Szpilman Award 2012

Last February I ran across the Szpliman Award,  and wrote a post talking about the  resonance  found with my meditations on Dukkah and impermanence.  To review the Award’s description is:

The Szpilman Award is awarded to works that exist only for a moment or a short period of time. The purpose of the award is to promote such works whose forms consist of ephemeral situations.

The contest awards a prize as well:

The Szpilman Award is awarded annually.

The prize winner receives the Jackpot Stipendium. The scholarship consists of three parts: A challenge cup, 10 days of accommodation in Cimochowizna (Poland), and a sum of money in cash.

The amount of money is dynamic. Szpilman is raising money parallel to the competition. The prize winner receives the money that is raised until September 30, 2012. The current score may be checked.

Among the applicants, one award winner will be identified. The challenge cup will be handed over to the next prize winner in the subsequent year.

In February’s post I hoped to enter the next contest.  Life got pretty complicated in the Atomic Geography household, and  I wasn’t able to follow through.  But as the date approached for the announcement I found  Iwas experiencing that very ephemeral emotion of anticipation.  The Award people obliged me in extending that by postponing the announcement at least twice.

I checked the site this morning a found a winner!

Let’s just say I was disappointed.

The winner offered the jury the bribe of the prize in exchange for being able to list the award on her CV.  Well, fine so far.  But then this:

If you don’t like my proposal, please don’t mention me as a participant, I don’t really like to get nothing but the award.

The letter goes on to mention the subversiveness of modern art, and something about the convention of mentioning the artist’s nationality.

When  was a sophomore in college  took a course on Kierkregaard.  Throughout the course,  I read the readings,  wrote my papers and participated in class – rather fully.   In fact many classes amounted to a discussion between me and the professor (yes,  I was that annoying guy).

So when it was time to write the final paper, I went to the professor and said something like, :”I know this stuff.  You know I know this stuff.  I know you know I  know this stuff.   I shouldn’t have to write the paper to demonstrate what we already know.”  And he said something like, “Well that’s up to you.  I will grade you accordingly to whatever you do.”

I didn’t try to protect myself from my subversive impulse by asking what that meant, I didn’t try to impose conditions on my proposal.  I  did have  choice.

I didn’t write the paper and got an A.  In my opinion, Mina Minov wanted to have it both ways, and didn’t deserve the A.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s