Ron Mellott started a Discussion in early January - Art Shows: Who's Doing it Well? What Needs to be Done? - There have been over 60 posts and all the issues raised deserve discussion in depth (You can read as much as you have time for by going to Ron’s original Discussion). Mary Strope suggested we each take a topic and start a new Discussion.
I chose ‘The Ideal Jury Process’ because I am a promoter who is unhappy with the current processes I’ve seen. I hope to get input from artists and promoters, and to use that input to improve at least our own jury process. I’m the event coordinator for Francisco’s Farm Arts Festival at Midway College – a young, small show you’ve never heard of but it’s been named among AmericanStyle Magazine’s Top 10 Art Fairs in the country for three years in a row. I only want it to improve in any and every way, and need artist input for that.
One issue that came from the previous discussion - Artists want (and deserve) to have clear information on how each show is juried, who is involved in the process, and to be informed of their scores (along with an explanation of the cut-off scores, range of scores, etc) along with their decision notices.
Artists, what kinds of considerations will improve a jury process? If you had absolutely no constraints, what do you think would be a fair and equitable way to select artists for a fine art/fine craft - original, handmade show?
I am also very interested in comments related to how shows should proceed with inviting artists to return, attrition, seniority, incorporating new artists, etc.
I very much appreciate your time and responses.
Francisco's Farm Arts Festival
You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!
Just wanted to clarify the reasons the artist was excluded from the next year's show - from my post - "We had an artist one year whose sales were fantastic, but it turned out her work was priced well below others working in the same media, and, in my opinion, her work was not as of high a quality (although the images she submitted said otherwise). She was not accepted to the show the following year. The fact that many people purchased her work actually helped us decide to not invite her back, as we do not want to attract an audience that purchases less expensive work of less than excellent quality, or one who expects to find such.
The artist's work was not as high in quality as the images she submitted, and we are trying to attract an audience that expects (and purchases) high quality art.
Charlene Marsh said:
Artwork and, thus, exhibitors for shows should be selected based on quality as the number one consideration. Then it is up to the exhibitor how she/he conducts her/his business to make a profit.
I find it rather alarming that an artist who sold well at a show was excluded from future shows because her work was priced lower than other artists working in the same medium. There are many reasons for this. For example, she could be using a different technique that makes her process faster so she can keep her prices lower. Or she could be an entry level artist (no reflection on quality)working on establishing a collector base who plans to then slowly raise her prices as demand and experience increases. Or the other artists working in the medium are NOT selling and griping about the one who is selling successfully. Again, I go back to quality should be the criteria.
Another reason to stick to QUALITY as the main criteria when selecting a show is because the general public gravitates towards the level of WalMart and McDonalds and knows very little about art. Two booths, side by side, one with buy/sell imports and one with hand made by the artist objects are often indistinquishable from each other by the average layman attending an art fair. They are not even AWARE of any difference betwen the two booths. There is no blip on the radar that one is slave labor, factory knock outs and one is executed from the hands of an artist. The show directors are the gatekeepers to make sure that true, hand made objects are exhibited and sold to the public. Inherently, there is an educational component even if it is not overtly stated.
Because the public is so woefully undereducated about art and art appreciation, selecting art shows should not be left to the "man on the street". Finding art professionals who know what they are doing is hard enough!
Nice, thorough write-up Charlene. And answering the questions I had posed. Much appreciated. You make many good points and observations.
I'm not sure why jurors observing the work in person would necessarily be any less of a blind jury process than a peer juror recognizing the digital images of an artist they personally know during the jury process, which I think happens all the time. So going back to your definition of jurors, to be most effective they would almost have to be outside the show circuit and not familiar with the bodies of work of most artists .... although ..... many artists on the show circuit I think create work that is so unique and creative it is NOT seen anywhere else and thus without a juror being able to see, touch, and feel the work how would they know what they were jurying or how to adequately evaluate it? Do you think jury slides are that good that they function anywhere near as well as onsite evaluations could be?
Most of my objection lies in any jury process that is divorced from art patrons. In my view, an outdoor art show is not suppose to be equivalent to an indoor museum show .... just held outdoors. When a museum exhibits work indoors, sales typically don't matter because most items on display in art museums are not for sale. Correct me if I am wrong on this. So any process that just involves jurors and artists misses the boat if the result is a show that does not connect with the public/patrons. And if that same process results in artists that sell well to the public not being reinvited, that is so nonsensical to me as to be absurd.
Which is why I continue to argue against a view that a commission show that invites back the best selling artists means a lowering of quality. Perhaps it is just the difference of our experiences. The commission shows I have been part of or know of include La Quinta (CA), Park City (UT), the Salem Art Fair (OR), Oregon, and the Oklahoma City Festival of the Arts. Nobody I know would describe any of these events as flea-markety or low-end crafts or buy-sell. They just aren't.
Agreed Charlene, selling well can mean people have low-end work that sells well to the public that feels it is cutsey. However, my interpretation is more often that (a) shows are drawing that kind of crowd based on how they promote their event, (b) possibly not adequately jurying their show to keep out low-end work that would otherwise not be acceptable and (c) not managing their show. It is not a fair or accurate formulate to conclude SELLING WELL = LOW END WORK. Just doesn't. Also, those selling original paintings or sculpting may have nothing priced low-end, and may have great shows just selling one, two, or a few pieces. But I'd bet hard money that people coming and purchasing a $30,000 sculpture likely are spending more money than that at the art show, with a variety of other artists. In which case any jury that juries that artist out next year are - idiots, disconnected from the patrons that come to buy art. Do you disagree? Do you think those people that come spending big bucks one year and come the next year to purchase more, but find those artists they liked gone because of the "whim" or biases of some "art expert" juror care one bit about what those jurors think? I doubt it. Do you think they are are going to be happy and continuing coming year-after-year until those artists are rejuried into the event? And I think the ultimate test is how each of us would respond if we had a great show, one of our best ever, and then could not get back into the show for several years because of a jury process disconnected from how the public responded to our work.
Sorry, Charlene, but I only care what a juror says as it affects my ability to get into a show and my work before the public. The voice of the public is all I truly care about. They should be the sole determinants of my fate - not jurors.
Part of managing a show (the primary job of a promoter or director) still means creating the look you want for your event based on what you AND your public want to see. So, if you want say 11 categories of artwork, and only so many in each category for the balance a promoter seeks to achieve, then inviting back a percentage based on how well they sell is not a global across all mediums, but within each medium. You invite back whatever percentage you want of the top selling artists IN EACH MEDIUM. So even if jewelry is selling well, you don't just invite back lots more jewelers, you still invite back just the top percentage. Just may mean it is especially a "jeweler's" show, but again, that is likely based on the way a promoter advertises the event, through what channels, what media, who they are reaching, the demographics they are attracting. If the promoter is not satisfied with that (and probably shouldn't be), isn't the answer that the promoter sit down, by themselves, in conjunction with an artist advisory group, or a consultant, and figure out how to attract a broader-based art buying crowd?
Sorry. Got carried away. Panera Bread is closing, so I must sign off (I know, you're all saying "thank god"). Thanks again for being so insightful and writing so eloquently Charlene.
Well, sorry, but I have to disagree Charlene with the part about "art professionals". I might become more of a believer if you can answer these questions for me (and I turn a blind eye and wipe my memory clean of all the jury-injustices I've been witness to over the years ...)
1. What is an "art professional"? Can you give me a viable, working definition?
2. How broad-based is any "art professional"? Do they know equally much about the work exhibited at a good art show across all media (jewelry? Mixed-media? Painting? Sculpting? Glass? Photography? etc. etc. etc.) Have they even SEEN much of what is shown at an art show?
3. Do you really think ANY juror can determine a concept such as "quality" from 2D jury slides projected on a wall or viewed on a computer screen?
4. What is the relevance of an "art professional" to the buying public? How do you explain artists that are juried in by "art professionals" are are unable to sell a single piece of work to the buying public? And the more that this happens, what effect do you think those "art professionals" are having on the success, or demise, of an art show?
