Three before and after images of some common problems when shooting a picture of your booth:
http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/booth-bottom.htm
Wrinkled table covers, too short canopy sides showing what's behind the booth and marking in the street and panel skirting that blends into the black page background for jurying,
Larry Berman
Digital Jury Services
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100
You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!
Holly is correct in her statement about the time the commentator/analyst had to look at the images of each artist - maybe as much as 10 minutes in some cases. However, the point I was trying to make in the above note was the inconsistency of the commentator's judgements of what was and was not acceptable in an overall booth slide. And I believe floor covering to be about as unimportant a jury-able factor as there can be (unless it's that lovely orange shag that we all know and love).
Also, this commentator raved about a second series of images I submitted, but was nonplussed when I told him/her that he/she had rejected these same images at an art show just some months before. This indicates to me that this juror possibly has no firm base line of what he/she considers acceptable or non-acceptable work. But, to be fair, it could have been the pressure of jurying an art show with as many as 1,000 - 2,000 submissions and only allowed 10 seconds (or less, as one major, major art show allows its jurors) per submission vs. the 5-10 minutes to look at images in the mock jury.
Robert Wallis > MICHAEL ALAN STIPEKOctober 31, 2010 at 5:33pm
Michael;
Having ten seconds or less can also influence what you submit. If there are 4 or 5 images to look at and score in 10 seconds or less, then subtlety flies out the window and the submitted work had better have visual punchiness and be eye candy, or it's not going to get noticed. Forget about contemplative work that needs to be looked at and slowly enjoyed, it's got to grab someone by the throat and shake the snot out of them in 2-3 seconds.
Carla, I know you didn't really mean to give a real "pop" to the suspect in a previous note. Maybe a nugee? That would show affection, but with a sisterly/brotherly admonition to straighten up and fly right. Or jury consistently.
And that brings up a good question (thank you Self): should jurors for ZAPP submissions (or JAS or whatever) know and be known to the artists? Should art show artists jury the submissions? Because that person may know many of the artists by their work and undoubtedly cannot help but by swayed by this foreknowledge and jury accordingly. It's but Human Nature.
And is this comment on the wrong thread? Dang, give me a nugee!
Connie Mettler > MICHAEL ALAN STIPEKNovember 1, 2010 at 6:15pm
Dear Carla and Holly,
Would you please stop hijacking this thread and take your boxing match to the proper arena? I am amused then I am outraged...or do you prefer I just ignore this? Please give me direction here.
(Let's take a moment away and watch a couple of real pro's in action, shall we?)
Bugs: It's true, Doc. I'm a rabbit, alright. Would you like to shoot me now or wait 'til you get home?
Daffy: Shoot him now! Shoot him now!
Bugs: You keep outta this! He doesn't have to shoot you now!
Daffy: He does so have to shoot me now! [to Elmer] I demand that you shoot me now!
[Elmer looks at the camera, unsure if Daffy knows what he's talking about. As Daffy sticks his tongue out at Bugs, he is shot. Daffy puts his beak in its place and pushes the tongue back in and walks back over to Bugs, gun smoke pouring out of his nostrils.]
Daffy: [to Bugs] Let's run through that again.
Bugs: Okay. [deadpan] Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home.
Daffy: [similarly] Shoot him now; shoot him now.
Bugs: [as before] You keep outta this, he doesn't have to shoot you now.
Daffy: [re-animated] Hah! That’s it! Hold it right there! [to audience] Pronoun trouble. [to Bugs] It's not "He doesn't have to shoot you now". It's "He doesn't have to shoot me now."
[Pause]
Daffy: [angrily] Well, I say he does have to shoot me now!! [to Elmer] So shoot me now!!!
[Elmer obliges and lets him have it. Daffy puts his beak back to normal and rushes to Bugs in a pose with him pointing a finger at him with his mouth open.]
Bugs: Yes?
[Daffy looks at the camera and forcibly pulls his arm back and closes his beak.]
Daffy: [shakes his head] Oh no you don't. [shakes head again] Not again. Sorry.
[Daffy walks over to Elmer.]
Daffy: This time we'll try it from the other end. Look, you're a hunter, right?
Elmer: Wight!
