Blog

Hi All!

I recently participated in the St. Louis Mock Jury this past January.  Even though I was unable to attend in person, I participated through their webinar.  As a newbie, I found quite a few take-aways from this experience. Even though I didn't really have a booth shot to submit, the biggest tips for me were on my future booth shots.  Don't overcrowd your booth with too much artwork, make your displays look professional and inviting, don't have any signage or promotional banners showing in your shot, and don't be afraid to crop your shot - you don't need top of your tent showing, lol. The jurors favored those displays that appeared clean and organized.  The artwork should be displayed with purpose, not randomly scattered throughout.  Some artists had rugs or backdrops, and these were praised when they worked well, but they didn't always work well - so, I guess, when in doubt, leave it out!

On the artwork side, I learned that you need to carefully photograph your work.  Have sharp images that are well cropped.  I was surprised how many photos submitted looked faded or washed out - not displaying your true colors takes away from your artwork.  And, again as with the booth shot, your name should not be showing on your pieces - so take jury photos before you sign your artwork, or photoshop your name out!  Also important, submit pieces that show a consistency in your work.  If you paint all kinds of subject matter, but have a very unique style that can be identified across all your paintings, that's ok.  But there should be something consistent about the works submitted.  Note - that doesn't mean they should all look exactly alike!  Someone submitted three photos of their artwork that almost looked like the identical painting, and the jurors dinged it for being too similar. 

Artist's statements ran the whole gambit!  Some were very straight forward - this is what I do, and these are the materials I use.  Others sought to explain the artist's motivation or philosophy, some just rambled on seemingly incoherently.  The jurors didn't seem particularly biased one way or the other on statements, as long as your submissions seemed to fit with your statement. 

Overall, I found the mock jury event to be worthwhile.  Even though the jurors did not make many comments on my particular submission, I think I learned a lot in general watching the critique of others, and I would recommend participating in this process to anyone new to showing.

So frustrating trying to comprehend why providing artists their jury score and position on the wait-list of an event is such a difficult task for shows to perform.  A few do, very much to their credit and thank you to each and every show that does so.  Most do not.  Some actually get a pissy if you ask for the position on the wait list.

First point, we paid a jury fee for the jury process and that jury score.  Did we not?  And for that $25 to $50 jury fee, are we out-of-line to expect to be provided our jury scores, cut-off scores, and thus where we stand on a wait-list?  I hope show Directors will wade in on this with their rationale.  Educate us why they do not think this is valuable to us, or why they do not have the money to do so.

If a show is truly and honestly juried, each artist has been scored by each juror, those scores totalled to determine who is in, who is out and - who is wait-listed. That score determines what their position is in their medium - and on the wait list, does it not?  

As for communicating that information it has bee provided historically by some shows, probably currently is being done by some, and absolutely positively in this age of computers and the internet - CAN BE DONE.  Broadripple used to put the scores by individual jurors online based on application ID - maybe they still do.  Des Moines used to send out a PDF of the individual jury scores - maybe they also still do so.  Uptown used to send out paper forms with individual juror scores.  Most show do not bother, some  say do not even bother asking as we will not tell you. 

As artists, we realize we will not get into all the shows we really hope to have on our schedule.  Duh.  So we typically apply to multiple shows on the same weekend so we have hope of getting juried into at least one of those events.  Increases our cost of doing business substantially but under the current business model of how most shows are runs, seems unavoidable.  Shows have different application dates, different jury dates and different pay-your-booth-fee-by dates. Some shows refund if you withdraw before the event, some depending on how far out from the event, and others just do not refund your booth fee once it is paid.

I say this last part because that, IMO, is the chief reason for shows to let you know where you are on a wait-list (besides the "we paid for it in the jury/application fee" argument). If we are wait-listed, and another show says "come on down!" and they have a non-refundable booth fee policy, it would be nice to know where we are on a wait-list for the show we most hope to do, would it not?  If we were #1 or #2 is it not a completely different question to wrestle with than if we are #8 or #20 on the wait list? (yes, shows do now have wait-lists that exceed the total number of artists in that medium in that event - sometimes by up to a factor of 2 or 3!).

