the photographs. I'm sure non proverb the photograph serial it is component of has no merit.

For me the minute large error was inward making it component of the exhibition together with shortlisting it for a prize.

Consider the alternatives.

There was ever an choice of exhibiting "Erica" somewhere else inward the Gallery as a move which triggered involvement inward damage of the nature of portraiture - possibly as component of the total serial submitted to the jury. I encounter zilch incorrect with this. However such an exhibit would

NOT live component of the official exhibition per se - together with would
definitely non live an exhibit which was eligible for a prize (since it wasn't eligible to live an entry).

If they'd done that I dubiety that anybody would direct maintain raised an artificially drawn eyebrow!

What mightiness larn incorrect inward future

Should those who entered - nether the impression that every entry would live treated as according to the published together with defined RULES - create upwards one's heed that they are unimpressed past times the conduct of the judges together with wanted their coin back....

....I wouldn't live inward the to the lowest degree surprised.

However let's non forget that the alone argue that people don't call "Foul" inward competitions of this nature when this variety of thing happens is because they'd really rather similar to brand progress inward their careers and, inward particular, don't desire to larn blacklisted.

(We've had a few reminders late re. Weinstein, Spacey et al as to exactly why people don't heighten issues that concern them.)

Being a retired someone with none of those concerns I direct maintain no such inhibitions nearly crying "Foul" when I think it is warranted.

If people were to object, I'd alone live surprised if the contest organisers could come upwards up with proficient legal declaration for why they were nether no obligation to refund the fees.

(The instance which ever comes to heed for me when I encounter contest rules beingness breached is the 2008 breach of OFCOM's Broadcasting Code in which

every viewer who had entered was compensated
in add-on to the real major penalization fine that was as good levied.)

That's why to my mind the CAP Code of the Advertising Standards Authority Ltd / Committees of Advertising Practice Ltd is as good relevant to this item context - as it indicates inward relation to the marketing communications - which include "the Rules" as advertised....

Marketing communications should live legal, decent, honest together with truthful.
Marketing communications must reverberate the spirit, non simply the letter, of the Code.
Marketing communications must honour the principles of fair contest to a greater extent than oftentimes than non accepted inward business.

In my opinion, whatever such difficulties as to interpretation of the rules inward hereafter tin live avoided if:

the rules inward hereafter larn inward real clear that whatever together with all entries that do non comply with every unmarried human face of the rules volition live rendered ineligible at whatever dot this is discovered.
that it is pointed out to the Judges that this applies fifty-fifty if they direct maintain gone as far as short-listing for a prize together with the entry needs to live eliminated later the shortlisting has been announced (which should serve to concentrate the minds of BOTH the Jury together with the organisers!)
the organisers appoint a "Guardian of the Rules" to sit down amongst the Panel together with determine what it is legally possible for the Judges to do if they desire to exercise their discretion - as defined inside the rules.
somebody uses their mutual feel together with thinks of some other way of recognising the merit of an ineligible entry without breaching the rules of the contest - which would direct maintain been my preferred together with recommended option!

Can I just emphasise that I don't think whatever blame attaches to Maija Tammi. She was pushing boundaries - but made it abundantly clear what the resultant was. The blame to my heed lies with the filtering procedure relating to eligibility together with the organiser who didn't spot that this was an resultant on which he or she needed legal advice PRIOR to the Jury seeing the entries!

Judging Panel

This year’s judging panel was

Dr Nicholas Cullinan, Chair (Director, National Portrait Gallery, London);
David Campany (Writer, Curator together with Artist);
Tim Eyles, Managing Partner, Taylor Wessing LLP;
Sabina Jaskot-Gill (Associate Curator, Photographs, National Portrait Gallery, London);
Fiona Shields (Head of Photography, The Guardian) and
Gillian Wearing (Artist.)

Reference

Below are paper articles which verbalize over the inclusion of Maija Tammi's photograph of a robot.

Taylor Wessing Photographic Portrait Prize 2017: Maija Tammi on her shortlisted robot portrait | Evening Standard - which provides an fantabulous together with in-depth explanation of why she did it - together with the fact she made it clear on the entry shape that it was a photograph of a robot.
Robotics, sci-fi together with the search for the perfect artificial woman | The Independent - moves the give-and-take on the society's involvement inward "the perfect woman" together with robotics.
A motion painting of an android just won a house at the UK’s National Portrait Gallery | Quartz

More nearly the Taylor Wessing Photographic Portrait Prize

The posts below comprise images of past times prizewinning portraits.