Blog

Let me premise this one by a wonderful quote from someone a few of you may have heard of:

God is really only another artist. He invented the giraffe, the elephant and the cat. He has no real style. He just goes on trying other things. - Pablo Picasso

Think God would make it past most juries these days?  Sure doesn’t seem like he has a “cohesive body of work” according to many jurors.  Guess he never had to face an art show jury in his day.

Also, if jurors are composed of "art experts" or "experts in their fields" - should definition of terms really be so widely interpreted and varied in their application?

Such terminology or dare we say "definitions" as "consistent body of work", "cohesive body of work" or "breadth of work" are thrown around IMO carelessly without definition or example in the prospectus and then again in the jury process, without supervision creating a confusing and in many ways lethal scenario for the fate of artists and patrons.

If a show prospectus says something akin to: the jury slides and booth slides you submit should represent the body of work, or breadth of work ...... what exactly are they saying?  How are we interpreting these words and combinations of words? Are we to micro-interpret that if the wording is "should" rather than "must" that leaves it more open to open interpretation by the artists?  Or is the intent clear either way?  Clear to the show?  Clear to us?  Do shows evaluate their documents to see if their choice of words (i.e., wordsmithing) is crystal clear?  Clearly transmitting their intent without ambiguity? Is whatever the definition of these words by the SHOW that wrote these terms clearly and unambiguously communicated to their JURORS?  Can jurors score submissions based on a different set of definitions or interpretations?

So for your consideration, some examples. All these where the prospectus says the jury and booth slides should (or even if they say "must") represent the "breadth" or "body" of work to be shown":

• Your a photographer shooting both black-and-white and color, about equally.  Do you only submit B&W?  If you perceive, based on your experience, jurors will respond more positively to B&W than to color - or - believe that jurors seeing a mix of B&W and color are more likely to say that is not a "cohesive" or "consistent" body of work and score them down - either way - would mixing B&W and color imagery be an inconsistent body of work?  If you only show B&W in the jury slides, should you be allowed to also show your color work? Is the B&W imagery just one manifestation of the body of work, that cover the body of work, the style, the vision?   What if that ratio is not 50:50 but more say 80:20 of B&W vs. color images?  Does THAT matter?  Would showing only say B&W images then also be considered representative of the "breadth" or "body" of your work?
• Your a ceramic artist creating both functional (e.g., bowls, plates, mugs) and nonfunctional works (e.g., wall pieces or large decorative vases).  Should you only submit images of your functional work? Only of nonfunctional? Are you compelled to show both in their jury images submitted?  Show the functional pieces as their jury image slides and include the nonfunctional pieces only in the booth image and assume that is okay and meets the definitions/rules of the prospectus?  Are you okay with the show saying "you didn't include images of your nonfunctional work in your jury images so you cannot show them at the event?"
• Your a painter creating images of flowers, seascapes and pastoral landscapes - must you show them all in the jury slides?  Does a mix of flowers and seascapes and landscapes, if that is what your paint, demonstrate an inconsistent or non-cohesive body of work for which you might be penalized by the jurors for showing an inconsistent body of work?
• Your a jeweler doing typically jewelry (e.g., necklaces, rings, earrings) yet also create non-functional sculptural pieces.  Must you show examples of both in your jury slides?  Just show the traditional work in their jury slides and the nonfunctional pieces in their booth slide?  Okay if the show says you can't show one or the other because of what you submitted?

Okay.  Now let's put you in the seat of a juror.  

• You see a submission of 3 verticals and one horizontal - then the booth slide.  Is that an inconsistent body of work because horizontal and vertical images are mixed?
• You see three images with strong reddish colorations and one with a bluish coloration.  Consistent body of work?  Not?  Consistent presentation?  Not?
• You see two large outdoor installation sculptures, and two small table-top-sized sculptures.  Consistent?  Inconsistent?  Penalty in scoring? Or none?
• You see a handmade large wooden table, a large wood rocking chair, a standing clock, and a small wooden jewelry box.  Consistent?  Inconsistent?  Penalty in scoring?  Or none?
• You see a giraffe, an elephant, a cat, and a bird ...... okay - I digress

These aren't meant to be laughable, nonsensical examples (except that last one of course).  These are real.  They have happened.  

Definitions have a purpose - to clarify.  These terms referring to a "consistent", "cohesive" and "body of work" among others are in no way - IMO - clear.  They are written as words by a show in a prospectus that represent a binding legal contract and equally binding ethical contract with us - artisans - to say this is what we expect you do to, to submit, and then how you will be judged and what you will be allowed to show - based on these characteristics of your work as represented by your jury images.  Are these terms clear to you?  Are you okay with them not being clear?  And are you okay with thinking in reading the prospectus that you understand and choose your images and pay your fee accordingly, only to find out later than that is NOT how they were judged?  Perhaps that show staff pre-juried you out because of such inconsistencies, or perhaps that jurors applied a different interpretation of those words or concepts?  Part of this absolutely is Show Management (last topic to be posted here shortly) - clear and unambiguous teaching of the jury what the rules, definitions and interpretation of those definitions are.  The other part is a clear stating of what these terms, concepts and ideas are to us so we have a target to shoot for.  No?

Your turn.

I am posting three separate discussions on the issue of jurors and jurying at shows.  Please, do not write or respond on this particular discussion – it is intended only as the intro to the other three discussions.  This came about – besides the years of being an artist and previous good discussion on this site as recently as a few years ago – as a result of two comments made by artists responding to a post by a great friend of mine, Rich Fulwiler, in his blog “Total Disconnect”.  Most recently by Mark Turner’s post bringing attention to this subject.