So this is the communication/courtesy factor:  if we are so far down on the wait-list that given how far down a show has historically ever gone, why not let us know our position on the wait-list and how far down you have ever gone on the wait-list so we can make a meaningful decision to either commit elsewhere or hold out - or even drive to the show and see if a spot opens at the last minute if we are high on the wait-list?  If show Directors and Promoters truly care about the artist base and the success of artisans, is this an unrealistic expectation?  To provide us what we paid for and what we need to make our economic/business decisions?

I think that is a rhetorical question.  It is not an unreasonable request.  Though I open the door to be convinced otherwise.

     Somewhere along the line (right here on AFI!) I learned that jury images need to show a constistency. The pieces need to look like they are all from the same DNA, so to speak. Ever since hearing that, I have had a concern that my jury images are too dissimilar, and that someday I should make them more cohesive. 

So this month, “someday” arrived. I designed and built new statement pieces that are similar to another jury image. In the process of designing, I gave thought to my design and thought processes. Then I started to wonder if anyone else has a similar process. Here’s mine: 

http://sandyartparts.blogspot.com/2016/09/harmonious-blends-making-show-piece.html

It would be very interesting to hear from the rest of you, as to your creative process, as well as thought process when it comes to making a show piece. Please share!

The Columbus Arts Festival is an A-tier show held in downtown Columbus, Ohio in early June.  Their jury process is a two-day affair and is open to the public.  Five paid jurors view projected artwork and booth images on five large screens, and each juror has a laptop where they can view thumbnail images and supporting information and mark their scores.  Each year the show receives in the neighborhood of 1100-1200 applications.

Last year I attended Day 1, when the jury slogs through all of the image sets, seeing each artist's 5 images projected simultaneously.  Last year the images were shown for just 3 seconds before switching to the next set.  I'm still unclear how a juror could see each of the images, make a Yes-No-Maybe decision, and select their decision on their laptop all within 3 seconds, but time marched on and by the end of the day all the apps had been seen.

This year I attended Day 2.  As an aside, due to time-wasting computer glitches on the first day, the last category -- painting -- still needed to go through round 1 so the day started with that leftover task.  I noticed that this year each slide set was projected for about 5 seconds rather than 3, and from my perspective that extra time made a big and welcomed difference.  It was much easier to really see and absorb the work.

On to Round 2.  At the beginning of each category a staff member read the definition/requirements of the category (as listed in the prospectus) and gave both the number of original entries and the number of remaining entries after Day 1's jurying.  In almost every case about half of the category remained for the second round.

This time the images were projected for about 10 seconds (what a luxury!) and the artist statement was read aloud.  Although the jurors were permitted to discuss what they were seeing, they didn't do so.  I had heard that in past years sometimes a juror would either advocate for a particular artist's work or try to dissuade others from accepting an artist, but I didn't see any of that.  The jurors were instructed to assign a rating of 1-7 for each artist, with no 4, and with 7 being the best.  Scores were not announced.

I noticed that there's definitely a difference from year-to-year in the overall flavor of the work being entered and also in the work each set of judges likes.  Not sure what to do with that info, rather than to think that here's yet another area where luck plays a role in whether you're accepted or not.  Who's to know who's applying, what they're entering and what the judges will put through?

Finally, if jurors noticed that an artist had entered in the wrong category -- presumably to get a better shot at acceptance or perhaps purely by mistake -- the artist was disqualified.  They were not reassigned to the appropriate category and juried there.  The artist statement (or "techniques and materials") is the giveaway.  If you're in mixed media, you'd better mention materials in several mediums as it's not always obvious by looking at the image.

The second round took about 3.5 hours to jury 500 +/- applications. 

On Wednesday, February 24 the Broad Ripple Art Fair conducted their open jury for the 2016 Indianapolis-area show held on May 21-22, 2016.  The jurying was held in the small auditorium of the Indianapolis Art Center, which has a raised stage and theater seating.  The jurors were placed at a table positioned in front of the first row of seats and at the left front corner of the stage. 

Three jurors viewed applications from "almost 500" applicants in order to fill approximately 230 spots.  The 3 work images and 1 booth image were displayed on a large screen suspended on the stage and were arranged in a 2x2 grid pattern -- a work image in the upper left and upper right, another work image in the lower left and the booth image in the lower right.  Obviously this arrangement negated any time spent arranging the order of images into a pleasing linear display on Zapp.  Oh well.

Judging by category followed the typical pattern.  First every image set in the category was shown briefly, about 2 seconds per entry, then the pace slowed for the actual judging.  Each set of images was displayed for 30 seconds while the artist's statement was read aloud.  Jurors were asked to assign a score of 1-7, with 7 the highest, and no 4.  There was no discussion among the jurors that I could see/hear.  The show director didn't say how many were accepted in each category, only that an algorithm worked it out.

Total number of entries in each category was sometimes announced; Digital was the smallest category at 5 entries and Jewelry was the largest, of course, at 149 (or thereabouts).  Most of the categories fell in the range of 35-45 entries.

Some interesting notes about jury instructions. 

1.  Jurors were told to judge based on the quality, innovation, originality, technical mastery, etc of the work.  The director stressed that they should NOT judge based on sellability.  "Selling the work is the artist's responsibility once they get to the show; you are judging the merits of the work only."  (Note:  At the Columbus Arts Festival open jury a couple of weeks ago their director said the opposite (I paraphrase): "Of course you're looking at the quality of the work, but you are deciding who will be in the show based on how well you believe their work will sell (emphasis his) to the patrons who attend in this Columbus, Ohio area.  You are not curating a museum exhibit, you are filling an art show."

2.  Broad Ripple show staff had reviewed all the applications ahead of time and if an entry seemed to them to be in the wrong category they moved it to what they felt was the more appropriate category.  (Note: at Columbus, getting into the correct category is seen as the artist's responsibility.  If they don't meet the definition of the category in the eyes of the jury when it's read aloud, they're disqualified rather than moved.)

3.  If the artist's name or logo is visible in the booth shot their score is deducted by one point (on the 1-7 scale with no 4).  As an aside, twice I heard the name included in the artist's statement, such as "Jane Smith's work is a combination of...".  Don't know if the jurors caught that, and if so whether they deducted points, but including your name seemed like a bad idea to me.

4.  Some booth shots were not booth shots, but rather a collection of work on a table or sculptures in a field.  The director stated that the purpose of the booth shot is to see how work will be displayed at the show, so if it's not a real booth shot "score accordingly." 

Finally, two observations about this particular jury, and these are strictly my opinion and I could be wrong. 

1.  The 3 jurors seemed well qualified in terms of art education and they specialized in a variety of specific mediums (which indicated to me that they were working artists or at least instructors, which is good, but of course many of the mediums were not represented on the jury).  They were all fairly young, maybe late twenties to mid 30s, and I always wonder about the depth and breadth of the juror's experience when they're under 40.  Then again they're probably more in touch with the new and innovative than a baby boomer might be.  Gross generalizations, I know. 

One juror in particular seemed to be very green; questions during instructions gave me the impression the juror had never done this before and probably had never even attended a jury before.  I know everyone has to learn somehow, and an Art Center is all about education after all, so perhaps jurying is part of their on-the-job training so to speak.  Still, I couldn't help but think of the hundreds of professional artists who do this for a living and who literally put their financial future in the hands of juries ... well, you get my drift.

2.  I accidentally heard two of the jurors talking during a break.  Juror 1: "I wonder if we'll get to see all the scores so we'll know how everybody rated each one."  Juror 2: "Yeah, it would be interesting to see how our tastes differ."  I'm prepared to give the jurors the benefit of the doubt and believe that when Juror 2 said "taste" it was actually just a poor choice of words and that the juror was well aware that images should be judged on merit and not on what a juror personally likes or doesn't like.  Sigh.

My overriding impression as I walked out the door?  Everybody seemed to be trying hard and taking it seriously.  Having said that, show applications are indeed a crap shoot.  You never really know what the show wants, what the jurors want, what the competition will be, ad nauseum. 

Too much knowledge about show jurying can be a depressing thing. 

Late in 2015, after I'd been rejected again from some of the top shows in the country, I was on a different forum, moaning about my plight. Someone said that the best insights I could have would be to sit in on an open jury. 

A few days later, the mock jury presentation opened in Zapp. I was one of the first 150 who applied, and so I was accepted. I could hit St. Louis with only a slight detour on my route to Arizona to visit my dad and participate in the Tubac Arts Festival. 

I went with some trepidation. I'm self-taught, started painting 10 years ago when I was 50, and so I am relatively new to the art festivals. I have self-doubt from those situations and from a lifetime of self-doubt, and so I was quite nervous about putting my work up for critique in such a public forum, while I was in the room. But this is the year I stop hesitating because I'm afraid, so off I went. 

