Monday, September 10, 2012

The Infinite Art Tournament Turns 1: The Gross Misapprehension



The Gross Misapprehension

I've spent a year -- not all of the year, of course, just my leisure time -- lovingly designing this unreal tournament around the original core list of 1000 artists.  As you know, I've provided a suitably overbuilt system to bring in additional 24 Play-In Artists in order to arrive at a tournament-friendly total of 1024 competitors. It's all very lovely.

Then, last week, I actually took a closer look at that original list.  Turns out there’s not 1000 artists on it.  There’s only 500.

Well, naturally I felt a great sense of loss to see our 14-year enterprise shrink so radically and immediately to a mere 7 or 8 years.  I experimented with supplemental lists that could bring us up to the originally promised 1000 + 24, but all of the approaches I could think of had serious procedural issues (all of which boil down, in essence, to having a strong half and a weak half to a bracket whose defining feature is that it is completely unseeded.  Quite unacceptable, as I'm sure you'll agree.).

Now With 50% Less Infinity

Nothing for it, then, but to accept the inevitable.  The Infinite Art Tournament is only half as infinite as we thought.  (If you are thinking "Only a quarter!  Only a quarter!" you have the same intuitive sense as I did, but I ran the numbers and it's not right.  It's only a half, or a tiny tiny bit less than a half.)  All previous predictions of artist entry times are off.  The plan announced Friday of having Fourth-Round Matches on the weekends will assuage our collective sense of loss a little by stretching out the fun – it will take 12.5% longer to work our way through the (cruelly truncated) First Round.

Who suffers the most?  The Play-In Artists, of course.  Where at first 96 nominees needed to battle down to 24 to join a 1000+24 tournament, now only 12 will emerge to join the original list in a 500+12 showdown.  Brutal! 

And in case the above hasn't been dorky enough for you, here’s how the rules will be revised:

SubTournament Rules and Logistics (revised 9/10/12)!!


Phase 1:  96 nominees will compete in 12 flights of eight artists apiece between July 2012 and June 2013.  These flights have been designated and internally ordered by a random number generator.  Each voter may identify up to four preferred artists per flight.  All SubTournament flights will be kept open for voting for approximately two months.

Phase 2: Artists will be ranked according to their number of votes received as a percentage of all votes cast in their initial flight.  The first-, second-, and third-place artists in each flight will advance
, as will the next 12 highest-ranked "wild card" artists.  The 48 36 artists so selected will be grouped by "serpentine seeding" into a new 12 flights of four three artists apiece.  These seeded contests should begin about August 2013 and continue through the Summer of 2014.  Each voter will be allowed a single vote up to two preferred artists per flight in Phase 2.

Phase 3: The first
- and second-place artists in each Phase 2 flight will enter the regular tournament in the first round versus artists that tied in their initial first-round contests.  These matches will occupy the first of the four matches in each bracket cluster of eight, as needed and available, with the first available artist in each category (formerly tied artists and successful play-in artists) selected according to alphabetical order.  The first such match should occur in or around October 2013, with the winner alphabetically prior of the two winners of the first Phase 2 flight taking on Andre Beauneveu, the "upper" of the first pair of artists to fight to a tie in the first round.

---------------

The IAT team apologizes for any confusion or consternation caused by the above.  Please give full vent to your feelings in the comments.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

The Infinite Art Tournament, Round One: Copley v. Cornell!

John Singleton Copley
1738-1815
American; worked in England



-----

Joseph Cornell
1903 - 1972
American



----

Vote for the artist of your choice!  Votes go in the comments.  Commentary and links to additional work are welcome.  Polls open for at least one month past posting.

Friday, September 7, 2012

The Infinite Art Tournament Turns 1


Tomorrow ends the first year of the Infinite Art Tournament!  In 52 weeks, we’ll have looked at 104 artists (from Agasse to Cornell!), evolved the general rules of a complex double-elimination tournament, stocked and commenced a play-in tournament, and accomplished a hell of a lot of art appreciation.  It has been terrific fun, for me at least. 

And, it has all been founded on a gross misapprehension.  But more about that on Monday.  First, a little something for the bracket dorks to chew on.

How to Pace a Double-Elimination Democracy-Driven Interactive Art Tournament

Every Saturday for the last year, a fresh pair of hopefuls has entered the tournament’s first round.  On Tuesdays, and sometimes on Thursdays, the second and third rounds, as well as the left-hand (or “recovery” or, to be crude, the “losers’”) bracket has been worked out.  And gradually, gradually, the rest of the tournament has started to fall behind the first round.