I do agree with Charlene....but will add that whimsical work also gets quite big crowd as does fairly good color photography as well as fairly bad color photography. The guy across from me at one show had a full booth most the weekend...he was offering and selling (well) $10 (11x14)reproductions of his drawings/paintings, unmatted, unmounted. He did not sell one original. My neighbor on the other side had very few people in her booth throughout the weekend but she managed to sell more then 7 originals priced in the $3000-$5000 range. So seeing how full a booth is, is not a good indicator of who to invite back.
As for returning artists, this is where a jury at the show comes into play. I have often seen people get into shows where once you look at their website, they probably ONLY had four good slides to jury in with. The rest of the work is just bad. Thus at the show their booth is the best representation of their work.
I believe that one juror should be established interior designer. These professionals don't tend to just lean towards one form of artwork but instead work with varying interests and designs. Add two to four other jurors to that and you will have a nice mix. Each juror should visit the booth individually ...not together as a pack.
If your desire is to invite back the top three artists in each category, then award them accordingly. If your desire is to invite back only five artists total, then just have the top five awards. Depending on the size of the show, I can see a Best of show and the top three in each category being an acceptable number to invite back the following year. They would then have to be in the top three in their category again to then be invited back the following year. This will keep their work fresh. I have yet to be in a show where I know I am automatically in the show for the next three years. My shows are usually year to year only if I win an award. Some don't even guarantee it with an award.
If you choose to go this route you need to make sure those who are then applying know what their odds of getting into the show are. Nothing upsets artists more then finding out later that they applied to a show where their odds were about 1%
As Marcie points out, it is tough to know more about why someone states things a certain way in their postings. So forgive me if I misconstrue. I can, at this point, only reply based on what you wrote and how I interpret it.
First, if you meet the public's taste, I argue yes, that is the #1 Priority of what a show is about. Having artists sitting in their booth all weekend not selling, no matter how interesting, creative, or compelling their work is, having the public walk buy and show minimal interest and not purchasing, total disconnect. I can't see how the artist is going to feel any better about that empty of an excercise, nor how costly such an exercise is ... only expenses, no income. And do you not risk people walking away from the show saying something else, akin to "we don't need to come here any more because there isn't anything we want to buy"? Do you EVER want to hear that, as a promoter? Once your promotion, your advertising, gets them across the threshold of your show, do you not want to try to keep them?
Second, if that is the kind of crowd the show is drawing, mostly interested in low-end price and low-end work, look to the promoter. That is the kind of crowd they are drawing through their "promotion", their "advertising", assuming they are advertising much at all. I'd ask as I am certain many others would, "where are the real art buyers?" How are they being missed? Is the focus of the advertising being put in the wrong place?" Questions to that effect. Obviously, something isn't working in promoting the show unless you conclude: those with money wanting to buy higher-end art aren't there to be found.
Third, I am continually puzzled how people conclude, as you may have here and I routinely see on many postings on Larry Berman's site, that if you have a crowded booth, sell well to the public that comes to the show, (aka: meet the public's taste) that the artist is typically low-end, Walmart-ish in their work and pricing and the crowd low-end Walmart-ish in their work. I strongly disagree. Yes, there are some like that out there. Nor do I agree that such artists typically tailor their work to a low-end market. I think far more often than not, if they have been on the show circuit long, they are just good at what they do, and that much of what they make is appealing to the public and bought by the public. They are making what they want as artists. The public just likes it. They are just successful. Yippeeee! What we all want, isn't it? Does any form of critique mean as much as someone breaking out their money to pay you to take home and add to their lives that which you create?
As for issues about low-quality work or artists underpricing other artists, I'd argue that the current jury system used was apparently unable to ferret this kind of information out or that the kinds of jurors being chosen just think that such work, as you say cobbled out of Walmart parts, is somehow deserving of being in the show. I think using a reinvite system of some sort, that such artists might not be reinvited - again - unless that is the market you are drawing and then .... should you not give them what they want, depressing as that might be? Unless the show changes how it advertises and draws a different crowd, that is the reality of that situation. Bringing in lots of high-end esoteric work isn't going to produce any good result, is it? Changing how the show is promoted and advertising is about the only hope I see.