The event was held in the conference room of a Budweiser distribution company. There was room for probably 50 attendees, but only 15 or 20 attended. About a dozen emerging artists attended, as well. Many of them, interestingly, were in their 50s and above. 

SLAF President and Executive Director Cindy Lerick and Deputy Director Laura Miller organized the presentation, greeted us cheerily and dealt with all the technological particularities (they were doing a webinar for the first time). 

In a typical SLAF jury, there are five jurors. For the mock jury, there were two - Steve Teczar,artist and retired professor of Art at Maryville University in St. Louis; and Peg Fetter, jewelry artist and metal smith. 

Typically, a SLAF jury would receive 1281 applications and choose 150 from them. The waiting list is another 11.7 percent of the total. Missouri applicant make up 8 percent of the total, Lerick said; first-time applicants make up 25 percent of the total. 

The SLAF jury process is three rounds, Lerick said. The first two are yes/no/maybe and it takes a unanimous five "no"s to drop an applicant. In the third round, jurors slow down a little, comment and wrangle. Peg said that when she participated as a juror, the process took 27 hours, and was more than a little contentious at many points. 

The mock jury presentation was set up as the SLAF jury is set up, i.e., five slides - four of work and one of the booth - are shown at the same time. In the regular jury process, they said, the jurors look at the work for about 10 seconds before voting. 

Generally, in my opinion, the work that was submitted was good, though I have to say that I found only a handful of the entries actually exciting. The jewelry category had the best work overall, in my opinion. To my eyes, the sculpture category was the most uneven, with many artists making similar work (small, eccentric, amusing pieces made with reclaimed materials). The sculptors who made different work stood out astonishingly - to me, at least. 

Over the course of the day, several themes emerged. In general, the booth shots were where much of the focus was directed. I was amazed at the many booth shots that were just horrible. EZUps put up crookedly, with the sides open, junk piled in front and a standing fan in the middle. Sagging walls with drooping fabric on them. "Booth shots" that were just tables set up in a gymnasium - or basement, or garage - with chairs and boxes visible in the backgrounds. Booth shots with sunshine slicing across the ground and up the wall, obscuring the work. Booth shots obviously (to the experts' eye) photoshopped. 

Like everyone, I've wondered at the stress that's placed on the booth shot, and now, I understand it a little better. It's incredibly difficult to cut 1281 entries down to 150. I think that the standout work declares itself - at least it did, to my eyes, during the presentation. The truly bad work - and there was some of it, in my opinion, in the presentation - also declares itself.

And then there's the rest of it. If a lot of the work is sort of typical, middling, seen before, this is where the jury shot makes the difference. 

So, people, don't send terrible booth photos to juries. Set up your booth in the back yard, in the driveway, somewhere where you can find even light without bright sunlight or dark shadows. Don't clutter your booth with too much work. That was one of the themes. Again and again and again, the jurors said the booths were cluttered. They wanted to booths to be elegant, spare. "Galleristic" is the word they used. Put up the work then take a third of it down. 

They hated nearly all the booths with brown as the background. Oatmeal-colored backgrounds often got "anemic" comments from the jurors. Peg did not respond well to white or black backgrounds generally, though there were many exceptions; she was not just against white or black, but to her eyes, these colors either washed out the work or were too bleak for the work. A medium gray was what these two jurors suggested repeatedly. A number of times, Steve suggested using a color - not red! - on one wall. 

A few random observations...

• The jurors - and even the audience, after seeing about 50 entries - could tell professional photography from homemade shots, especially in the jewelry category. 
• Do not include frames in your images. 
• Surprisingly, at least to me, the jurors were accepting of some shots I'd not have expected they're like. Jewelers who sent photos with multiple pieces in the same shot, that was OK. One sculptor sent a shot of a couple pieces on the wall, and included the edges of two chairs, to give a sense of scale. That was fine. One box-maker had a photo that showed the box at the top, and a detail of the box at the bottom. And re the recent discussion here about detail shots, these two jurors were OK with several detail shots that artists entered. 
• Work on your 100- or 200- or 300-character descriptions. The SLAF jury reads these out loud, on the third round (I believe). Just because Zapp implies that you should be giving technical details of the work, that doesn't mean you must. And if you enter two bodies of work, tweak your description. Don't just send in the same one for both bodies of work.
• If your booth shot is photoshopped, and the jurors realize that, they will toss you out. 