Doing the Math

The first round has a tendency to run out ahead, over time, because every First-Round Contest generates quite a bit of subsequent traffic:
  • ½ of a Second-Round Contest (because after two First-Round matches are over, a Second-Round Match begins).
  • ¼ of a Third-Round Contest (after two Second-Round matches, a Third-Round match must begin.  If you are bothering to read this, you get the picture).
  • 1/8 of a Fourth-Round Contest
  • ¼ of a Left Bracket First-Round Elimination event (because the first round loser will compete in one of two simultaneous First-Round Elimination matches)
  • ¼ of a Left Bracket Second-Round Contest
  • ¼ of a Left Bracket Second-Round Elimination Contest
  • 1/8 of a Left Bracket Third-Round Contest
  • 1/8 of a Left Bracket Third-Round Elimination Contest
This all adds up (before even accounting for pesky things like ties, the play-in tournament, and the advancement of the tournament beyond the Fourth Round) to a whopping 3 1/8 posts a week needed to keep the IAT going at its current pace.  That's obviously more volume than the Saturday, Tuesday, and sometimes Thursday plan can accommodate.

Better Add Another Day, Then?

I think not.  There are worries of “voter fatigue.”

The Solution

The best solution, as so often in life, will I think be to kill two birds with one stone.  What we’re going to do is (1) ease back on the throttle a bit on new entrants and (2) create a suitably prominent spot for the advancement of the tourney into the Fourth Round. 

Starting this October, the first weekend of every even-numbered month will feature an elite Fourth-Round faceoff, matches between the artists who have struggled to the top of the group of eight in their immediate bracket (which is to say, who have won in the Third Round)!  Since those weekends won’t have newcomers to the tournament, the other rounds will have a bit of a chance to catch up.  Assuming four weeks a year spent accommodating ties and what-not, each week will now (averaged across a couple of months) introduce:
  • 7/8 of a First-Round Contest
  • 7/16 of a Second-Round Contest
  • 7/32 of a Third-Round Contest
  • 7/32 of a Left Bracket First-Round Elimination event (because the first round loser will compete in one of two simultaneous First-Round Elimination matches)
  • 7/32 of a Left Bracket Second-Round Contest
  • 7/32 of a Left Bracket Second-Round Elimination Contest
  • 7/64 of a Left Bracket Third-Round Contest
  • 7/64 of a Left Bracket Third-Round Elimination Contest
Which adds up to a mere 2½  (well, 2 and 33/64, but who's counting?) pairings a week.  Clearly, this is a much more sensible approach to our schedule. 

But Won’t That Drag This Thing Out Even Longer than the Absurd More-Than-a-Decade Length it Already Aspires To??

Yes and no.  For, as I mentioned earlier, the entire Tournament has been founded on a gross misapprehension.  This new approach will lengthen the Tournament somewhat, yes, but it turns out that the Tournament isn’t going to be quite as long as we thought.   More about that on Monday.

Have a superb weekend.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

The Infinite Art Tournament, First Elimination Round #8/128



Faceoff #1: Brauner v. Broodthaers

Victor Brauner
1903 - 1966
Romanian; worked in France.

Lost to Agnolo Bronzino by a single vote in Round 1. YOUR VOTE COUNTS!!!



-----

Marcel Broodthaers
1924 - 1976
Belgian

Lost to Ford Madox Brown in Round 1 by only two votes. YOUR VOTE COUNTS!!!






Faceoff #2: J. Bruegel v. Burne-Jones

Jan Bruegel (the Elder)
1568 - 1625
Dutch

Trounced by his father in Round 1.



-----

Sir Edward Burne-Jones
1833 - 1898
British

Lost to Daniel Buren by a single vote in Round 1. YOUR VOTE COUNTS!!!





Vote for the two artists of your choice! Votes generally go in the comments, but have been known to arrive by email, by postcard, or in a sealed envelope.

Please note that you may vote only once in each face-off. Opining that both of the artists in one of the two face-offs is superior to the other is fine, but casting your votes for two artists in the same face-off is not permissible.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The Wednesday Post


Recent Acquisitions to the Michael and Mrs.5000 Boring Postcard Collection
From a bulk online auction purchase, April 2012.


KA-48


The Interchange of Highways I-26 and I-40 near Asheville, North Carolina.  This three level Interchange is one of the largest in the Southeast.  It forms the axis of a network of Interstate Highways leading out of Asheville in virtually every direction.




THE SQUARE, YORK, PA.



A view of the downtown section of York, Pa., showing some of the beautiful plantings.






THE PORTLAND TOLL GATE, on the Maine Turnpike, Portland, Maine.  This is a 45 mile super-highway from Kittery to Portland.





