| I think the novel presentation paradigm of your piece and the point you're piece makes are inextricably linked. So by valuing your interface/presentation paradigm, the committee was by default valuing your "art." I understand that the literal tech behind your interface was not so tough (relatively speaking), but then the literal tech behind _ is not so tough either (relatively speaking). _ got in for the community aspect, not the tech per se. You got in for a novel/rich data presentation paradigm, not the tech per se. That the awards committee chose to focus on your craft rather than your concept doesn't mean that they weren't also impacted by your concept. In good art, craft and concept are inextricably related, yes? |
