Public Art Project rejected as "regular marker."

I just had 2 submissions rejected with a reason being they are “regular markers” that don’t meet the criteria, this is incorrect - they are both part of a city wide art project placed in 1994 by local artist Marian Penner Bancroft who is now a teacher at Emily Carr University of Art + Design. They were initially made to look like city plaques so that they wouldn’t be removed and that most of them are still there 30 years later is a testament to this project. There are 16 plaques around the city and you can read about them here:

Most of the plaques are already portals and I spent months finding the others so that I could submit them as well and make a mission to visit them all, however these were clearly rejected by people who didn’t understand that this was an art project and not just a government marker. These absolutely meet all the criteria.

That is pretty interesting, but I would call them historical, rather than artistic. Regardless of whether they’re done by an artist or not, there a difference between art and documentary - as any photographer can attest.

Did you share the link in supporting? If so I can only assume it wasn’t looked at :thinking:

The project was exhibited in local galleries and editioned signed photos of each plaque are in the collection of a local art museum - it’s absolutely an art project not just historical documentation - I’m a photographer and understand what you are saying, but this isn’t “documentation” it’s art that happens to have a historical tie in. In the submissions I explained it was an art project and that the other plaques in the series have already been approved.

I would be happy to assist you in improving your nomination for this

Fair enough, it’s ultimately irrelevant because it doesn’t change which criteria it meets (explore). I just wonder if the community knee-jerk reacted to a perceived oversell in the first instance. Again, fairly irrelevant, it should have been approved IMO :grimacing:

Did you include the link in supporting, though? Many reviewers aren’t inclined to take you at your word, especially on visually ambiguous nominations that aren’t easily recognisable as something of interest. I also wouldn’t bother mentioning what else was approved because that doesn’t necessarily mean much (eg: masses of Australian survey markers are still being approved in gutters and roads on every other residential block in some cities).
Other than that, I can only suggest filling the frame a bit more for your main image and trying again :woman_shrugging: