A moral dilemma for a show director
no names
A show has a rule that no reps are allowed. A sculptor wasn't allowed in because last year he sent a relative while he did another show. This year he was not accepted and told it was because he had sent someone else with his work the year before. Personally I feel that's like locking the barn door after the horse has already escaped. From my point of view, he should have been denied admission on the year he wasn't there, or the rep made to pack up and not be able to sell. Then he should have been told that he could do the show again if he were there personally. That would be fair but that's another story.
There was another booth at the same show this year without the artist present. The artist always does the show sending reps while doing other shows on the same weekend. When the committee was asked about it, they said it was because this artist always gives a large piece for the auction in exchange for being able to send reps and the show has made a lot of money from the sale of this artist's work.
Like I've been saying. Art shows are about the money more than the art.
Larry Berman
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100
You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!
Rules should be rules regardless of the money issue. I think the show should change its stance and state, "if an artist is found to not be present during the show then they will loose the right to be in the show the following year" I do believe that the artist rep should also be gracefully dismissed from the present year's show.
The main problem with Larry's situation is: there may have been no clear punishment for an artist who breaks the rules. One gets to come back because they donate. The other gets rejected because they don't donate. Both should have been dismissed. (like teenagers, some artists will continue to push the limits because they are not getting punished and they know they can push the limits. Some promoters are like bad parents....they want to be friends with the artists rather then promoter/bosses)
Larry, I agree that the sculptor should be kicked out the year he sends a rep, but allowed in subsequent years if he understands that he's got to be there. It's like banning someone for life because of one mistake...it's not life and death, so allow him to be punished and then get over it.
I have another example. There is a local fundraiser/art show that doesn't require a donation of a piece, nor do they charge a show fee. HOWEVER...they do require artists to donate 50% of their sales to the charity (sales are controlled thru a central checkout....of course there are ways around it, but who wants to cheat a charity ;-)). Patrons are also required to purchase tickets to attend the event, tickets ranging from $50-100 per person. It's clear in the artist packet that you are required to be at the event all day.
A very popular, nationally famous (heck, internationally) local artist always has a prominent spot. The first year I was invited to participate, I was excited and nervous knowing I'd be in the same room with this gentleman - I've admired his work for years! When I went to the booth to introduce myself, planning on also picking out a piece to purchase, I was told that he wouldn't actually be at the event....even though the charity very prominently promotes that he is one of the artists in their advertising.
I was quite disappointed from a patron point of view, and a little pissed off from an artist point of view. Obviously, the charity uses this artists name to pull in people, and he's not required to follow the rules the rest of us lowly folks are. I've done the event for several years and haven't ever seen him, although his work is always there.
But it's "all for the cause" (and a good one, I might add). So they get the big name, but he can't be bothered (or required) to actually attend.
Here's one area I have lots of experience in one venue. Enough to say:
The rich and famous NEVER have rules.
I modeled in my teens and then married into a family so wealthy that a county in England is named for them: Ryecroft.
While modeling(I was NOT a super model, let's be clear), one such uber modeling STAR which you all know for her long blond tresses(Hint:she married an American Jewish singer years older than her).....would do the opposite of whatever the shoot needed. Be in Jamaica on this certain Wednesday for a dawn start, hair long, nails short, body waxed, no tan lines. We would wait until the following Tuesday....she would arrive all sunny, saying wasn't it fabulous she got there a day early!!!!!!!!! She had just had her hair straightened, her nails were bright pink, no tan, no wax....she was wasted from weeks of portying. They would fly a plastic man in to help her for a few more days and most of us working girls were loosing money daily.
Let's not get into the monied crowd....especially OLD MONEY.
I'm a midwestern girl. Give me people who understand ethics...the kind the Bible, Hume, Kant, Dewey, Adams, Franklin et al understood.
As for moral dilemmas, Larry, only such as we care. Thank God someone points it out.
Larry - sorry I didn't mean the post wasn't in the right place - I meant the art fair organisers weren't actually being correct. (as in the ' "correct" category ' My Australian terminology I guess?
The artist with the reps should be placed with the sponsors, not the artists.
Alison Thomas > Annette PiperJuly 19, 2011 at 7:46am
That is what I was thinking. obviously the artist is allowed to break the rules because he / she donates a lot of money via art. That would be called a sponsor. Somewhere else on this forum was a complaint about certain buy-sell items allowed at a show and the organizers explanation was that they were sponsors.
Larry Berman > Annette PiperJuly 18, 2011 at 8:25pm
This has nothing to do with sponsors. Many of the shows we do ask artists to donate work for a silent auction which benefits whatever cause they are backing that year. This has been a thorn in the side of the artists because we can only deduct material cost from our donation, not the retail value of the piece.
This is bribery. The bigger the piece donated for auction, the better chance the artist has of getting in the following year? That shouldn't be.
Replies
Rules should be rules regardless of the money issue. I think the show should change its stance and state, "if an artist is found to not be present during the show then they will loose the right to be in the show the following year" I do believe that the artist rep should also be gracefully dismissed from the present year's show.
The main problem with Larry's situation is: there may have been no clear punishment for an artist who breaks the rules. One gets to come back because they donate. The other gets rejected because they don't donate. Both should have been dismissed. (like teenagers, some artists will continue to push the limits because they are not getting punished and they know they can push the limits. Some promoters are like bad parents....they want to be friends with the artists rather then promoter/bosses)
Larry, I agree that the sculptor should be kicked out the year he sends a rep, but allowed in subsequent years if he understands that he's got to be there. It's like banning someone for life because of one mistake...it's not life and death, so allow him to be punished and then get over it.
I have another example. There is a local fundraiser/art show that doesn't require a donation of a piece, nor do they charge a show fee. HOWEVER...they do require artists to donate 50% of their sales to the charity (sales are controlled thru a central checkout....of course there are ways around it, but who wants to cheat a charity ;-)). Patrons are also required to purchase tickets to attend the event, tickets ranging from $50-100 per person. It's clear in the artist packet that you are required to be at the event all day.
A very popular, nationally famous (heck, internationally) local artist always has a prominent spot. The first year I was invited to participate, I was excited and nervous knowing I'd be in the same room with this gentleman - I've admired his work for years! When I went to the booth to introduce myself, planning on also picking out a piece to purchase, I was told that he wouldn't actually be at the event....even though the charity very prominently promotes that he is one of the artists in their advertising.
I was quite disappointed from a patron point of view, and a little pissed off from an artist point of view. Obviously, the charity uses this artists name to pull in people, and he's not required to follow the rules the rest of us lowly folks are. I've done the event for several years and haven't ever seen him, although his work is always there.
But it's "all for the cause" (and a good one, I might add). So they get the big name, but he can't be bothered (or required) to actually attend.
Here's one area I have lots of experience in one venue. Enough to say:
The rich and famous NEVER have rules.
I modeled in my teens and then married into a family so wealthy that a county in England is named for them: Ryecroft.
While modeling(I was NOT a super model, let's be clear), one such uber modeling STAR which you all know for her long blond tresses(Hint:she married an American Jewish singer years older than her).....would do the opposite of whatever the shoot needed. Be in Jamaica on this certain Wednesday for a dawn start, hair long, nails short, body waxed, no tan lines. We would wait until the following Tuesday....she would arrive all sunny, saying wasn't it fabulous she got there a day early!!!!!!!!! She had just had her hair straightened, her nails were bright pink, no tan, no wax....she was wasted from weeks of portying. They would fly a plastic man in to help her for a few more days and most of us working girls were loosing money daily.
Let's not get into the monied crowd....especially OLD MONEY.
I'm a midwestern girl. Give me people who understand ethics...the kind the Bible, Hume, Kant, Dewey, Adams, Franklin et al understood.
As for moral dilemmas, Larry, only such as we care. Thank God someone points it out.
We are the watch dogs of this free society.
Our right is free and truthful speech.
Let truth shine on!
Larry, isn't art about money also? Yes, you get to create, put out your vision, express yourself but you aren't giving away your work either.
Hmmm, yes, not quite in the correct category is it.
(See below for what I mean!)
Larry Berman
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100
Larry - sorry I didn't mean the post wasn't in the right place - I meant the art fair organisers weren't actually being correct. (as in the ' "correct" category ' My Australian terminology I guess?
The artist with the reps should be placed with the sponsors, not the artists.
This is bribery. The bigger the piece donated for auction, the better chance the artist has of getting in the following year? That shouldn't be.
Larry Berman
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100
I am often asked to donate an item but this is either in lieu of booth fee or EVERY artist is expected to donate an item on top of their booth fee.
I don't agree with these organiser's view - it doesn't seem fair to any other artist. What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.