Steve Sanford
Well-known member
Good morning, All~
I imagine many of you have experiences with contests of one sort or another - and probably many have served as judges. In preparation for the March 7 Contemporary Decoy Exhibition at the Long Island Decoy Collectors Annual Show in Hauppauge (see Stickies above) , I have just firmed up my panel of judges. In so doing, I was sent an exceptional bit of writing about the topic of judges. I am keeping the author Anonymous for now - but I really enjoy the sentiments:
A good judge is a good naturalist. He has spent time in the field, he's observed, he's absorbed, he's looked, he's listened. Not casually, intensely. He's noticed that black ducks carry their primaries down and their tails up when they are relaxed, and that scoters do the same thing, sort of, for different reasons when they are about to dive again. He notices that black bellied plovers land, and spread out, and begin their plover-specific look, scoot, grab freeze and repeat. He knows that dowitchers feed like sewing machines and that their eyes are set back, and high, but not as far back and high as a woodcock. He knows that peregrines like to be around water, and can raise hell on just about everyone else, if they want to. He knows that northern parulas like to be around water too and can somehow find their way around tent catepillar condominiums. He knows his fair share of botany, and he knows that certain species of birds like certain species of plants. In short, he understands habitat. Some of our best naturalists have been hunters and have intimate knowledge; they've handled enough canvasbacks to know about that little triangle they have on their throats, or that the dark crown line that dips down ever so slightly above a black duck's eye, and that adult pintail hens lose some of that beautiful barring on their tertials. He knows that greenwings fly with their heads cocked differently than blue wings, and hooded mergansers fly with their heads positioned like no other.
A good judge is an artist. He understands shape, and color. And attitude. He knows the difference between the gray browns in a hen canvasback and the warm browns of a common eider hen. But he's not just looking for anatomy, or ornithological verisimilitude. Like an artist, he judges each bird according to perceived intent. If the bird he is judging is a purely functional, working decoy, he judges it with regard to its utility, and its ability to suggest species essence. If the bird is a fancy pants "show" decoy, he judges it according to that intent. If the rules don't specify, he is able to compare both, apples to oranges, and picks the bird which most achieves its relative intent. Further, if the rules don't state, or imply, he shows no personal preference to either. He picks the best bird, whether it's a contemporary smoothie, or a working stool. He judges the bird in front of him and compares it to the bird next to it. What has won, or lost, in other shows, past and future, is irrelevant. A knowledge of old decoy styles and past shows is helpful, and useful, particularly with regard to questions of creativity, and originality.
A good judge is honest. He has no preconceived notion or agenda. He has no friends, and no enemies. He has the ability, and integrity, to reward the work of a detestable lout, and deny the work of a beloved comrade. He works as 1/3 or 1/5 of a team and strives toward arriving at a consensual, mutual decision based on an understanding of a contest, and the rules of that contest. He knows that above all else that his decision is only his honest opinion on a given day.
Your thoughts?
All the best,
SJS
I imagine many of you have experiences with contests of one sort or another - and probably many have served as judges. In preparation for the March 7 Contemporary Decoy Exhibition at the Long Island Decoy Collectors Annual Show in Hauppauge (see Stickies above) , I have just firmed up my panel of judges. In so doing, I was sent an exceptional bit of writing about the topic of judges. I am keeping the author Anonymous for now - but I really enjoy the sentiments:
A good judge is a good naturalist. He has spent time in the field, he's observed, he's absorbed, he's looked, he's listened. Not casually, intensely. He's noticed that black ducks carry their primaries down and their tails up when they are relaxed, and that scoters do the same thing, sort of, for different reasons when they are about to dive again. He notices that black bellied plovers land, and spread out, and begin their plover-specific look, scoot, grab freeze and repeat. He knows that dowitchers feed like sewing machines and that their eyes are set back, and high, but not as far back and high as a woodcock. He knows that peregrines like to be around water, and can raise hell on just about everyone else, if they want to. He knows that northern parulas like to be around water too and can somehow find their way around tent catepillar condominiums. He knows his fair share of botany, and he knows that certain species of birds like certain species of plants. In short, he understands habitat. Some of our best naturalists have been hunters and have intimate knowledge; they've handled enough canvasbacks to know about that little triangle they have on their throats, or that the dark crown line that dips down ever so slightly above a black duck's eye, and that adult pintail hens lose some of that beautiful barring on their tertials. He knows that greenwings fly with their heads cocked differently than blue wings, and hooded mergansers fly with their heads positioned like no other.
A good judge is an artist. He understands shape, and color. And attitude. He knows the difference between the gray browns in a hen canvasback and the warm browns of a common eider hen. But he's not just looking for anatomy, or ornithological verisimilitude. Like an artist, he judges each bird according to perceived intent. If the bird he is judging is a purely functional, working decoy, he judges it with regard to its utility, and its ability to suggest species essence. If the bird is a fancy pants "show" decoy, he judges it according to that intent. If the rules don't specify, he is able to compare both, apples to oranges, and picks the bird which most achieves its relative intent. Further, if the rules don't state, or imply, he shows no personal preference to either. He picks the best bird, whether it's a contemporary smoothie, or a working stool. He judges the bird in front of him and compares it to the bird next to it. What has won, or lost, in other shows, past and future, is irrelevant. A knowledge of old decoy styles and past shows is helpful, and useful, particularly with regard to questions of creativity, and originality.
A good judge is honest. He has no preconceived notion or agenda. He has no friends, and no enemies. He has the ability, and integrity, to reward the work of a detestable lout, and deny the work of a beloved comrade. He works as 1/3 or 1/5 of a team and strives toward arriving at a consensual, mutual decision based on an understanding of a contest, and the rules of that contest. He knows that above all else that his decision is only his honest opinion on a given day.
Your thoughts?
All the best,
SJS