Two questions re: March contest

[Whoa_Nelly]

Am new to the Photo Group contrests, and want to enter this time around.

Is the contest limited to one submission only per DU member?

And do these qualify as architectural photos?

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Yes and yes...

You can post as many as you want here in the group with a "help me pick my entry" poll or whatever, but once we get down to the real contest, it's just one entry per person.

[Whoa_Nelly]

2. Once again...Thanks, Blue!

I so appreciate you! :pals:

[Blue_In_AK]

17. Aw, shucks....

:blush: I'm glad to have you here in our group. We ARE the best people on DU, you know.

[Immad2]

3. Nice pictures Whoa_Nelly

:thumbsup:

[Whoa_Nelly]

4. Thanks, Immad2!

Am thinking will enter the caw barn one...

[Immad2]

5. You have a lot of great pictures in this thread and your other threads

to choose from. Good job and good luck! Welcome to the photo group!:hi: :applause:

[Whoa_Nelly]

6. Thanks so much :-)

It helps give me confidence :hi:

[intheflow]

7. You know the greatest part of hosting this contest?

Other people actually help you host! :)

I can see my compatriots beat me to the punch in answering your questions, and of course they are spot-on!

I love this group! :grouphug:

Welcome, Whoa_Nelly! :pals: And nice photos!

[Whoa_Nelly]

8. Thanks!

:hi: :pals:

[DS1]

9. Not in my opinion, no they don't really

One's a ruin, another's materiel. Bridges don't count either, those are engineering. And so on and so forth.

[Whoa_Nelly]

10. When I took architectural classes

bridges were considered architecture. (BTW-It takes engineering to create much architecture.) As for the ruin, it's a soldier's Civil War tomb in Louisiana.

So, now am wondering that in the March contest, a photo such as my cow barn one wouldn't be considered architectural because it's more of an abstract of the building rather than the whole? Is there a rule about this? Honest, I would like to know so I can submit one that's viable for the contest.

[F.Gordon]

12. I'm not aware of any rules

:hi:

Unless intheflow slipped something in that I'm not aware of. This has always been a layed back - do whatever kind of thing. Me? I'm thinking of making up a large batch of mashed potatoes and forming it into the Brown Palace.
:silly:

[intheflow]

14. I consider bridges architecture.

I wouldn't consider scultpture architecture, but bridges, yes, definitely. And since I'm hosting, my considerations rule. :)

[Whoa_Nelly]

15. Thanks inf!

:loveya:

[F.Gordon]

11. I'm certainly no archie expert.

But I’d consider either of the photos way up yonder to qualify as archie photos. Interesting comment in this essay I found..... how photography itself can re-define the meaning of architecture.

It all seems very subjective and I'm from the keep the brain damage to a minimum school....
:dunce:

Architecture is generally considered an art but is differentiated by it in one respect: function. Regardless, defining architecture is almost, if not as, difficult as defining art. To define architecture is to set parameters, standards by which anything applied to these criteria will either fit the definition or not. The definition must take certain conditions into account that must be present in order for something to be considered architecture. Some of these may include, in reference to a candidate for a piece of architecture: it must be material, it must transcend mere function, it must be aesthetic and it must be designed by an architect. These are some criteria that are generally agreed upon by the public and most architects as necessary traits of architecture.

If architecture must transcend mere function as a condition, a grain elevator is not a piece of architecture. Grain elevators are generally considered purely functional, engineered buildings, satisfying there intended needs and surviving for many years. But with photographic essays devoted to the subject, and the state of these structures changing over the years (with some near the point of ruin), they have entered the realm of architecture in our time.

More at link.......

http://www.archidose.org/Mar00/032700.html

[Whoa_Nelly]

13. Thanks for the input

and your support, F. Gordon :hi:

[TahitiNut]

16. I agree. It's an issue of "form follows function" ...

... not fabrication techniques. That's why I referred to Frank Lloyd Wright in another thread - whose 'forms' not only addressed the function of human habitation but echoed their natural context in an almost-organic way.