As for my own work, I got no life-changing comments from the jurors, but that was OK. I got a lot of ideas over the course of the day, and understand much better now how to make my entries stand out from the pack. 

The most important thing I took away from this event came from Cindy and Laura, the organizers. They stressed that we, the artists, are the stakeholders, and that they, the show organizers, are happy to help. We should call with questions about our art, our application, our booth, anything. They are there to help us! 

So, thank you, SLAF. You have definitely helped me see my art in a different light. 

Above, the jury looks at work by jeweler Cynthia Battista

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.  

I just received the result from the St. Louis Mock Jury and wanted to share my observations with anyone who might be interested.

To those who have been following my earlier blog:

http://www.artfairinsiders.com/profiles/blogs/something-to-think-about

I don't jury with the images that benefit from a great title, but I do jury with images that are distinctly different from "same-old, same-old".

Here is the response I plan to send the directors of the show:

Although I certainly wanted to be accepted into the Upper Arlington Arts Festival -- a show in a wealthy suburb of Columbus OH that my customers say I HAVE to start doing -- the sting almost went away when I read the line in the rejection email that said juror comments were available upon request.

What???  They'll actually share the jury notes and we don't even have to beg?

Thinking this was too good to be true, I jumped on the offer right away and shot back a request for comments.  And today, about a week later, the blessed news arrived.

First there was a brief description of the jury composition, the judging process and the scoring mechanism.  Then my score on a 7-point scale.  Then the median score in my category.  Finally, the jurors' verbatim comments.

Wow.  Really impressive.  More detail than I've ever received.  A little confusing because all the jurors' comments were quite positive, yet I didn't even make the wait list.  The other applicants must have been really good, and I say good for them.

I feel so positive about this show's transparency and respectful behavior that I will happily donate my jury fee again next year.  I'm even feeling inspired to pull out the sketchpad and try to up my game with some new and improved work in the hopes of improving my score next year.

So if you'll be in the Midwest over Labor Day weekend in 2015, give this show a try.  You'll find them on Zapp.

  The other day I recieved an interesting question from a show about my application.  

To give some background; the show application had a section that asks for the high and low price range of the artwork. Filled that in and proceeded to submit the application last month.  

  The question from the other day was to briefly explain the low end of the artwork. They explained that the jurors would most likely want to understand the lower price range artworks since the jury images are the nicer and more detailed artworks.  I answered politely and briefly but then got to thinking.... without pictures of the less expensive artworks; how are the jurors going to imagine them?  Is the jury making descisions about art they will not see?  Are the jurors making financial descissions as well as artistic?

  My understanding had been that the questions such as price range, were you in the show in previous years, do you require flat ground, can you set up inside, what other festival have you done, will you donate artwork,  etc....were used by the show committe to gather information for marketing, help with show layout and for their informational data base. 

     The question seems normal and weird at the same time.  Any thoughts?

So the results are starting to roll in for the better mid-atlantic juried events. I know that accepted artists at events do not ask for their scores. Accepted is accepted and you're happy.

But what about those shows where your work is on par with what you see at the event, but you applied early; thought your images were good and your booth image was strong... but still didn't make the cut?

The jury process is not transparent. Most show directors I have requested scores from will not, as a matter of policy discuss jury scoring. Their events are black boxes... You pay a fee to submit your images and get back only a yes, no, or maybe for the event.

If an event has a scoring system for their jurors, why is it a problem to provide something besides an accept/reject/wait list response to artist applications?

If there's a scoring system, please provide the artists scores as a meager form of feedback. We may not like them, may disagree with them, but at least it is something. If you are scoring the booth images, provide your standards and give this as a separate score.

Is there anything wrong with an expectation of feedback given that you are paying a fee to an event to judge your work

I just received two rejections from a prominent Philadelphia event. I wrote the show director (not for the first time) and asked for my scores. The reply back was the same - we do not provide scores, and in time past they have cited other events of their caliber not providing scores either as part of why they do not provide scores.

Word was that ZAPP was going to add a scoring module to their software.... Anybody know the current state of this initiative?

Is anyone getting numeric or otherwise scores from their jury entries?

I applied for my states artist fellowship program this past year. I didn't get the fellowship and they did not provide scores. However, they did provide written comments from the juror.