Daffy: And this is rabbit season, right?
Elmer: Wight!
Bugs: [interrupting, pointing at Daffy] And if he was a rabbit, what would you do?
Daffy: Yeah, if you're so smart. If I was a rabbit what would you do?
Elmer: Well, I'd... [Points gun at Daffy]
Daffy: [Looks at the camera in horror] Not again! [gets shot]
[Daffy puts his beak back and walks over to Bugs with a deadpan expression.]
Daffy: [re-animated] Ha-ha-ha, very funny, ha-ha-ha! [resumes deadpan expression]
Connie, some things are just funny no matter how many times it's seen or heard. Bugs and Daffy, Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello, Martin and Lewis, Penn and Teller, Jagger and Richards (if you've seen Keith's book), and now it's Olinger and Fox - (that's a great name: "Olinger & Fox" !!!). My money is on Holly though, anyone want action on who gives up first? I don't want to take your money, but I will if you want to bet on the other one. Who's in? Who's in? Holly can take her in 3 posts - who's in?
OK, just kidding - but they do write some funny stuff, you have to admit!
So Munks is Holly Bugs or Daffy? Which one is the straight man in this new duo? I will agree that Olinger & Fox is a great name. Y'all should go on the road with that.
CM Fox > Melanie RolfesNovember 1, 2010 at 10:51pm
I once made a wonderful Daffy Duck outta wire and covered it with cloth. It was my favorite piece of art work for a long time. I was in elementary school, when they still taught art.
I am giving myself a nuggee and putting myself in time-out.
Sorry Mom. 8-( I'll be good.
Back to the thread.
Where did we leave off? I think as a show director and an artist a nice tidy well-shot booth image is all one needs. I am amazed at the variety of gawd awful booth images that artists jury with. Artists who know better.
And while I agree setting up a booth in one's driveway, yard, the local park etc, is a HUGE pain in the arsky, if that's the only way to get a good booth shot, do it.
In very competitive jurying, the jurors are not only looking to say YES to your app, but also to say NO to your app when they get down to the final cut. Give them ZERO ZIP NADA reason to say no to your app.
That said, rug or grass or asphalt shouldn't matter. But do stage it a bit to look nice, without showing a booth that is not similar to what you will show up with at a show.
This was my favorite booth and booth shot until....Larry said people might object to my brite green and I got very tired of everyone telling me how great the displays case legs were. They were getting more attention then my jewelry at some shows. The legs and curtain color has been retired, but I am still using green, a more subdued green, Sage.
I've been reading this thread and it's been in the back of my mind this weekend. Something was bothering me, but I couldn't put my finger on it until today.
If an "expert" juror is looking at the bottom of a booth, then he (or she) is not looking at the body of work in the booth, are they? In other words, if the booth shot is supposed to communicate the body of work and overall display that the artist is putting forth (in about, what, 3 seconds?) - the bottom of the booth should either not be noticed because the work is so stellar and/or the bottom of the booth showing worn grass or a painted number on the bottom should be interpreted as being a real depiction of a booth in action. Any juror worth their salt should recognize these two key elements and dismiss them as part of the gestalt of a booth at a genuine show rather than a staged trompe l'oeil - whether high-tech (Photoshop) or low-tech (ironing the table covers before taking them out to the backyard for the booth shot).
Now, all of us have been to a fair number of art fairs. Has anyone walked past a booth and thought: "Wow, I can't believe that let those wrinkly-ass table covers into this show", or "I can't believe that painter was allowed to do this top-notch show, what with her "high-water" booth sides!" ? On a similar note, I don't think the jurors have even been very successful at weeding out awful displays because they are still at the shows anyway.
Maybe, just maybe the jurors should focus on the art work and an overall presentation rather than targeting how well the artist can stage their photos for the jury? Might even help the quality of the show, hmmm?. I can think of about 10 top shelf artists off the top of my head that put their emphasis on their work and simply put together a clean, genuine display without going crazy over minor details.
Maybe the focus should go back to where it belongs: focusing on the art in the booth and on the customers rather than whether or not the artist removed or did not remove a stupid show tag, or ironed their covers, or laid a carpet down or not?
Common sense is one thing, but sometimes this stuff just goes overboard.
I agree that much of the nit picking seems to be over the top. And it is. Unfortunately the reality of it is that what used to simply be proof that an artist did have enough work already prepared for a show has now devolved to a booth beautiful presentation that several promoters use to make or break acceptance. Checking two of the biggies, Alan and Amdur, you find booth criteria listed that includes things like no exposed metal, everything covered in fabric, all stock to be covered, carpet to be used to cover the ground, so on and so on. Yep, it's picky out out the wazoo, and yet many of the shows have such high application rates it bogles the mind.
My media is photography, and it seems like everyone who gets a digital camera for Christmas decides they're going to become an artist on the circuit the following year. Ten to one application rates are not unusual for photographers and some shows are worse than that. So how do you make the distinction as a juror when you see boatloads of images that all look alike?
It comes down to playing the game, and making the booth shot look as polished as hell, looking like a little high end gallery on the street. You have to "Martha Stewart" the booth to look warm and appealing as possible with little pieces of frou-frou stuck here and there to be decorative.
At one time, I had gone as far as having the indoor-outdor carpeting on the ground, (dark blue BTW to contrast with the panels), a long piece of muslin to go across the top of the booth and down the legs which was drawn up with ties to look like drapery, and I bought a whole bunch of climbing Ivy from either Michael's or somebody like that and draped that crap across the top of the tent framework and the cross struts. Mein Gott in Himmel! Doing all that crap took a couple of hours set-up time, and I finally said to hell with it.
All this is in the name of gainng a point or two extra to make the cut. Do I like it? Nope, not a bit. Will I do it if I start getting rejections? You better believe it, and in a heart beat.
I have the same feelings about the "unified theme" as opposed to showing a well executed diversity in the entry pieces. I changed that approach considerably and went with same subject content to a stricter degree, and got into a few shows this year that I wasn't able to get into before and get back into again.
I look at my last booth slide which is now like 4 or 5 years old, and I see where it needs to be cleaned up and changed. I've taken other booth shots since, but the layout was one where I was getting as much wall space into the 10x10 as possible and it made getting a front view that showed much almost impossible. That one was interesting in that it had 63 feet of wall space in there. It also was like a rat maze, and you couldn't see most of the customers, and they couldn't see everything at a glance as probably 1/3 to 1/2 wasn't visible unless you walked through.
The new booth has to be decluttered, not just of the boxes and tubs visible behind panels, but also of work that isn't moving, and my suspicion is that only larger pieces should be hanging. I've also cut back on the panels inside the booth, with a door to the back and a 7 foot section running down the middle. I think that is more what you're suggesting for a better overall presentation; clean and simple, and not wallpapered with work. I'm even thinking about doing small gallery placards to go beside the work ;-)
Replies
Also, this commentator raved about a second series of images I submitted, but was nonplussed when I told him/her that he/she had rejected these same images at an art show just some months before. This indicates to me that this juror possibly has no firm base line of what he/she considers acceptable or non-acceptable work. But, to be fair, it could have been the pressure of jurying an art show with as many as 1,000 - 2,000 submissions and only allowed 10 seconds (or less, as one major, major art show allows its jurors) per submission vs. the 5-10 minutes to look at images in the mock jury.
Having ten seconds or less can also influence what you submit. If there are 4 or 5 images to look at and score in 10 seconds or less, then subtlety flies out the window and the submitted work had better have visual punchiness and be eye candy, or it's not going to get noticed. Forget about contemplative work that needs to be looked at and slowly enjoyed, it's got to grab someone by the throat and shake the snot out of them in 2-3 seconds.
Pot, kettle black.
I guess humor is in the eye of the beholder.
And that brings up a good question (thank you Self): should jurors for ZAPP submissions (or JAS or whatever) know and be known to the artists? Should art show artists jury the submissions? Because that person may know many of the artists by their work and undoubtedly cannot help but by swayed by this foreknowledge and jury accordingly. It's but Human Nature.
And is this comment on the wrong thread? Dang, give me a nugee!
Would you please stop hijacking this thread and take your boxing match to the proper arena? I am amused then I am outraged...or do you prefer I just ignore this? Please give me direction here.
"Rabbit season!"
"Duck season!"
"Rabbit season!"
"Duck season!"
"Rabbit season!" . . .
(Let's take a moment away and watch a couple of real pro's in action, shall we?)
Bugs: It's true, Doc. I'm a rabbit, alright. Would you like to shoot me now or wait 'til you get home?
Daffy: Shoot him now! Shoot him now!
Bugs: You keep outta this! He doesn't have to shoot you now!
Daffy: He does so have to shoot me now! [to Elmer] I demand that you shoot me now!
[Elmer looks at the camera, unsure if Daffy knows what he's talking about. As Daffy sticks his tongue out at Bugs, he is shot. Daffy puts his beak in its place and pushes the tongue back in and walks back over to Bugs, gun smoke pouring out of his nostrils.]
Daffy: [to Bugs] Let's run through that again.
Bugs: Okay. [deadpan] Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home.
Daffy: [similarly] Shoot him now; shoot him now.
Bugs: [as before] You keep outta this, he doesn't have to shoot you now.
Daffy: [re-animated] Hah! That’s it! Hold it right there! [to audience] Pronoun trouble. [to Bugs] It's not "He doesn't have to shoot you now". It's "He doesn't have to shoot me now."
[Pause]
Daffy: [angrily] Well, I say he does have to shoot me now!! [to Elmer] So shoot me now!!!
[Elmer obliges and lets him have it. Daffy puts his beak back to normal and rushes to Bugs in a pose with him pointing a finger at him with his mouth open.]
Bugs: Yes?
[Daffy looks at the camera and forcibly pulls his arm back and closes his beak.]
Daffy: [shakes his head] Oh no you don't. [shakes head again] Not again. Sorry.
[Daffy walks over to Elmer.]
Daffy: This time we'll try it from the other end. Look, you're a hunter, right?
Elmer: Wight!
Daffy: And this is rabbit season, right?
Elmer: Wight!
Bugs: [interrupting, pointing at Daffy] And if he was a rabbit, what would you do?
Daffy: Yeah, if you're so smart. If I was a rabbit what would you do?
Elmer: Well, I'd... [Points gun at Daffy]
Daffy: [Looks at the camera in horror] Not again! [gets shot]
[Daffy puts his beak back and walks over to Bugs with a deadpan expression.]
Daffy: [re-animated] Ha-ha-ha, very funny, ha-ha-ha! [resumes deadpan expression]
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_Seasoning (- just in case anyone is checking my sources.)
. . . and so it goes . . .
Connie, some things are just funny no matter how many times it's seen or heard. Bugs and Daffy, Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello, Martin and Lewis, Penn and Teller, Jagger and Richards (if you've seen Keith's book), and now it's Olinger and Fox - (that's a great name: "Olinger & Fox" !!!). My money is on Holly though, anyone want action on who gives up first? I don't want to take your money, but I will if you want to bet on the other one. Who's in? Who's in? Holly can take her in 3 posts - who's in?
OK, just kidding - but they do write some funny stuff, you have to admit!
I am giving myself a nuggee and putting myself in time-out.
Sorry Mom. 8-( I'll be good.
Back to the thread.
Where did we leave off? I think as a show director and an artist a nice tidy well-shot booth image is all one needs. I am amazed at the variety of gawd awful booth images that artists jury with. Artists who know better.
And while I agree setting up a booth in one's driveway, yard, the local park etc, is a HUGE pain in the arsky, if that's the only way to get a good booth shot, do it.
In very competitive jurying, the jurors are not only looking to say YES to your app, but also to say NO to your app when they get down to the final cut. Give them ZERO ZIP NADA reason to say no to your app.
That said, rug or grass or asphalt shouldn't matter. But do stage it a bit to look nice, without showing a booth that is not similar to what you will show up with at a show.
This was my favorite booth and booth shot until....Larry said people might object to my brite green and I got very tired of everyone telling me how great the displays case legs were. They were getting more attention then my jewelry at some shows. The legs and curtain color has been retired, but I am still using green, a more subdued green, Sage.