In Rich Fulwiler’s original post, one comment from Thomas Felsted was “… jurors are soooo overly qualified elitist a who curate art to a level of snobbishness that is disconnected with the buying public.”  The second comment was from Barrie Lynn Bryant who wrote “I think that judges are usually quite qualified and only sometimes a little less than qualified.”  Defines a breadth of opinions about jurors.  

The issues being raised by these postings are related to jurors and the jury process.  Each aspect has qualities that need to be thought about and discussed separately – hence the separate discussions, even though they interrelate at some point. Because far too often each aspect goes awry – it is through their unholy union that we as artists, and art patrons suffer as the failing parts combine to make a failing system. 

In my opinion:

There is no single point at which our fate as artists, and those of art patrons, are more consequentially affected than through this single point of the jury process.

These topics would be somewhere in the realm of ludicrous-stupid-insane-ridiculous-hideous-mildly entertaining from an outsiders perspective versed in business as in “.. so THAT’s how they do BUSINESS???? Art shows are a business after all.   Since we are intimately involved in the landscape of art shows, the impact “jurors” have on our lives as artists is staggering and no, not funny or amusing.  Definitely stupid, ludicrous, insane and ridiculous.  An absent from the entire process in most all cases is the voice of the public that comes to shows and buy art – patrons.  Even more stupid, ludicrous, insane and ridiculous.

There also is the frustrating aspect that we as artists, shows, and jurors throw concepts around without ever stopping to define them as if we believed everyone defines something as we do – critical error.  We do not.  Defining what you are speaking about and relating to is crucial to understanding what you are talking or thinking about.  For example, what is a “good juror”?  What is a “consistent body of work”?  What is a “good jury slide”?  Why does a set of slides get you juried into 3 shows and not accepted into 8 others?  Or in your first year of applying and out the next four years?  Or four jurors think your work is stunning (i.e., highest scores possible) and one juror thinks it sucks (i.e., lowest score possible).  If jurors were so “knowledgable” and “expert” and “experienced” – should they not be more consistent?

The four major points about the jury process that I take serious issue with – and wish fervently that all artists did– are the following.  I will ask PLEASE do not ramble on about your personal experiences (e.g., “oh I get into this show all the time and thus the jurors are good and I never get into these shows and thus those jurors are bad”).  As the TV character Perry Mason used to say:  “Irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial”.  Think about things like when you get into a show and do poorly, did the jurors choose unwisely?  When you are one of the best sellers in your category at a show and next year get juried out does that make sense?  When you see a fellow artist win an award from a “judge” (aka: another iteration of a “juror”) and not sell a piece of art at the event – and you know THEY are back in the show next year because of winning the award while the person across from them who sold out may NOT because of ….. juror response, reaction, scoring next year?

The major points I wish to bring up for thought and discussion, one-by-one, are the following:

• What makes a “good” juror?  Why?  What characteristics should be considered?  Are they “experts”?  Or merely critics?  Knowledgeable of all they see?  Or merely opinionated?  Representative of what the public wants to see and purchase?  “Or merely responding to some ‘pushing of the envelope’?

• What is “good management” of the jury process by a show?  For example, To what extent, if any, should jurors be allowed to go outside the guidelines written by the show in their prospectus to artists as to how they will be juried?  One of the chief issues being booth slide and cohesive body of work? And should not the top level show management ALWAYS be present THROUGHOUT the duration of the jury process to answer questions from jurors and monitor the jury process itself?  Is that not a critical aspect of “show management”?  One that we pay for with our jury fees?  And necessary to ensure the jury process is fairly applied?

• What are the definitions for such important jury concepts as “cohesive body of work”, “representative of the body of work” and “good jury slide”?  How do these concepts relate to what the show says in their prospectus – if anything – about the images submitted representing the “body of work” of the artist.  How is “body of work” defined?  If a “body” of work is diverse (e.g., color & B&W photography, functional and non-functional ceramics or functional and nonfunctional glass) is the artist mandated by show rules to show the breadth of work?  Or just a selection (e.g., just the black-and-white photography or just the functional ceramics or glass) that they artists believes may be more positively perceived by the jurors as a “consistent body of work”?  However, if they do so, will any portion of that body of work NOT shown in the jury slides be disallowed at the event?   And should it be? 

What relevance or correlation exists between juror scores and sales? It is not a moot point.  Sales is the voice of the public speaking from the very people the show asked to get off their butts and put the event into their schedule, to drive to the event, to walk the event and – purchase artwork.  Also the very people we, as artists, rely on for our success.  If listening to those that actually BUY art isn’t critical then we are all deluding ourselves about what we do.  And what business in America does not listen to what people in their ‘store’ buy?  How do they expect to succeed if they don’t listen, don’t care?   Art patrons are the essence of this whole exercise.  If they don’t exist or come support the arts at such “art events” then we don’t survive as artists.  Shows can ALWAYS find SOMEONE to give them money for that piece of pavement or grass on which to set up a tent and sell or promote something, even if buy-sell or totally unrelated to art. The “art show” component however will go away.  As will we.

So, following is the first part - The Jury Process: Part 1 - What Makes a "Good Juror".  Remember, it is an exercise about expressing your thoughts, ideas, perspectives on these points and listening to what others have to say - seems the essence of the learning process.  Understanding viewpoints on how the system works - or doesn't - and what positive things can be done to improve our artist environment.