There's also the issue that the more work it takes to administer, the less the incentive to do so.
I think that as soon as we try to codify who is professional, who is amateur then the whole thing becomes a nightmare. James, strictly, is no longer a professional - using the definition of a professional as one who earns their income from it. Carole's point that professionals rarely have the time to do elaborate pieces specifically for the competition is also valid. I'm not sure about extending the period before a winner can be considered again too far as that diminishes the inducement to enter work.
Case in point: I rarely get around to putting up work, partly because I can't win. I've only myself to blame for that; early on I decided there was a conflict of interest. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to, just that I don't think it would be right.
There also seems to be an assumption that the only criterion is the workmanship of the final piece: I'm not privy to the judging, but I can't believe that design isn't considered too.
The easiest way to make it fair would be to remove it entirely "All made equal by hatchet, axe and saw. "
Bookmarks