C.
boothshot green.jpg
If an "expert" juror is looking at the bottom of a booth, then he (or she) is not looking at the body of work in the booth, are they? In other words, if the booth shot is supposed to communicate the body of work and overall display that the artist is putting forth (in about, what, 3 seconds?) - the bottom of the booth should either not be noticed because the work is so stellar and/or the bottom of the booth showing worn grass or a painted number on the bottom should be interpreted as being a real depiction of a booth in action. Any juror worth their salt should recognize these two key elements and dismiss them as part of the gestalt of a booth at a genuine show rather than a staged trompe l'oeil - whether high-tech (Photoshop) or low-tech (ironing the table covers before taking them out to the backyard for the booth shot).
Now, all of us have been to a fair number of art fairs. Has anyone walked past a booth and thought: "Wow, I can't believe that let those wrinkly-ass table covers into this show", or "I can't believe that painter was allowed to do this top-notch show, what with her "high-water" booth sides!" ? On a similar note, I don't think the jurors have even been very successful at weeding out awful displays because they are still at the shows anyway.
Maybe, just maybe the jurors should focus on the art work and an overall presentation rather than targeting how well the artist can stage their photos for the jury? Might even help the quality of the show, hmmm?. I can think of about 10 top shelf artists off the top of my head that put their emphasis on their work and simply put together a clean, genuine display without going crazy over minor details.
Maybe the focus should go back to where it belongs: focusing on the art in the booth and on the customers rather than whether or not the artist removed or did not remove a stupid show tag, or ironed their covers, or laid a carpet down or not?
Common sense is one thing, but sometimes this stuff just goes overboard.
I agree that much of the nit picking seems to be over the top. And it is. Unfortunately the reality of it is that what used to simply be proof that an artist did have enough work already prepared for a show has now devolved to a booth beautiful presentation that several promoters use to make or break acceptance. Checking two of the biggies, Alan and Amdur, you find booth criteria listed that includes things like no exposed metal, everything covered in fabric, all stock to be covered, carpet to be used to cover the ground, so on and so on. Yep, it's picky out out the wazoo, and yet many of the shows have such high application rates it bogles the mind.
My media is photography, and it seems like everyone who gets a digital camera for Christmas decides they're going to become an artist on the circuit the following year. Ten to one application rates are not unusual for photographers and some shows are worse than that. So how do you make the distinction as a juror when you see boatloads of images that all look alike?
It comes down to playing the game, and making the booth shot look as polished as hell, looking like a little high end gallery on the street. You have to "Martha Stewart" the booth to look warm and appealing as possible with little pieces of frou-frou stuck here and there to be decorative.
At one time, I had gone as far as having the indoor-outdor carpeting on the ground, (dark blue BTW to contrast with the panels), a long piece of muslin to go across the top of the booth and down the legs which was drawn up with ties to look like drapery, and I bought a whole bunch of climbing Ivy from either Michael's or somebody like that and draped that crap across the top of the tent framework and the cross struts. Mein Gott in Himmel! Doing all that crap took a couple of hours set-up time, and I finally said to hell with it.
All this is in the name of gainng a point or two extra to make the cut. Do I like it? Nope, not a bit. Will I do it if I start getting rejections? You better believe it, and in a heart beat.
I have the same feelings about the "unified theme" as opposed to showing a well executed diversity in the entry pieces. I changed that approach considerably and went with same subject content to a stricter degree, and got into a few shows this year that I wasn't able to get into before and get back into again.
I look at my last booth slide which is now like 4 or 5 years old, and I see where it needs to be cleaned up and changed. I've taken other booth shots since, but the layout was one where I was getting as much wall space into the 10x10 as possible and it made getting a front view that showed much almost impossible. That one was interesting in that it had 63 feet of wall space in there. It also was like a rat maze, and you couldn't see most of the customers, and they couldn't see everything at a glance as probably 1/3 to 1/2 wasn't visible unless you walked through.
The new booth has to be decluttered, not just of the boxes and tubs visible behind panels, but also of work that isn't moving, and my suspicion is that only larger pieces should be hanging. I've also cut back on the panels inside the booth, with a door to the back and a 7 foot section running down the middle. I think that is more what you're suggesting for a better overall presentation; clean and simple, and not wallpapered with work. I'm even thinking about doing small gallery placards to go beside the work ;-)
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next