Rendering Judgement

I write article stubs because sometimes I have ideas and don't have time to write about them. When I looked at the title of this particular piece, I thought, "Hmm, a discussion of the merits of OpenGL vs. DirectX?" If you get that joke, which is actually the truth, you are as big a nerd as I am. If you are preparing for such a discussion with gusto, perhaps even wanting to write in your thoughts, you are a bigger nerd than I am, because I couldn't begin to have a discussion on that topic. Don't try to have one in my absence either, because I am not really all that interested in that topic. But I did think it for a second or two.

Then I read the sentence I put down, which said, "Judging things based on artistic merit is really hard." I was tempted to just leave it at that, because it's the truth, and anything I might say would just be embellishment. But embellish I will, even though whatever I say will inevitably be judged on the basis of artistic merit rather than truth, since I said this at the beginning.

I've participated in and judged contests, everything from playwriting to pie-eating, and I've come to the conclusion that things which are artistic are really tough to rank according to quality. Sure, one can probably separate the good from the bad (and then others will disagree, which is a whole different problem in the judging business) but once it comes to the good, how do you say which is best? Usually the snap judgement says one thing, whereas a more reasoned approach says another, and if you read something often enough (or see, or hear, or whatever) chances are good that it will decrease in estimation just by virtue of being overplayed.

I'm not the only one who has this problem; look at the Olympics for example. They just cannot get ice skating right, and I don't blame them, because it's not the judges' fault, it's the fact that ice skating is more artistic than strictly sportive. When there's a debate about who is fastest, you can race to settle it. Who can jump farthest? Jump and we'll tell you. Sure, you can debate about the rules, but at the end of the day, under a certain set of rules, one contestant will be better.

I know there are rules to govern the judging of art, but they're not hard and fast, or if they are they can't be the only deciding factor. Usually you justify a qualitative decision based on quantitative rules, rather than making a quantitative decision in the first place. It's not easy, and no one agrees, and that's not a good thing.

At the end of the day, as a judge, you just have to listen to your gut, unless there's an obvious winner, which there seldom is. And you have to listen to your fellow judges, but your gut should get a say. It's not a democracy, it's a consensus, which means that everyone has to at least agree that the decision is fair, even if they don't agree with the decision itself. And then you have to stand behind it.

So yeah, judging things based on artistic merit is very hard. I should have left it alone.