Fall beach scene


Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The Infinite Art Tournament, Round 3: Brown v. P. Bruegel!

Ford Madox Brown
1821 - 1893
English

Defeated Marcel Broodthaers in a Round 1 contest that went down to the last vote. YOUR VOTE COUNTS!!!
Defeated Agnolo Bronzino in a Round 2 contest that also went down to the last vote. YOUR VOTE COUNTS!!!








Pieter Bruegel (the Elder)
c.1525 - 1569
Dutch

Trounced his own son, Jan Bruegel the Elder, in Round 1.
Won easily against living artist Daniel Buren in Round 2.









Vote for the artist of your choice in the comments, or any other way that works for you. Commentary and links to additional work are welcome. Polls open for at least one month past posting.

Monday, September 3, 2012

Michael5000 vs. Charles Dickens

Happy Labor Day!! 

 ...to my fellow UnitedStatsians. Those of you living elsewhere may know that here the United States, home county of Infinite Art Tournament, it amuses us to celebrate an alternative Labor Day that is not in line with the global standard.  And we celebrate it in inches and feet.


It is the five year anniversary of Labor Day 2007, the day on which the official Michael5000 Reading List was unveiled (one more year, I think, ought to wrap it up).  And it is the one-week anniversary of a personal inventory on my Shakespeare reading.  So, it being such a bookish date, I felt inspired to do another personal inventory, checking into something I've been curious about -- how much have I read of Charles Dickens?

The Dickens

I've been awfully fond of Dickens ever since I started into the first chapter of Our Mutual Friend, in -- of all places -- a tent in the Alaska wilderness, in the summer of 1989.  I decided on the spot that I would thereafter read a Dickens novel every year, a resolution that I have never made any particular effort to keep.

Nor am I renewing that vow now; I'm just taking stock of what I've read and what I haven't, with a general intent of finishing 'em off.  Why finish 'em off?  Well, because I have a collector's impulse, of course.  But also because, Sir or Madam, I am damned fond of them!

(Another reason to do an inventory, incidentally, is that Dickens' novels are so thick with characters, plots, and subplots galore, and so often similar in theme, that it can get a little tricky to remember which is which.  No shame in admitting that.)

It seems that Dickens produced 14 1/2 novels, not including the five "Christmas novels" (which I am not including, because I don't want to).  Here they are:


The Pickwick Papers. I haven't read it, and don't know a thing about it.

The Adventures of Oliver Twist.  I don't think I've read it, but was shown bits of Oliver! in high school.  It has such a broad cultural footprint that one feels like one has read it.

Nicholas Nickleby.  I definitely haven't read it.

The Old Curiosity Shop.  I haven't read it.  The title made me think maybe I had, but I was thinking of the rag and bone shop from Bleak House.

Barnaby Rudge.  I definitely haven't read it.  I'm now 0-5, and it must seem peculiar that I'm making an inventory of an author whose works I have never read.  But wait!

Martin Chuzzlewit.  YES!  This is the second Dickens novel I read, quite a long time ago.  I remember the American bits rather clearly, and also remember quite enjoying it.  Ripe for rereading.

Dombey and Son.  I read this one about 13 or 14 years ago.  Quite liked it.  Ripe for rereading, perhaps in audiobook.

David Copperfield.  I don't believe I've had the pleasure.

Bleak House.  The great legal satire and handbook of practical money management!  I read this one just before me and Mrs.5000 got married -- almost 10 years, now(!) -- and ear-read it earlier this year.

Hard Times.  I'm pretty sure I have not read it.

Little Dorrit.  Frankly, I didn't know that this was the name of a novel.  I thought it was the name of a character.

A Tale of Two Cities.  A historical novel of the French Revolution!  And a pretty good one.  I listened to it on audiobook last summer.

Great Expectations.  Pip!  Joe!  Miss Havisham!  The hilarious notion of Charles Dickens taking literary advice (he changed the ending) from Edward Bulwer-Lyton!  I listened to it on audiobook the year before last.

Our Mutual Friend.  An amusing romance about money and the way it makes people misbehave.  My first Dickens, which I may (or may not) have read again in the late nineties.  I listened to it on audiobook about 2 years ago and then again, as an experiment, again this summer.  It did not suffer from the repetition.

The Mystery of Edwin Drood.  The one he didn't finish.  Ordinarily, I wouldn't consider reading half a book that there was no hope of finishing, but this is Dickens we're talking about here.


Heavens, I've only read 6/14.5ths of the Dickens body of work!   I had no idea I was so behind the ball.  But... lucky me, I've got lots of fresh Dickens left in front of me.