Reimagining Plant Judging

[epiphyte78]

Leafmite, you might be interested in this book...

While [Jane] Jacobs makes a convincing case for mixed use and complexity by examining the micro-origins of public safety, civic trust, visual interest, and convenience, there is a larger argument to be made for cross-use and diversity. Like the diverse old-growth forest, a richly differentiated neighborhood with many kinds of shops, entertainment centers, services, housing options, and public spaces is, virtually by definition, a more resilient and durable neighborhood. Economically, the diversity of its commercial “bets” (everything from funeral parlors and public services to grocery stores and bars) makes it less vulnerable to economic downturns. At the same time its diversity provides many opportunities for economic growth in upturns. Like monocropped forests, single-purpose districts, although they may initially catch a boom, are especially susceptible to stress. The diverse neighborhood is more sustainable. - James Scott, Seeing Like A State

He shared this relevant quote...

Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody. - Jane Jacobs

An orchid show can't necessarily be created by everybody. There's only so many orchids that can fit in the show. But the show certainly can, and should, be judged by everybody.

Donating to the entries is better than voting for them because...

If a woman told us that she loved flowers, and we saw that she forgot to water them, we would not believe in her "love" for flowers. Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love. Where this active concern is lacking, there is no love. - Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving

[Scadoxus]

The primary objective of plant shows should be to get people interested in growing/seeing/introducing new and interesting plants to both neophytes and experts. The judging of plants in a particular show as with any other form of judging is always done by a small minority. How exciting/interactive shows would become if attendees could actively participate in the decision making process. Perhaps the judges could see how their "objective" appreciation of plants mirror those of attendees.
We all understand dollars and cents... Judging with cash could incentivize just about anyone.

[epiphyte78]

Scadoxus, it's great to see that you joined the forum! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the idea of judging plants with donations. It would be neat if we could give this a try at a society meeting. Speaking of which, are we going to the Fern Society meeting this Friday? Dylan Hannon is going to give a talk about tropical Begonias at the Huntington.

[estación seca]

Many shows let the public vote on a favorite plant. It always winds up being the biggest plant with the most flowers.

[Scadoxus]

I always enjoy hearing him speak. His knowledge of the subject is unparalleled.

[Mountaineer370]

FWIW, I attend all of the orchid shows in my area, as a spectator at this point. I enjoy them very much, and I have a tremendous appreciation for the exhibitors who have brought their plants for the public to enjoy. However, any money I spend at an orchid show will be for a plant or supplies that I take home with me.

I don't see the logic in allowing anyone and everyone who attends to "judge" the plants. "People's Choice," yes, but as has already been pointed out, that is generally based on the overall showiness of a plant and not necessarily its conformity to standards.

I have shown horses and dogs off and on in the course of my lifetime, and not only can I not imagine any spectators being willing to pay the exhibitors, but as an exhibitor myself, I would not want to be judged by someone who has no idea what the rules and regulations are, the breed standard of my animal, what constitutes a proper performance in the ring, etc. I'm sure analogies can be made to the proper judging of orchids.

If money would make the shows more appealing to exhibitors, then why not give monetary prizes to the winners in different categories, money that has been donated by sponsors. That's how the dog and horse clubs I have been involved with do it.

[Leafmite]

Actually, people do get prizes at orchid shows for winning. At our shows, we give gift cards as 'trophies'.

I have clerked for the OS judges (just two years) and they do work very hard to judge the plants. I must say that they do a great job, with much careful consideration and they are all very committed to the process. I just do not always agree with the way it is influencing the breeding of species orchids as I think these should remain as close to their wild-form as possible and that the genetics and traits that make them special should be preserved.

I think it is fun to let visitors to a show have some say in what they like, though. Many people do have fun using their tickets to vote. It might be rather fun to see what orchids they prefer, too. And, if that includes the ones that are full of flowers, why not?

[epiphyte78]

Mountaineer370, nearly everybody in my Fern Society is extremely knowledgeable about plants. They've been growing a wide variety of plants for years and years and years. They've listened to countless talks by experts on a wide variety of plant topics. They've also attended many many many shows.

At their annual show, are members of the Fern Society the minority or the majority? I'm pretty sure that they are the minority. So what does this mean in terms of everybody at the show being able to vote on the best plant? It means that the less informed majority will have more influence than the more informed minority.

You say that you can't imagine any spectators being willing to pay the exhibitors. To be clear, the spectators would make/earmark donations to their favorite plants.

The thing is, spectators aren't going to be equally unwilling to make/earmark donations. Just like they aren't going to be equally unwilling to join the Fern Society. Just like they aren't going to be equally unwilling to purchase and read The Fern Grower's Manual.... which was written by one of the society's members... Barbara Joe Hoshizaki.