Charlene, I agree with you in theory, and I have an example of how that played out at our festival. (First, I need to say that all applicants to this festival are already juried into various local, regional, state, and/or national adjudicated art event/organizations so there's a level of quality we start with.)
We had an artist one year whose sales were fantastic, but it turned out her work was priced well below others working in the same media, and, in my opinion, her work was not as of high a quality (although the images she submitted said otherwise). She was not accepted to the show the following year. The fact that many people purchased her work actually helped us decide to not invite her back, as we do not want to attract an audience that purchases less expensive work of less than excellent quality, or one who expects to find such.
I'm realizing with all these posts that there's a communication element missing - it's difficult in a brief message to mention all of the factors that informed a comment or opinion, so it may end up looking like I've expressed some shallow, black-and-white opinions when I'm sure we all bring plenty of careful consideration of the gray areas, too.
Leo, I'm looking forward to meeting you, too. I love your work.
I agree that artists shouldn't have to jury into the same show every year. A three year cycle also seems reasonable to me, as well as returning the artists to the jury pool after their third year (as Ron suggests) rather than 'retiring' them from the event for a period of time.
One of my priorities is to draw patrons to an event where they will discover high-quality art they will purchase, and will also discover some artists they've never met. I have seen a number of fairs suffer from slowly declining patron attendance and heard comments from patrons to the effect that they don't need to go to that show every year because it's mostly all the same artists. Granted there are people who want to return each year for just that reason - they want to see mostly the same artists. I think the shows that continue to grow (in patron attendance and in art sales) are those that offer patrons enough 'new' each year that they want to return and bring friends.
Finding the balance is tricky, but that's what I want to discover or develop. I think what will work is to phase in a process over several years rather than having all exhibiting artists this year accepted for a three-year period. The artists who apply should be given a clear statement of the show's policy in the prospectus - so that's something we'll have to work on for next year.
PS: Not sure why an artist would need to be kicked to the curb for a year before being able to reapply. For example, let's say you have an artist that finishes their 3 year invite period, then say they were booted for a year. Then on reapplying the next 2 years, couldn't get past your jury. What do you say to all the patrons that bought that artist's work for 3 years? Now they are out for 3 years. And your explanation is ..... ????? Your jury kept them out? I think some of your patrons wouldn't care one iota about your jury process or their decision-making abilities. They came to the event each year, paid to get in, to see and potentially buy from that artist they like. How dedicated would you be showing yourself to be to your patrons to not have the artist back at your event? How dedicated to you and your show would you expect those patrons to continue being?
My suggestion, heretical as it may sound, is just invite such an artist back - Promoter's Discretion. You try to be fair in what you do Marcie, but sometimes I think "fair" is what is most fair to your patrons and to your event. So don't let glitches in the system prevent it from working. That said, if you keep aside a certain small number of booths each year to invite back artists you want to have continuing to be part of your event for whatever reason, while most artists probably would not have problem with that, do try to do so for the best reasons possible. Say, for example, you have an artist who does not sell particularly well but their artwork just makes your ads come alive, pop, and draw attention from the public. That is an added-value to you and your event. If you want to keep using their work, invite the artist back. Doubt many will have a problem.
If you are keeping sales records for your artists, inviting back will be relatively easy. Say the top 30 to 35% in each category. Yes, after that top 30 to 35%, you may have artists in one medium, say painting, that outsell their counterparts in other mediums (say jewelry or ceramics). But you have a balance you wish to keep in the show, so stick to it. Although in such an example, that little bit of information that painters were doing gangbusters may suggest you patrons really have a fondness for painting and perhaps expanding that category a bit would be warranted?
I agree that if you connect well with patrons, you should be invited back. An artist should not have to rejury each year and subject yourself to the whims of the jurors if the patrons liked the work (aka: bought lots of it!). I think a third, 33 to 35% would be good for a start, and as many of us think, invite say for an additional 2 years. Then after that 3 year run, boot them (gently) back into the jury pool.
If a show is not a commission show, you will not likely know who did or did not connect with your patrons. So you will not invite back some who sold extremely well to your patrons (a problem we have brought up before) and invite back some who did not. The more each promoter and their staff pay attention, as Steve Gettle has pointed out, who has a packed booth for most of the show, you will make more correct choices on invitees and that is good, is it not? Among those you invite back, some will likely decline because their sales were bad. So starting at that point and adjusting up if too many do not want to come back, or lowering if everyone does, would seem a good starting point.
Theoretically, if you could get 30% invited and coming back each year, by the start of the 4th year, you will be inviting back 90% and 10% will be fresh or at least juried in from the jury pool. How would that kind of a mix be for you?
Hi Ron et all, sorry i've been M.I.A. on this forum. Am leaving tomorrow for my show in Vegas. just a quick note...our attendees ARE part of the jury process. We are a wholesale show, so our attendees are galleries and stores. They are part of our jury panel, and act as advisers as well. Since we are also an online web service, we score applicants based on the quality of their images as well as the quality of their work. If their images are poorly shot, they may do well at the show, but they are not going to do well on our webservice.
Our jurors are required to attend the show. They report to us if they see anyone who's work does not fit our criteria. We do not ask our jurors to review all the work onsite. We want them to shop the show and buy, not be tied down to review all exhibitors. Our staff does that. All previous artist exhibitors are invited back the next show. We are not limited to a set number of booths to fill. We self-limit based on attendee numbers. We also have an 'emerging artist' category. The criteria for that is they have a small line of work, 5 or less wholesale accounts, and have never exhibited in a trade show. They can only exhibit once as an emerging artist. After that, they need to graduate to a full size booth. Emerging artists get a smaller, less expensive booth with lots of hand holding from your's truely. I do one on one consults with them to answer all their questions about wholesale, display, shipping, and brochures etc. We also have many web seminars recorded to help them. The emerging artists are a huge draw for retailers and it keeps our show fresh with new work. This show, we have 76 emerging artist booths.
Sometimes we do get artists who lied on their application and are not appropriate. For example, all work must be made/cast in the US or Canada. The artist or a studio employee must be present. No sales rep, no importers. So after the show, i collect everyone's notes and contact the offenders to discuss the situation. I give them the chance to explain, research the problem, then i will tell them whether or not they can continue with us or not.
As for a blind jury, we decided not to do it that way. Most of our jurors are retailers and they are volunteers. One of their perks for jurors is that they can be the first to order from the new applicants. Many do. For retailers, being the first one in their city to carry the work of someone new is important. Many wholesale artist have a policy not to sell to two or more stores within the same zip code.
Well, i gotta pack for Vegas. Move-in starts on Friday.
Replies
The artist's work was not as high in quality as the images she submitted, and we are trying to attract an audience that expects (and purchases) high quality art.
Charlene Marsh said:
I'm not sure why jurors observing the work in person would necessarily be any less of a blind jury process than a peer juror recognizing the digital images of an artist they personally know during the jury process, which I think happens all the time. So going back to your definition of jurors, to be most effective they would almost have to be outside the show circuit and not familiar with the bodies of work of most artists .... although ..... many artists on the show circuit I think create work that is so unique and creative it is NOT seen anywhere else and thus without a juror being able to see, touch, and feel the work how would they know what they were jurying or how to adequately evaluate it? Do you think jury slides are that good that they function anywhere near as well as onsite evaluations could be?
Most of my objection lies in any jury process that is divorced from art patrons. In my view, an outdoor art show is not suppose to be equivalent to an indoor museum show .... just held outdoors. When a museum exhibits work indoors, sales typically don't matter because most items on display in art museums are not for sale. Correct me if I am wrong on this. So any process that just involves jurors and artists misses the boat if the result is a show that does not connect with the public/patrons. And if that same process results in artists that sell well to the public not being reinvited, that is so nonsensical to me as to be absurd.
Which is why I continue to argue against a view that a commission show that invites back the best selling artists means a lowering of quality. Perhaps it is just the difference of our experiences. The commission shows I have been part of or know of include La Quinta (CA), Park City (UT), the Salem Art Fair (OR), Oregon, and the Oklahoma City Festival of the Arts. Nobody I know would describe any of these events as flea-markety or low-end crafts or buy-sell. They just aren't.
Agreed Charlene, selling well can mean people have low-end work that sells well to the public that feels it is cutsey. However, my interpretation is more often that (a) shows are drawing that kind of crowd based on how they promote their event, (b) possibly not adequately jurying their show to keep out low-end work that would otherwise not be acceptable and (c) not managing their show. It is not a fair or accurate formulate to conclude SELLING WELL = LOW END WORK. Just doesn't. Also, those selling original paintings or sculpting may have nothing priced low-end, and may have great shows just selling one, two, or a few pieces. But I'd bet hard money that people coming and purchasing a $30,000 sculpture likely are spending more money than that at the art show, with a variety of other artists. In which case any jury that juries that artist out next year are - idiots, disconnected from the patrons that come to buy art. Do you disagree? Do you think those people that come spending big bucks one year and come the next year to purchase more, but find those artists they liked gone because of the "whim" or biases of some "art expert" juror care one bit about what those jurors think? I doubt it. Do you think they are are going to be happy and continuing coming year-after-year until those artists are rejuried into the event? And I think the ultimate test is how each of us would respond if we had a great show, one of our best ever, and then could not get back into the show for several years because of a jury process disconnected from how the public responded to our work.
Sorry, Charlene, but I only care what a juror says as it affects my ability to get into a show and my work before the public. The voice of the public is all I truly care about. They should be the sole determinants of my fate - not jurors.
Part of managing a show (the primary job of a promoter or director) still means creating the look you want for your event based on what you AND your public want to see. So, if you want say 11 categories of artwork, and only so many in each category for the balance a promoter seeks to achieve, then inviting back a percentage based on how well they sell is not a global across all mediums, but within each medium. You invite back whatever percentage you want of the top selling artists IN EACH MEDIUM. So even if jewelry is selling well, you don't just invite back lots more jewelers, you still invite back just the top percentage. Just may mean it is especially a "jeweler's" show, but again, that is likely based on the way a promoter advertises the event, through what channels, what media, who they are reaching, the demographics they are attracting. If the promoter is not satisfied with that (and probably shouldn't be), isn't the answer that the promoter sit down, by themselves, in conjunction with an artist advisory group, or a consultant, and figure out how to attract a broader-based art buying crowd?
Sorry. Got carried away. Panera Bread is closing, so I must sign off (I know, you're all saying "thank god"). Thanks again for being so insightful and writing so eloquently Charlene.
Ron
1. What is an "art professional"? Can you give me a viable, working definition?
2. How broad-based is any "art professional"? Do they know equally much about the work exhibited at a good art show across all media (jewelry? Mixed-media? Painting? Sculpting? Glass? Photography? etc. etc. etc.) Have they even SEEN much of what is shown at an art show?
3. Do you really think ANY juror can determine a concept such as "quality" from 2D jury slides projected on a wall or viewed on a computer screen?
4. What is the relevance of an "art professional" to the buying public? How do you explain artists that are juried in by "art professionals" are are unable to sell a single piece of work to the buying public? And the more that this happens, what effect do you think those "art professionals" are having on the success, or demise, of an art show?
As for returning artists, this is where a jury at the show comes into play. I have often seen people get into shows where once you look at their website, they probably ONLY had four good slides to jury in with. The rest of the work is just bad. Thus at the show their booth is the best representation of their work.
I believe that one juror should be established interior designer. These professionals don't tend to just lean towards one form of artwork but instead work with varying interests and designs. Add two to four other jurors to that and you will have a nice mix. Each juror should visit the booth individually ...not together as a pack.
If your desire is to invite back the top three artists in each category, then award them accordingly. If your desire is to invite back only five artists total, then just have the top five awards. Depending on the size of the show, I can see a Best of show and the top three in each category being an acceptable number to invite back the following year. They would then have to be in the top three in their category again to then be invited back the following year. This will keep their work fresh. I have yet to be in a show where I know I am automatically in the show for the next three years. My shows are usually year to year only if I win an award. Some don't even guarantee it with an award.
If you choose to go this route you need to make sure those who are then applying know what their odds of getting into the show are. Nothing upsets artists more then finding out later that they applied to a show where their odds were about 1%
As Marcie points out, it is tough to know more about why someone states things a certain way in their postings. So forgive me if I misconstrue. I can, at this point, only reply based on what you wrote and how I interpret it.
First, if you meet the public's taste, I argue yes, that is the #1 Priority of what a show is about. Having artists sitting in their booth all weekend not selling, no matter how interesting, creative, or compelling their work is, having the public walk buy and show minimal interest and not purchasing, total disconnect. I can't see how the artist is going to feel any better about that empty of an excercise, nor how costly such an exercise is ... only expenses, no income. And do you not risk people walking away from the show saying something else, akin to "we don't need to come here any more because there isn't anything we want to buy"? Do you EVER want to hear that, as a promoter? Once your promotion, your advertising, gets them across the threshold of your show, do you not want to try to keep them?
Second, if that is the kind of crowd the show is drawing, mostly interested in low-end price and low-end work, look to the promoter. That is the kind of crowd they are drawing through their "promotion", their "advertising", assuming they are advertising much at all. I'd ask as I am certain many others would, "where are the real art buyers?" How are they being missed? Is the focus of the advertising being put in the wrong place?" Questions to that effect. Obviously, something isn't working in promoting the show unless you conclude: those with money wanting to buy higher-end art aren't there to be found.
Third, I am continually puzzled how people conclude, as you may have here and I routinely see on many postings on Larry Berman's site, that if you have a crowded booth, sell well to the public that comes to the show, (aka: meet the public's taste) that the artist is typically low-end, Walmart-ish in their work and pricing and the crowd low-end Walmart-ish in their work. I strongly disagree. Yes, there are some like that out there. Nor do I agree that such artists typically tailor their work to a low-end market. I think far more often than not, if they have been on the show circuit long, they are just good at what they do, and that much of what they make is appealing to the public and bought by the public. They are making what they want as artists. The public just likes it. They are just successful. Yippeeee! What we all want, isn't it? Does any form of critique mean as much as someone breaking out their money to pay you to take home and add to their lives that which you create?
As for issues about low-quality work or artists underpricing other artists, I'd argue that the current jury system used was apparently unable to ferret this kind of information out or that the kinds of jurors being chosen just think that such work, as you say cobbled out of Walmart parts, is somehow deserving of being in the show. I think using a reinvite system of some sort, that such artists might not be reinvited - again - unless that is the market you are drawing and then .... should you not give them what they want, depressing as that might be? Unless the show changes how it advertises and draws a different crowd, that is the reality of that situation. Bringing in lots of high-end esoteric work isn't going to produce any good result, is it? Changing how the show is promoted and advertising is about the only hope I see.
Okay, where'd I badly miss on these points?
We had an artist one year whose sales were fantastic, but it turned out her work was priced well below others working in the same media, and, in my opinion, her work was not as of high a quality (although the images she submitted said otherwise). She was not accepted to the show the following year. The fact that many people purchased her work actually helped us decide to not invite her back, as we do not want to attract an audience that purchases less expensive work of less than excellent quality, or one who expects to find such.
I'm realizing with all these posts that there's a communication element missing - it's difficult in a brief message to mention all of the factors that informed a comment or opinion, so it may end up looking like I've expressed some shallow, black-and-white opinions when I'm sure we all bring plenty of careful consideration of the gray areas, too.
I agree that artists shouldn't have to jury into the same show every year. A three year cycle also seems reasonable to me, as well as returning the artists to the jury pool after their third year (as Ron suggests) rather than 'retiring' them from the event for a period of time.
One of my priorities is to draw patrons to an event where they will discover high-quality art they will purchase, and will also discover some artists they've never met. I have seen a number of fairs suffer from slowly declining patron attendance and heard comments from patrons to the effect that they don't need to go to that show every year because it's mostly all the same artists. Granted there are people who want to return each year for just that reason - they want to see mostly the same artists. I think the shows that continue to grow (in patron attendance and in art sales) are those that offer patrons enough 'new' each year that they want to return and bring friends.
Finding the balance is tricky, but that's what I want to discover or develop. I think what will work is to phase in a process over several years rather than having all exhibiting artists this year accepted for a three-year period. The artists who apply should be given a clear statement of the show's policy in the prospectus - so that's something we'll have to work on for next year.
My suggestion, heretical as it may sound, is just invite such an artist back - Promoter's Discretion. You try to be fair in what you do Marcie, but sometimes I think "fair" is what is most fair to your patrons and to your event. So don't let glitches in the system prevent it from working. That said, if you keep aside a certain small number of booths each year to invite back artists you want to have continuing to be part of your event for whatever reason, while most artists probably would not have problem with that, do try to do so for the best reasons possible. Say, for example, you have an artist who does not sell particularly well but their artwork just makes your ads come alive, pop, and draw attention from the public. That is an added-value to you and your event. If you want to keep using their work, invite the artist back. Doubt many will have a problem.
If you are keeping sales records for your artists, inviting back will be relatively easy. Say the top 30 to 35% in each category. Yes, after that top 30 to 35%, you may have artists in one medium, say painting, that outsell their counterparts in other mediums (say jewelry or ceramics). But you have a balance you wish to keep in the show, so stick to it. Although in such an example, that little bit of information that painters were doing gangbusters may suggest you patrons really have a fondness for painting and perhaps expanding that category a bit would be warranted?
If a show is not a commission show, you will not likely know who did or did not connect with your patrons. So you will not invite back some who sold extremely well to your patrons (a problem we have brought up before) and invite back some who did not. The more each promoter and their staff pay attention, as Steve Gettle has pointed out, who has a packed booth for most of the show, you will make more correct choices on invitees and that is good, is it not? Among those you invite back, some will likely decline because their sales were bad. So starting at that point and adjusting up if too many do not want to come back, or lowering if everyone does, would seem a good starting point.
Theoretically, if you could get 30% invited and coming back each year, by the start of the 4th year, you will be inviting back 90% and 10% will be fresh or at least juried in from the jury pool. How would that kind of a mix be for you?
Our jurors are required to attend the show. They report to us if they see anyone who's work does not fit our criteria. We do not ask our jurors to review all the work onsite. We want them to shop the show and buy, not be tied down to review all exhibitors. Our staff does that. All previous artist exhibitors are invited back the next show. We are not limited to a set number of booths to fill. We self-limit based on attendee numbers. We also have an 'emerging artist' category. The criteria for that is they have a small line of work, 5 or less wholesale accounts, and have never exhibited in a trade show. They can only exhibit once as an emerging artist. After that, they need to graduate to a full size booth. Emerging artists get a smaller, less expensive booth with lots of hand holding from your's truely. I do one on one consults with them to answer all their questions about wholesale, display, shipping, and brochures etc. We also have many web seminars recorded to help them. The emerging artists are a huge draw for retailers and it keeps our show fresh with new work. This show, we have 76 emerging artist booths.
Sometimes we do get artists who lied on their application and are not appropriate. For example, all work must be made/cast in the US or Canada. The artist or a studio employee must be present. No sales rep, no importers. So after the show, i collect everyone's notes and contact the offenders to discuss the situation. I give them the chance to explain, research the problem, then i will tell them whether or not they can continue with us or not.
As for a blind jury, we decided not to do it that way. Most of our jurors are retailers and they are volunteers. One of their perks for jurors is that they can be the first to order from the new applicants. Many do. For retailers, being the first one in their city to carry the work of someone new is important. Many wholesale artist have a policy not to sell to two or more stores within the same zip code.
Well, i gotta pack for Vegas. Move-in starts on Friday.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next