This is a must read for anyone interested in bettering their chances of getting into shows. Half of the 3,000 word interview is about improving your booth, both for the jury slide and the way it appears to your potential customers at an art show.
http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/chris-coffey.htm
Larry Berman
Digital Jury Services
http://BermanGraphics.com
Test Your Jury Images and Presentation
http://JuryImages.com
412-401-8100
You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!
larry- I agree. The photography was key in the Artigras jury situation but not the photograph. The image that jumped at you, grabbed your attention and displayed the beauty created by the artist was something to behold.
Larry Berman said:
When the photographs are prepared properly, it takes the photographer out of the equation and then the work is what's juried. I've never heard of a juror saying, "wow, that's a great photograph of that jewelry". But I have heard of a juror saying, "wow, that's great looking jewelry". A properly prepared image maximizes the juror's attention on the art.
When the photographs are prepared properly, it takes the photographer out of the equation and then the work is what's juried. I've never heard of a juror saying, "wow, that's a great photograph of that jewelry". But I have heard of a juror saying, "wow, that's great looking jewelry". A properly prepared image maximizes the juror's attention on the art.
No matter what anyone says (or complains about), jurying for art shows is about making an impression in fifteen seconds. That's for the twenty five or so ZAPP shows using projectors and are usually the ones most artists want to get into. The rest of the ZAPP shows jury on monitors and depending on the show, the jurors can take one to three days to jury.
An interesting test would be having the same jurors go at their own pace and see if there is a difference in scoring than if they had only looked at the images for fifteen seconds. But that will never happen.
Yes, William, I agree it was a gut reaction but I think it is partially caused by the piece and partially caused by the photography. I saw some outstanding pieces of jewelry in that group and some I knew the moment I saw them that they would not make the cut. The photography on some of the pieces was so outstanding that it made the piece jump off the screen. That same piece on another background or with different lighting would not have been so outstanding. This is why I think photography is so important. That was one of the lessons I learned watching the Artigras jury process.
William S. Eickhorst said:
Sherry:
150 artists in 75 minutes equals 30 seconds per artist. All a juror can do in that amount of time is have a superficial reaction to the work - a gut reaction, "I like it or I don't like it." Having taught Art Theory and Criticism for more than 30 years, I would contend that no juror could possibly have done any real in depth analysis. In such cases, its strictly a matter of the juror's personal bias and preference, regardless of their protestations to the contrary! Even if more time were available, there is no guarantee that the jurors would have the requisite background and/or expertise to make better decisions anyway.
Thanks, Larry. It was very interesting and upholds a lot of what I said about the Artigras jury. If the images jumped off the screen and had great visual impact they stood out from the crowd. The jury decided placement for a few from over 150 applicants in about 75 minutes. That is a fleeting amount of time per artist. But the images stayed up on the screen longer if a question was asked or a juror corrected a readers pronunciation. Chris says he prefers short and sweet decsriptions and I wonder if a longer description (that keeps the images in front of the jurors longer) might not be helpful. Or a wording that calls a question to the mind of a juror might be beneficial. Any thoughts about this? I really would have loved seeing the results of that jury because some poeple did not have a booth shot although it was required. Did this lower their score? That would have given me additional information about the process.
This was a good interview with Chris, thanks for posting it Larry. Some good kernels of thought. And knowing Chris somewhat, I know he is wonderfully thoughtful and conscientious about what he does.
However, I agree with everyone's comments. Any time span as short as 15-sec or 20-sec is not an adequate amount of time to jury 3 let alone 5 or 6 jury slides plus a booth slide. Not given the ramifications for the art patrons, the artists, and the show. If the juror doesn't already know the artist and their body of work, how can that be anything other than, as those writing here have commented, gut-level or fairly reactionary? To the extent people are juried in as Julia and William say based on jurors recognizing their work, that is not "fair" by any standard and the jury at that point is not "blind". There is additional information being introduced in that act of recognition that applies to only certain artists and not others. Which raises the issue of whether peer jurors are ever a good thing. Beyond that, how can it be construed that any juror's reaction to the work they are viewing is just that their reaction which is, until someone makes a convincing argument otherwise, personal bias based on personal tastes. Again, how is that "fair"? Reality, yes. Fair?
Also, why in any jury process is there not a learning element incorporated whereby the jurors communicate to the artists, on behalf of the show, what their thoughts were on the images and booth slide submitted? What led each juror to their decision to score the artist as they did? Allowing artists the opportunity to consider what didn't work well with that particular jury and perhaps what they may wish to change to strengthen their presentation for future submissions? For what we pay in jury fees, and since those scores have to exist if the jury actually happened, communicating those numbers should not be an issue or huge expense. Posting those results on a spreadsheet on the show's website is one simple and effective option, based on artist numbers assigned to each artist. The issue is never suppose to be how FAST the jury acts, not for what we pay. Rather, how "fair", how unbiased, how truly effective the jury is at making their assessment? After all, the show has everything to gain or lose by their efforts ....... not to mention we as artists and all the art patrons that come to a show seeking to buy artwork.
I was also curious about Chris' comment:
"As a juror I'm not going to ding somebody because I can see their corner weights. But it does take away from the presentation. The booth slide's not about your work. It's about your presentation, the consistency of your vision overall in your work."
For one, while glad to hear that and agree, although I'm not in any way convinced that other jurors share that opinion. I would also be very interested to know if, prior to the start of all or any of the jury processes he's participated in if the director or promoter sat down with all the jurors and went over the criteria stated in the application for artists to consider in choosing their slides, the criteria by which the show said artists would be judged so those and only those criteria were used? Also, whether the booth slide was discussed and how it should be viewed. Because in looking at Chris' booth slide, if the show says to submit a shot of your outdoor booth fully stocked (i.e., desk, bins, all those things Chris admits he leaves out) .... should a juror not penalize him accordingly? I agree completely that his booth slides looks far, far better without those items in, without seeing the tent, or signage (which should never be there anyway), all those things Chris mentions. But it would not seem to meet any such criteria as stated by a show promoter in the show application.
NOR would it meet the criteria of the booth slides not just representing the presentation but the BODY OF WORK to be presented. To wit, whether one or more of your jury slides is viewable within your booth slide .... is that mandatory? I know some jurors and possibly shows, penalize you if you don't show one of your jury images in your booth whether or not that is stated in the application. Is that just some cosmic, cast-in-stone-everyone-should-know rule? My understanding is that a couple of years ago, that was the "first cut" in the jury process of Cherry Creek. Never stated in the application.
So Chris ... beautiful booth slide. But I'd ask Chris if he feels he is the 'typical' juror? Whether most other jurors he's been with share his ideas, thoughts, and perspectives on the booth slide and the jury process?
" .................under 15 seconds they have to evaluate and score."
Count to 15. Imagine yourself looking at a minimum of three images. How can you cognitively take in any image with great detail in that amount of time? Forget it. Would be interesting to know how jurors, year after year, give an unbiased judgement of those artists who they are familiar with through experience on the art show circuit, knowing darn well who gets in to every top show, who's work is distinctly recognizeable in 5 seconds(not knocking these artists, congrats to them- the mark of a true artist). Bottom line is there's not much room for new artists, IMHO, especially when you have in many cases well over 100 artists in each medium competing for 10-15 spots.
I would think that a decision that is made in 15 seconds would have to be pretty much a first gut reaction - I don't know how you could keep a personal bias from affecting your immediate instincts. Nothing against the jurors - I just think that it may happen on a subconscious level.
Larry Berman said:
Any artist juror I've ever spoken to will tell you that they don't allow personal biases to interfere with what they consider to be a fair evaluation of the body of work, and wouldn't be able to anyway in the under 15 seconds they have to evaluate and score. Have you read all the juror and jury reviews: http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/jury-reviews.htm
Any artist juror I've ever spoken to will tell you that they don't allow personal biases to interfere with what they consider to be a fair evaluation of the body of work, and wouldn't be able to anyway in the under 15 seconds they have to evaluate and score. Have you read all the juror and jury reviews: http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/jury-reviews.htm
Good points William, especially on your last point. I too am interested in how jurors deal with their bias when they are familiar with artists work simply by viewing it. May work as an advantage or even disadvantage in some cases, I don't know. Or say the jurors are on the circuit too such as Chris and have friendships established among working artists and know their work.... I am too curious on how they deal with it.
Replies
Larry Berman said:
Larry Berman
Digital Jury Services
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100
An interesting test would be having the same jurors go at their own pace and see if there is a difference in scoring than if they had only looked at the images for fifteen seconds. But that will never happen.
Larry Berman
Digital Jury Services
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100
William S. Eickhorst said:
However, I agree with everyone's comments. Any time span as short as 15-sec or 20-sec is not an adequate amount of time to jury 3 let alone 5 or 6 jury slides plus a booth slide. Not given the ramifications for the art patrons, the artists, and the show. If the juror doesn't already know the artist and their body of work, how can that be anything other than, as those writing here have commented, gut-level or fairly reactionary? To the extent people are juried in as Julia and William say based on jurors recognizing their work, that is not "fair" by any standard and the jury at that point is not "blind". There is additional information being introduced in that act of recognition that applies to only certain artists and not others. Which raises the issue of whether peer jurors are ever a good thing. Beyond that, how can it be construed that any juror's reaction to the work they are viewing is just that their reaction which is, until someone makes a convincing argument otherwise, personal bias based on personal tastes. Again, how is that "fair"? Reality, yes. Fair?
Also, why in any jury process is there not a learning element incorporated whereby the jurors communicate to the artists, on behalf of the show, what their thoughts were on the images and booth slide submitted? What led each juror to their decision to score the artist as they did? Allowing artists the opportunity to consider what didn't work well with that particular jury and perhaps what they may wish to change to strengthen their presentation for future submissions? For what we pay in jury fees, and since those scores have to exist if the jury actually happened, communicating those numbers should not be an issue or huge expense. Posting those results on a spreadsheet on the show's website is one simple and effective option, based on artist numbers assigned to each artist. The issue is never suppose to be how FAST the jury acts, not for what we pay. Rather, how "fair", how unbiased, how truly effective the jury is at making their assessment? After all, the show has everything to gain or lose by their efforts ....... not to mention we as artists and all the art patrons that come to a show seeking to buy artwork.
I was also curious about Chris' comment:
"As a juror I'm not going to ding somebody because I can see their corner weights. But it does take away from the presentation. The booth slide's not about your work. It's about your presentation, the consistency of your vision overall in your work."
For one, while glad to hear that and agree, although I'm not in any way convinced that other jurors share that opinion. I would also be very interested to know if, prior to the start of all or any of the jury processes he's participated in if the director or promoter sat down with all the jurors and went over the criteria stated in the application for artists to consider in choosing their slides, the criteria by which the show said artists would be judged so those and only those criteria were used? Also, whether the booth slide was discussed and how it should be viewed. Because in looking at Chris' booth slide, if the show says to submit a shot of your outdoor booth fully stocked (i.e., desk, bins, all those things Chris admits he leaves out) .... should a juror not penalize him accordingly? I agree completely that his booth slides looks far, far better without those items in, without seeing the tent, or signage (which should never be there anyway), all those things Chris mentions. But it would not seem to meet any such criteria as stated by a show promoter in the show application.
NOR would it meet the criteria of the booth slides not just representing the presentation but the BODY OF WORK to be presented. To wit, whether one or more of your jury slides is viewable within your booth slide .... is that mandatory? I know some jurors and possibly shows, penalize you if you don't show one of your jury images in your booth whether or not that is stated in the application. Is that just some cosmic, cast-in-stone-everyone-should-know rule? My understanding is that a couple of years ago, that was the "first cut" in the jury process of Cherry Creek. Never stated in the application.
So Chris ... beautiful booth slide. But I'd ask Chris if he feels he is the 'typical' juror? Whether most other jurors he's been with share his ideas, thoughts, and perspectives on the booth slide and the jury process?
Thanks again Larry.
Count to 15. Imagine yourself looking at a minimum of three images. How can you cognitively take in any image with great detail in that amount of time? Forget it. Would be interesting to know how jurors, year after year, give an unbiased judgement of those artists who they are familiar with through experience on the art show circuit, knowing darn well who gets in to every top show, who's work is distinctly recognizeable in 5 seconds(not knocking these artists, congrats to them- the mark of a true artist). Bottom line is there's not much room for new artists, IMHO, especially when you have in many cases well over 100 artists in each medium competing for 10-15 spots.
Larry Berman said:
http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/jury-reviews.htm
Larry Berman
Digital Jury Services
http://BermanGraphics.com
Test Your Jury Images and Presentation
http://JuryImages.com
412-401-8100