Now, I could be wrong, but my guess is that the more knowledgeable a spectator is, the more willing they will be to make/earmark donations. This means that more informed spectators will have more influence than less informed spectators.

Personally, I have a gazillion books about plants... mainly orchids. I had maybe one or two books about dogs and horses. My point is that I'm vastly more informed about plants than about dogs/horses. I like dogs/horses, but I've never been to a single one of their shows, so I don't like them that much. If I did somehow get roped into going to a show, and was given the opportunity to make/earmark a donation to my favorite dogs/horses, my donation would be pretty small. If I even made one. It would be a completely different story at a plant show.

You go to dog/horse shows and plant shows. Are you equally informed about dogs, horses and plants? Would you be equally unwilling to make/earmark donations at these shows?

Traditional judging only involves informed individuals. But it's really not the case that they are the only informed individuals at a show. At every plant show that I've ever attended I always see and talk to many very knowledgeable people who aren't judges. Their collective knowledge could fill volumes. None of this incredible amount of knowledge was used to judge the plants in the show.

We can think of tug of war. Let's keep it simple and imagine that one side is pulling for the slipper orchids while the other side is pulling for the Encyclias. Are you going to participate? Do you have a dog in this fight? Do you care enough to participate? I sure do. I'd definitely pull for the Encyclias. Most slippers really suck at growing on trees. Encyclias, on the other hand, are awesome at growing on trees. So I'd be willing to pull pretty hard for the Encyclias. I would really want them to win.

Every show is a contest. Everybody should be given the opportunity to help determine the winner. It stands to reason that, the more relevant knowledge a spectator has, the harder they are going to be willing to pull for their favorite entries. So the winners will be determined by, and reflect, the most knowledge on the topic.

[Mountaineer370]

Epiphyte78, perhaps I'm not understanding. What is the difference between paying the exhibitors, as I phrased it, and making/earmarking donations to their favorite plants, as you phrased it? Aren't the owners of the plants still taking the money home? That is the part that I just don't see working.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, and maybe people who are very knowledgeable and experienced with orchids would be willing to do this. You're right, I know a lot more about horses and dogs than I do about orchids, but I'm still not willing to make monetary donations to my favorite entries at horse or dog shows. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I have limited funds for discretionary spending, and I prefer to spend my money on my own dogs and horses and orchids.

I don't have any issue with allowing the general public, the spectators, to use their ticket stubs to vote for their favorites. That's fun for everybody, and that could be expanded to being able to vote in more than one category, perhaps. It's the idea of judging by these people that I take issue with, like awarding best in category prizes based on a popular vote.

I agree that there are a lot of informed, knowledgeable, and experienced orchid growers who attend these shows, and their opinions would be valuable, of course. Perhaps more of them should become judges.

I appreciate your passion on this topic, and I admit I may be missing something due to my own limited experience in the orchid hobby. Others in this thread have pointed out the many issues with the judging and how many of the orchids no longer bear much resemblance to their wild ancestors. I am familiar with the same type of issues with the breeding of horses and dogs. Not to go too far off topic, but many dog breeds now have such serious conformational deformities that they can't move correctly or breathe correctly, and these defects get rewarded at the shows, unfortunately.

I don't know what the answer is as far as the judging of orchid shows, but it is a topic worthy of discussion. Perhaps you'll find support for your idea among your orchid society members. If so, that's great!

[epiphyte78]

Mountaineer370, I just wanted to emphasize the difference between earmarking donations to the exhibitors and earmarking donations to their entries. In both cases the exhibitors would receive some of the donations, but in the later case we would see the amount of money that had been earmarked to the entries.

Patreon allows donors to earmark donations to creators, but not to their creations. So we can see the disparity in value between creators, but we can't see the disparity in value between creations.

As far as discretionary spending is concerned, I'm certainly going to spend more money buying plants than donating to them. The thing is, if I derive a lot of benefit/enjoyment from seeing especially awesome plants in a show, but I don't donate any money to them, then this is a problem.

I know from personal experience how much work it is to lug plants to and from a show. Plus there's the risk of plants being damaged. I decided that it's not worth it. I know that many other people who have awesome plants have also decided that it's not worth it. As a result, shows are far less awesome than they could and should be.

Maybe the society should offer bigger prizes to the winners? But where does this money come from? Raising the entrance fee and/or membership dues? It's far better just to make it really easy for each person at the show to give their own cash awards to the most awesome plants.

Everybody has limited funds for discretionary spending. So it would be meaningful and significant to see how people divided their funds among the entries.