Land Art

TLDR: Trying to nominate Land Art (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_art).  Rejected 10 times now. Other artworks in the same project have been accepted. Does the fact that an artwork is made up of a tree and a (machine drilled) rock take precedence over it being an artwork?


Over the past year I've been submitting sculptures and artworks in a recreational area. It's a forested area with a lot of hiking trails etc. The artworks all follow a style called Land Art, which puts emphasis on using natural materials like wood, stone, etc, and that the art should fit in with its surroundings. They are all part of a larger art project.

Most of the art works have been accepted without any major trouble. Only had to re-nominate a handful because of "natural feature", "temporary display", "harassment" (****?) etc. However, one in particular is giving me a lot of trouble. 

The name of the artpiece is called "Genombrott" (Swedish for breakthrough). It is a tree that is planted in a hole that has been machine drilled through a large rock. I realise that it is very susceptible to being rejected as "natural feature" (it being a tree and a rock). But I assumed that the fact that it is a named art piece, has a very obviously drilled hole in the rock clearly visible in the supporting picture, and that I provide links to a both an article about the art, a pamphlet for the art project with a map and name of the artwork, etc, should be enough for people to realise that this is art and not just any tree. I have also made a photosphere nearby.

Am I missing something here? Does the fact that it is a tree and a rock take precedence over the art? AITA? Should I just give up?


Here's one of my tries (tried a lot of different variations on the title/description/supplemental info. Pics have always been the same):


Main picture: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-IqISn8UFoM93CZ3USmBu7hMbysGOX3MLSSJJBnqNLcFdqzKuvxF6Trdw0J-LrVm_EDHF7ictZAlz8hH8Bp6CnIFo1xS=s0

Supporting picture: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/s_BrANLkdhvAgVkCxDQboWH-UHFxoo3hFwsqdYm759KTBwUK65riG6ULIUuyYimI0o_11pxoJoGeWBMloN3tOslwkBUt=s0

Link to article: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.skanskalandskap.se%2Faktuellt%2Fnyheter%2Fta-en-konstrunda-i-snogeholm (google translated from Swedish)

Link to pamhplet: https://www.skanskalandskap.se/media/3435/folder-landart-snogeholm.pdf

Link to map: https://www.skanskalandskap.se/media/3880/landart-snogeholm-karta-2020.pdf

Link to recreational area on Ingress Intel Map: https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=55.569275,13.710019&z=15

Thank you for reading.

Comments

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This should absolutely be eligible, but I'm also not surprised it's getting rejected. I am curious what others might suggest, but here are a few thoughts:

    - Your main photo looks like it could just be a tree with a rock in front of it. Perhaps you could try a bit of a closer photo (more like your supporting photo) so that reviewers don't instantly reject as a natural feature. I agree that it would be nice to get the whole piece in the photo, but it might just not be possible in this case, and a close view is still fairly interesting in this case. When/if it gets approved, you could add a new photo showing the whole thing.

    - Your supporting text is way too long and will appear cut off to reviewers. The character limits, last I checked, were 255 characters for description and 280 for supporting info. The link to the pamphlet, I think, is the best supporting link for this, so I would make sure to keep that in there.

  • donandlan-PGOdonandlan-PGO Posts: 201 ✭✭✭

    I agree with most of your summation. However, I don't think this nomination is flawed. Maybe a different image would be better, but the image as seen here is fine. Reviewers are just being lazy: assessing the waypoint on the image alone, not bothering to read the description or supporting information. Clicking on the truncated supporting text in reviews opens up a window that shows all the text.


    It's examples like this, and the constsnt erroneous 1* reasons, that make me cringe EVERY TIME wayfarers post complaints about cooldowns with statements like, "I've reviewed 1,000,000 nominations, I know a 1* in 10 nanoseconds!!1111 Just let me review like I want!"

    It's not a race. Even "obvious 1* coal" nominations should require you to scroll down and look over the description & supporting details at the minimum.

    Sorry your nomination is getting stuck by bad reviewers. Unfortunately, your only recourse is try, try again.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I believe it would be eligible. I would not upgrade this though as you may have better chance of being accepted with the local reviewers instead of upgraded where people may not recognize it and vote down as soon as they see a tree

  • Thanks for all the feedback! I'll improve what I can and just keep at it and hope I get reviewers who take their time to actually read the nominatio info.

  • Tobster613-PGOTobster613-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭

    Is there a plaque or a name of the art piece that is there by it? I think this is a wonderful piece of land art, but sometimes you need to try different tactics. If there is a description or an artists statement, maybe take a photo of that as the representation of the piece. I know it wont be what you want (the image of the piece itself) but it might be a tactic to get it approved.

    Later you could change the photo to match the piece itself.

Sign In or Register to comment.