So, I have to ask my juried brethren: if I can get written feedback from that level of juried competition and do not have to pay a fee, why should I expect any less from a for-profit/non-profit event jury, who is charging me for the privilege of asking to participate in their event?

Yes, scoring disclosure requires explaining what things are being scored in a given event. They may require showing (in example of a booth image) what top-level, middle of the road, and booth-fail booth images look like...

I am uncertain how one would establish criteria for scoring paintings.. Would Jackson Pollack jury into your better quality events these days? (I don't think so) How about Rothko? (well his stuff would match the couch and wall color schemes... Both of them made couch sized pieces... Warhol would probably get into some events, unless they thought his art factory approach meant that the all original aspects by the artist were being betrayed...well actually this might work in his favor - he'd never run out of products to sell...

But, if you are going to be a subjective jury, say so, say what the criteria are; and then disclose how the artists stacked up to those criteria.... If I am paying a fee for the privilege of applying for admission to pay more $ to maybe sell some products, I think it's the least a juried event should provide to those who didn't make the cut... I may not agree with the decision, but I at least know what the jury is looking for and will be able to perhaps craft an entry which will make me more likely to be competitive the next time I apply...or know that I need to improve my display.

Despite not being accepted for the Philadelphia shows (judged by "highly qualified 2D and 3D fine artists" and stated criteria, "Decisions of the jury are based on the quality, uniqueness, consistency and professionalism of the artwork")., I have been accepted for at least one Howard Alan event and waitlisted for the Rockville A-RTS event in 2014. So, I must be doing something right..

What are others experiencing this year on jury score disclosures. I know several artists on this board made a point of asking for scores. Are we making a difference? I note with interest that jury fees seem to be a little bit less aggressive this year....

Copied from my blog:

I had my world shaken by one person's images while jurying an art fair. Today was the jury for the art fair that Michael Kifer and I run in Kalamazoo Michigan. Because this is a different type of art fair (the Garage Sale Art Fair), Michael and I jury the show ourselves. It's something I'm very comfortable doing and really enjoy. This time it was even better.

Without permission I can't use the person's name but I will tell you that I wish the images of my own work evoked the strength of the feelings that these did for me. Just when you've seen your fill of overworked, over Photoshopped images, one person's work comes up on the screen and reaches up to grab you by the heart. I caught my breath and just drank it in. 

There's a lesson to be learned here for all of us. Make your images speak. Let them tell a story. Don't worry about making those big expensive pieces of your work because you think that's what a jury wants to see. Let the jury feel your work and they will get it. And you'll probably get into more of the shows that you want to do. I know I'm rethinking my own images...

Staci applied to Seawall in Portsmouth, VA for the first time this year.  The application was completed electronically using the show's website.  Image submissions were also handled via the show site.

When I clicked the “submit” button, the website starting acting a little strange and I didn’t get any kind of confirmation.  I then emailed the show to confirm that the application and images were received okay.  I got a reply back that all was fine.

Two days ago, I got an email from the artist liaison at the show with the subject line: Important Seawall Art Show Message.

Apparently, one or more jurors were questioning the booth image that was submitted with the Staci's application.  They told the liaison that it didn’t appear like the 2D work in the booth shot looked anything like the separate 2D images Staci had submitted and, in fact, it didn’t look like the work was fabric (Staci’s medium).

The liaison sent us the booth shot and sure enough, it was somebody else’s booth.  We’re guessing that the glitch I suspected at the time of submission actually resulted in some files ending up in the wrong place.

While one could argue that the home-grown online submission process had some flaws that need fixing, it is also true that this jury was obviously spending enough time with the applications to detect some inconsistencies within a given application.  This is the way the jury process should work.

We won’t know whether Staci is accepted or not for another couple of weeks but whether she is or not, we know she will have gotten a fair shot.  I think that’s all any artist asks for in the jury process. Thanks to the folks at Seawall.

Oh – the jury fee was $35.

We juried the Royal Oak Clay, Glass and Metal Show Monday.  A few observations. 

First it amazes me every year how creative people are able to get within these few mediums.  One hundred and twenty booths and each stands out as creative and unique.

Secondly, while I did not feel that the booth shots were given more weight than the work images, the majority of rejected work had poor booth shots and the majority of accepted work had professional images for their booth.

I say majority because it is not universally true.  We accepted some work from artists with poor shots, even from an artist that had no booth shot.  For this event at least you can't entirely blame the "fourth image".

I try to be communicative with the applicants so I did send some specific notes to artists regarding their displays.  Of course those reflect only my opinion, but if you would be interested in seeing them, you could check out the posting on my website- Integrityshows.com/blog.

If you have not looked at R. C. Fulwiler's blog yet- Can the System be Improved?  I would suggest doing so.

Open Letter to Art Show Staff

Dear Art Show Personnel:

Admit it, even the best most forward thinking of you from time to time get lost down the slippery slope of what the jurying process means. Often it's presented as sort of a competition, and believe me, it sure can come across feeling that way from the artist's point of view. But it is healthier for all involved to take a broader view.

As an artist who has participated in many top shows I like to think of this process less as a competition and more as a jury's own creative project; building a beautiful array of excellence. Thus those that aren't included aren't identified as less or inferior but only as better suited to a different collection. See the difference? Better yet, feel the difference?

Respectfully,

Every Artist Who's Submitted an Application to Your Show

A Puzzling Process

The buzz is beginning to be generated for this season's shows - the includes, the excludes, the who's-ins, the who's-outs.....and I just wanted to go on record as saying I handle not being selected (AKA "Being Rejected") by a jury as simply my current body of work not being the perfect piece to the puzzle they're assembling. This frees me up to stay positive about my work and eliminate any need to hold a grudge for any reason. Heck it even lets me celebrate all who do get into a show!

Here's the weird thing about me and my art, last year I was surprised by three awards in three wonderful top notch shows - and while it felt simply amazing to have been so honored, the fact is I don't get it. How can one mindfully, competently and intentionally created body of work possibly be 'judged' as better than another? Isn't this all just a matter of taste?

Oh, sure, some artists create better booth presentations, have better slides and are superior business people when it comes to packaging their ideas, but on some pure level I just can't wrap my head around Art as a Competitive pursuit!

The Real Includes - the Genuine Prizes

Besides these prizes given to me presumably by my peers, I don't think there's any way I can plan nor prepare to repeat any of those this year. You know what winning situations I am looking forward to recreating this summer though? The ones where children came into my booth and spent their own birthday money on an actual piece of art. Yep, happened two times. I wrote about it here.

How do You Philosophize the Jurying Process?

I, and anyone who reads this post, would love to hear your thoughts on this too. I know there's a treasure trove of thoughts and ideas embodied by the various users throughout this site; I'm looking forward to reading some alternate views!

All right, here is a follow-up to the St. Louis open jury workshop held Saturday...
...just as the Raven kicker's toe was about to touch the ball to begin the Superbowl. The phone rang. It was Larry Berman. We spent the next half hour discussing the ins and outs of Zapp and the previously mentioned workshop of which he was one of the mock jurors.

There are several things that I wanted to share with you. Approximately 100-125 people showed up for the event, according to the moderator, about 55 were on line. Now the online experience was lacking, the images weren't great, talk about a blind jury...however, the audio content was very rich.

I don't know about you but if I cared to look I would probably find that I spend upwards of $1K applying to shows (half of my annual income). Since Zapp arguably one of the most important games in town I am hoping that all serious art fair artists consider giving up a day to such an endeavor.

Kudos to Cindy at St. Louis, and to the underpaid participants like Larry who conducted the session.

My conversation w/Larry was very productive. There are so many nuances to going from C+ to a B to an A for professionals relying on Zapp, that I recommend trying a professional to help you remain competitive. Secondly, his passion for working in this arena is unmatched. There are many flaws to the system most of which will never be fixed, so it becomes essential for artists to recognize and appreciate exactly what they are dealing with.

As artists, this group is dedicated to sharing what we know. That sharing is a higher calling. Some of us are good at certain aspects of what we do, their experience and knowledge is particularly important. Thanks to everyone in this group, thanks to show directors who make these sessions possible and thanks to the individuals who take this shit seriously.

Oh, and as festival artists, we play the Superbowl every weekend so missing the big show paled in comparison with my conversation w/Larry!

Acting on a tip that I got from Larry Berman, which was posted on my last blog (http://www.artfairinsiders.com/profiles/blogs/another-shot-at-having-images-pre-viewed#comments), I attended the first day, elimination round of jurying for the Cherry Creek Arts Show. I know that there is antagonism among artists about the jury process in general but let-me-tell-you, attending an actual jury process is a very humbling experience.

