Anamorphosis Street Art

[+DougK]

At one time I had great interest in this type of artwork, having been exposed to it through Waymarking.

 

Today I received a decline a of waymark in this category that was approved over three years ago. With a little research I can see that earlier this month there were 78 waymarks in this category and now there are only 50, so others must have received the same rejection. The category leader re-evaluated and declined over a third of the waymarks in their category!

 

Now as I look back over my declines, I am reminded that this same activity happened about a year ago to another waymark in the same category. The leader seemingly sweeps the category annually and declines those previously approved by other category managers. Perhaps what is needed here is better examples / clarifications in the category description, along with guidance for the other category managers, so that submissions are judged by the standards of the leader. I did some research and found the term Trompe l'oeil often used, although I'm still not sure whether that's enough to satisfy the category.

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

At one time I had great interest in this type of artwork, having been exposed to it through Waymarking.

 

Today I received a decline a of waymark in this category that was approved over three years ago. With a little research I can see that earlier this month there were 78 waymarks in this category and now there are only 50, so others must have received the same rejection. The category leader re-evaluated and declined over a third of the waymarks in their category!

 

Now as I look back over my declines, I am reminded that this same activity happened about a year ago to another waymark in the same category. The leader seemingly sweeps the category annually and declines those previously approved by other category managers. Perhaps what is needed here is better examples / clarifications in the category description, along with guidance for the other category managers, so that submissions are judged by the standards of the leader. I did some research and found the term Trompe l'oeil often used, although I'm still not sure whether that's enough to satisfy the category.

 

Doug -- you are not alone.

 

Here's my long-approved waymark that was declined today in this category.

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMKG58_ATSF_Train_Murals_Canadian_TX

 

And the decline email:

 

"I am so terrible sorry that there was a mistake when this was allowed into this category. this is not a category for 3 or 4 D murals whatsoever; from day one this category has been about anamorphic art which is a distorted projection or perspective requiring the viewer to use special devices or occupy a specific vantage point to reconstitute the image. "

 

I don't understand -- most of the waymarks approved here (including mine) are murals of the trompe d'oleil variety. Now the email seems to say that NO MURALS WHATSOEVER are accepted. :shrugs shoulders:

[+The A-Team]

I don't understand -- most of the waymarks approved here (including mine) are murals of the trompe d'oleil variety. Now the email seems to say that NO MURALS WHATSOEVER are accepted. :shrugs shoulders:

After looking more closely, it looks like my trompe-l'œil entry to the category also doesn't fit the requirements, though it hasn't been declined yet. In fact, looking through all the Waymarks in the category, I count only 3 that are actual anamorphic (note, the term "anamorphous" is incorrect) art, with another Waymark that was only for some temporary art during a street art festival. All the other Waymarks are for trompe-l'œil or just plain murals or paintings on the street.

 

I see two major problems with the category description that probably led to this category being misunderstood:

1. The incorrect terminology. If you Google "anamorphous art", you won't get much help with determining what this type of art entails, leading people to make assumptions and guesses. However, if you search for the correct terminology of "anamorphic art", you get lots of examples of the type of art desired by this category, which should appear distorted unless viewed from a particular spot.

2. A lack of examples. A couple of images in the description showing examples of accepted and not accepted art would prevent most misunderstandings.

 

From doing some online research, I think there could be enough examples to fit the "prevalence" criteria, it's just that the description isn't clear enough. If it could be improved and the incorrect Waymarks all declined, this category may start to attract the desired art.

[+Metro2]

I had one declined too that was about three years old...and I think my only one in the category.... so, I probably lost an icon too...I'll have to double-check. I think when things like this happen.... the previous Waymarks should be grandfathered and the explanation of how the criteria will be applied in the future explained better in the category description.

[GT.US]

Count me in on the "had my waymark in this category" deleted. On the GC.com side, if people complain about their log being deleted, Groundspeak will undelete. In this case I think that a class action amongst all concerned would be in order. Even the "featured" waymark in this category wouldn't qualify unter the criteria we were deleted on.

[+gpsblake]

It's meant to be a game that encourages people to visit and share points of interest and unique objects. I can see a denial if you submit a church for a McDonalds store or if you submit a photo of a horse for a street sign category. But these denials and later deletions are purely over-aggressive category owners that serve no purpose but to alienate people from the game.

 

But to delete or deny a waymark simply based on a small technicality is simply wrong. It's not about quality, that's just an excuse, it's about certain category officers/owner wanting to submit their authority and making the game what they feel it should be instead of what it is.

 

Yes, it's the same people who keep doing this behavior....

Edited January 6, 2015 by gpsblake

[+The A-Team]

But to delete or deny a waymark simply based on a small technicality is simply wrong.

See my post above. It isn't a technicality. The majority of the Waymarks in that category are of the wrong type and should never have been approved in the first place. To extend your analogies, it would be like submitting a Fatburger in the McDonalds category. Sure, they're both burger restaurants, but they're not the same. Anamorphic art and trompe-l'œil are both styles of painting, but they are not the same. The category is designed for the former, but most of the entries are the latter.

[GT.US]

I just had a 4+ year old waymark with multiple visits retro declined in another category. http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMA5NY_Castle_artesain_well_Ljubljana_Slovenia . It annoys the heck out of me. I'm thinking we need to elevate this issue of a person coming in years later and declining previously approved waymarks to groudspeak and TPTB. I know that in Geocaching, CO's were specifically told not to delete logs under certain scenarios, though the exact details escape me at this moment.

[+Manville Possum]

I just had a 4+ year old waymark with multiple visits retro declined in another category. http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMA5NY_Castle_artesain_well_Ljubljana_Slovenia . It annoys the heck out of me. I'm thinking we need to elevate this issue of a person coming in years later and declining previously approved waymarks to groudspeak and TPTB. I know that in Geocaching, CO's were specifically told not to delete logs under certain scenarios, though the exact details escape me at this moment.

 

I had a waymark deleted in the same category too. But I see that mine and others should have never been published to beging with. I think the manager is doing a good job of cleaning up the category.

[+fi67]

Retro denials are always annoying. It has happened to me before, in another category.

 

But there is a big difference between technical details, like a missing sign picture or variables, and fundamental errors. When an officer has overseen a specific requirement, then I think it is quite poor to deny it after years. But when a submission does not fit the category at all, there should be no age limit. Wrong does not become right over time.