Reactions to the First Artisans Cup

To be the very best artist possible, I think it's important to be humble enough to learn from others. What we see with various other forms of art down through history is new artists copying the "old ways" of doing things, mastering them, and then branching out into something new. If you look at Picasso's early works, you see some beautiful renditions in a fairly straightforward style. Only then did he start doing something new and create what we now think of when someone says, "a Picasso". Similarly, I once heard in a jazz masterclass that those taking solos needed to cut their solos in half because they were young musicians and didn't have much to "say" yet of their own. They were encouraged to copy the greats, learn from them, and having done that, start to try to say something new once they had learned how to "say" what has already been said.

Why the lengthy intro? I think bonsai is very similar. The Japanese have been practicing the art for hundreds of years and have refined it both in horticultural practice and aesthetic beauty. I know this is not "American" but what if we Americans were humble enough to learn from these centuries of experience and when we have achieved those practices at a very high level, THEN begin exploring what "American Bonsai" can be? I think there may be a tendency to do something different and off the wall because we can, but what can happen is that we bypass the quality and practice of the art in the interest of creative individuality.

I humbly submit that "American Bonsai", whatever it may become, would be best served by each of us seeking to study, learn from others and perfect our craft. Perhaps then, when we create something that is new, unique and different, that ingenuity is still "of quality" rather than crappy art that has never been done before.
 
Ok... now I am hearing from other folks who attended the Panel Discussions that say quite the opposite is true. That there wasn't anything said regarding "scrolls" at all. So, either someone thought they heard something, or thought they didn't here something... (if that's even possible? )
Ha...maybe they just mis-remembered...that seems to work for the political establishment class.
 
Ok... now I am hearing from other folks who attended the Panel Discussions that say quite the opposite is true. That there wasn't anything said regarding "scrolls" at all. So, either someone thought they heard something, or thought they didn't here something... (if that's even possible? )

Does that mean...there were scrolls in the exhibit then? I'm confused...
 
There were no scrolls whatsoever. Excepting the 2 long board skate board decks with photographs on them with the Pacific collection trees
Thanks...I was confused. I thought it was mentioned no scrolls. Then I thought maybe I was mistaken...this meeting or whatever is being discussed. Was this before hand or after the exhibit? Is he saying the topic of scrolls then wasn't mentioned...or, the content in what was being discussed as per this thread wasn't discussed? In all honesty...does it really matter?

Skate boards...that was surely an out of the box thought process. I know nothing of skate boards other than ones use fancy ramps to do stunts on. Must say...it's not an object that comes to mind when I think bonsai. (Not discrediting the one who used it...just doesn't come to my mind)
 
Ok, I'm slow...

I just read the Judging Rubric, and looked at the scores. One thing that jumped out to me is that Boon tended to give the trees a lower score than the other judges. My first thought was that it didn't matter, he still "ranked" the trees.

And then I noticed the Rubric. The highest and lowest rankings for each tree were discarded. And the remaining 3 scores were averaged to give each tree a score.

Hmmm...

On the face of it, that seems reasonable, but then it occurred to me that maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

Since Boon's scores tended to be lower than the other judges, his score was dropped from the scoring of the trees most often. Which means his ranking didn't affect the scoring very much.

I haven't run the numbers, but it appears that David DeGroot's scores ran the highest, so most often his scores were dropped, too.

So, in effect, the Cup was judged by the other three judges.

Again, I haven't run the numbers, but I wonder how the rankings would stack up if the highest and lowest were not dropped?
 
It doesn't matter as those were the rules going in...????????? Everyone is going to judge differently...there will always be someone who awards the highest or lowest scores among 5 judges.
 
Why have 5 judges and only use the scores of 3? Why not have just 3?
 
Thats a pretty standard way how judging scores are handled no?
Many sportscontest are also like this, i believe its ment so 1 judge can not alter someones score too much by giving it much lower/higher score then normal.
Supposed to be more fair this way.
 
It doesn't matter as those were the rules going in...????????? Everyone is going to judge differently...there will always be someone who awards the highest or lowest scores among 5 judges.
Yes, those were the rules going in. No dispute about that.

Yes, there are judges that will rate high, and judges that rate low. But, even so, a "high rater" will still produce a ranking of the trees, as will a "low rater".

If their ratings are not considered in the overall judging, because they are consistently high or low, they may as well have not participated. Their relative ranking of the trees didn't figure into the overall standings.
 
My good friend and artisans cup exhibitor John Kirby said this about the scoring:

“I think the Judges did a marvelous job. There will always be complaints, concerns, extra analysis. This was an open, thoughtfully conducted and carefully executed process. The fact you know it was a success is that people are still talking about it and there is still buzz. I had a tree in the show, a really good tree, it didn’t place but I have no doubts about the process. Sure we can debate normalization, dropping scores to eliminate outliers, judges using the full range of scores available, questions about can you score a show that will satisfy 100% of the people who see it. I will say this, the trees that won were awesome trees, the judging worked, yet there will never be a perfect system of judging. What I like about this is that the results are open and transparent, subject to Monday morning analysis, this is an unusual and refreshing outcome of the Artisan’s Cup.”

This was taken from the bonsai bark blog. http://bonsaibark.com/2015/10/07/visceral-wonder-other-comments-on-judging-bonsai/#more-50619
 
With this many judges (5), one ought to use the MEDIAN score instead of the average:
  1. Rank order all the scores for a particular tree (i.e. arrange them in ascending or descending order)
  2. Count halfway through the list - this is the median score
    1. were there an even number of judges the median is taken as the average of the two values closest to the midpoint of the list
This is robust against outliers - an extraordinarily different score has no effect on the median (whereas it can skew the average). Easy and statistically valid.
 
Oso, what's wrong with a simple arithmetic mean average? I understand the point about trying to eliminate outliers. But with 5 judges, an outlier would only contribute 20 percent of the total value of the score.

And, this is subjective. For a tree to get an outlier score by one judge, there must have been something that really caught his eye the other judges missed. Or it could be a wild variance in taste. If I may make a hypothetical: Crust's tree with vacuum could have gotten wildly different scores. (I have no idea of it's actual scoring.) Lets say 4 judges loved it, and one hated it. Shouldn't the low score be considered in its overall ranking? (Please, no flames! I'm making no judgement about Crust's tree and exhibit. It is one that could produce a wide variance in scoring.)

Perhaps something like this might work:

Once each judge has produced his raw scores, he then goes back and ranks his top 10. The top tree from each judge gets awarded 10 points, the second 9, and so on.

The lists from each judge are combined. A tree appearing on one judge's list but not on the others would get points from that judge, but none from the others. That would prevent an "outlier" score from consideration. The tree with the greatest total points would be the winner. If two or more trees tied, then Ryan and Michael could use whatever criteria they chose to determine the winner.

Just an idea.
 
The thing is if Boon is consistently rating bellow the other 4, then the criteria is not unified. And his scores should be raised.
He only got 1 score on the average of the tree and all rest were lower than that (simple counting, might have made mistakes).

I know it would be hard to put all the math into it, it looses purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom