The following essay was sent me by an artist who has made a living at shows for the past 20 years. It's going to ruffle a lot of feathers but even more people are going to relate to it.
http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/art-show-police.htm
If outdoor art shows pay your bills, be concerned. There's a trend afoot which could severely impact your ability to make a living, and I'm not talking about just the economy. I'm talking about the expanding powers of the art police to restrict what you can sell. And for some of us, our art show income has paid health insurance, mortgage and supported our families for years.
This new trend also speaks to the very question of why art shows exist in the first place. Should they be for you to sell your work and make a living? Or should they be more for exhibition and occasionally winning an award from a judge because your piece has made some profound statement about the human condition?
What's happening now seems to be the latest installment of the historic conflict between art and commerce. The evolution of the art show business over the past four decades has allowed many of us the luxury and satisfaction of doing these shows for a living. We've not had to be waiters or cab drivers or Wal-Mart greeters to finance our art habits.
How did an art show earn one of those top 20 national rankings in the first place? It happens because a ton of people came and bought our art. The problem is the traditional cat-and-mouse game between many artists and the jurors who select them. Big show jurors tend to be academics and museum people inclined to select on the basis of "artsy" work that few show visitors would typically want to purchase. But you, the artist, cannot drive 1,000 or 2,000 miles to a Cherry Creek or a St. Louis only to lose money. So what do you do? In addition to the work which you juried in with, most artists produce work that they know is saleable and not jury pieces. Up to now, you’ve been able to include that sales-worthy work in your booth.
There's a big buzz in our business these days about this new art police incursion. Many bigger shows and even some middle-range ones are dispatching the typically stony-faced art police to your tent with a copy of the jury image of your display. Anything they see in your booth that’s not in the picture has to come down on the spot. You're left only with the pieces the jurors liked, those which tend to be non-sellers. So you mostly just twiddle your thumbs until teardown on Sunday evening and hope your credit card still works on the way home.
Some shows are firing warning salvos to accepted artists in advance, advising via e-mail that you darn well better limit your display to what got you juried in.
Disclaimer: This new restriction will not affect all of you, certainly not those few fortunate enough to produce work that is both jury-worthy and sales-worthy. But you are a small minority. And, I'm not suggesting shows should not have rules. I'm just thinking this trend could have a big impact on the way many of us have run our businesses.
We have here an intensifying of the Catch-22 we've worked with for years: If you can get juried in or win something with it, you can't sell it. If you can sell it, you can't get juried in with it.
Most artists would not go to these shows only to lose money. And if a whole bunch of artists can't go to a top 20 show and make money, how long might that show continue to be a top 20 show? Perhaps show directors should consider the possible long-term implications of their new restrictions.
Typical big-show jurors come from a different universe than you. They have their weekly college or museum paychecks. I sense they don't really understand that many of us do not enjoy the safety net of that regular check. Whereas these people can afford an elitist perspective, most of us have to be more pragmatic in order to finance our art except perhaps for those among us who enjoy inheritances or trust funds of a spouse who makes a bundle. Or those rare talents mentioned earlier, able to produce work that can both jury in and sell.
For better or worse, the art show business has become about money. The shows make money. The artists make money. The visitors are able to buy something and go away happy.
I'm not suggesting this new art police initiative necessarily is wrong. I'm just saying it could impact the way many artists earn a living. It could severely limit sales at traditionally big-selling shows. And this doesn’t come at the best of times, considering the economy which already has put some of us out of business. The rest of us may have to buckle up for an even rougher ride.
Larry Berman
Art Show Jury Services
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100
Replies
I just commented on the blog thread "Crafter Police," which is pretty similar to what is going on in the above thread.
In regard to Les Slesnick, I think too much authority and power has been placed in his hands. He is but one person who juries shows, who writes about standards. There are many others, most anonymous, so let's support the system, not any particular individual. This business has existed before he came along and will do just fine, with periodic tweaks and complaints and gratitudes long after he has left the scene.
This is not a personal attack, just an observation, an opinion.
Sheila:
Your experience has clearly illustrated the problem. And no you and your work are not the problem.
What I am still fuzzy on is what problem was this show trying to solve with the specifics on the booth photo?
C
So this means, that the booth you shoot this summer in accordance to their rules for booths and booth shots; is to be the exact booth that you show up with next year....2012, should you get in and want to go.
Let's hope you don't evolve, grow, add new images, lose your display to windstorms in the midwest, come up with a better arrangement.....etc.
Sigh.
Thanks for sharing.
Wow, Give'm hell Holly, right on Sheila, nothing like a cat fight in February when we all have time to play! Weeeeee. How about this. A buddy of mine, a fine upstanding fine artist, merged two styles of his work in photoshop, photoshopped them into a booth and got accepted to three major shows... He called me and asked advice on how to make the images that up until now existed in cyberspace. That's what we are up against.
As an aside, I love the discussions about "respecting" artists. Last year at Mt. Dora, they towed away a guy's trailer while he went to the Home Depot to get chocks. Nice.
Perhaps this is the article from NAIA?
http://naia-artists.org/resources/Newspaper/Issue7/Page8.htm
Gary
www.reflectionsimaging.com
I find the following verbatim quote from the article the most interesting. Perhaps one can infer from the verbiage that in fact one man is the crusader, judge and juror of the artist's sins.
and I quote, "I've already indicted (my emphasis) artists for misrepresentations: those which are calculated efforts to bait the juror and switch at show time..."
How many artists make a special piece of exceptional value and craftsmanship or artistry to submit with their slides to compete? How many artists make a whole lot of other items as well as their 'special' piece because they know that fewer people will spend a lot of money on an expensive piece and they have to make a living! As long as that show piece or a piece with similar craftsmanship is in your booth and your booth shot has examples of both types of work that should work for the jurors.