First, they are bringing together a group of people that most likely don't know each other as they may not have met before. These individuals come from diverse backgrounds and experience. In the case of this years Cherry Creek jury there were two (of twelve) artists from last years show who had been award recipients and were therefore exempt from the jury process and were asked to be jurors. Two other jurors represented the artist/teacher category and the fifth juror is an arts collector/patron and the son of artists. It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, they come with a different mind/tool set. This was not a group comprised of "professional jurors" as has sometimes been intimated on this blog site. They were pretty "ordinary", so-to-speak, people that had been given a mission to accomplish within 20 hours. 

Next, and this was the part that made me feel humble and gave me a lot more respect for the process in general. In the case of Cherry Creek they had to view the work of almost 2000 artists; that's 4 images of work and one booth shot projected all at once for each artist. Not all of the art was projected at once but was divided into categories. The first group was graphics and print making. There were about 41 entries in this category. First, the jurors were given a quick preview of the entire group, about 3 seconds per artist. They were  instructed to score each artist from 1-7 on their computers, using the Zapp system software. One of the artists asked if a 4 was acceptable, as some shows force the jury into a high or low score, in this case for this round a 4 was okay to use. They were then shown each artist's images again for about 10 seconds each (I counted!) and scored them for the first "silent" elimination round. Terry Adams, Director Cherry Creek Arts Festival had previously instructed them that they were not looking for any particular ratio in each category only the art that demonstrated excellence as-well-as diversity in each category.

The pace was fairly brisk and Terry checked to make sure things weren't moving too fast for the jurors. With only 20 hours and that many applicants they had a long way to go! Terry instructed the jurors that they were to refer to the projected image for scoring as the monitors had low-resolution images intended for reference only, to make sure they were on the right group.

If I had to score that group it would have been a very difficult task as I thought the majority of the work demonstrated that "excellence" that Terry referred to. That's the part that earned my respect for the process! Also these were the most consistent in terms of image quality.

The next group up was glass. This group was comprised of about 65 artists and it was where the greatest diversity in the quality of images was apparent. Referring back to my experience in the mock jury (see the blog referenced above) I could see how some artists might be eliminated at this point. Take note glass artists, you might want to project those images of yours to see how they measure up! I know personally what a struggle it is to make decisions about ones own art so it might be helpful to get an objective viewpoint about the quality of the images that you choose here.

The things that stood out for me in this group of images were: The glass that was shown on a plain white background tended to get washed out even if the work was very good. Also, after sitting in the dark for a long period of time when that glaring white shows up it really hurts the eyes! Glass artists that had been professionally shot (or did so themselves) with a graduated grey or black background tended to show up better (check out sites that show the artists work to see what I mean here). As for those graduated backgrounds, personally I would make sure the images you provide all have the same color temperature! What do I mean? Not all blacks showed up as black! Some of the graduated blacks looked more on the grey side then black and when viewed as a group you have this inconsistency from image to image. Also, what about the white that shows up at the bottom, color temperature again was a factor in my viewing, some were warmer (yellow looking) and others cooler and more neutral lending an inconsistent look from image to image for the same artist. I know I'm being nit picky here but its your application, don't you think you should put your best foot forward!

Remember the discussion of booth shots? There was a lot of diversity here as well. Some were well staged whereas others made it difficult to separate the figure from the ground. At least one artist didn't have a booth shot but referenced some show they were doing with type over some random picture, oh, by-the-way, having yourself in the photo or a poster referencing your name/company is probably not a good choice for a booth shot, better to have a grouping of art then that.

They were about to move on to one of the bigger groups, over a hundred artists, but after only an hour and a half of this I was fried. Besides which I wasn't there to see the entire show juried I just wanted an experience of it.

I came back today thinking that they would have the entries narrowed down quite a bit and I'd be able to see the final elimination round but apparently things moved quicker than I expected and by the time I arrived they had already made the final cuts and were ready to show "the show" to the jurors. As can be expected I was respectfully asked to leave so that I wouldn't have what they considered confidential advance information about the show. No problem!

Based on what I saw the first day this had to be a daunting task and I have a better understanding and respect for the process then I did prior to this. Is it a perfect process? Maybe not but given the numbers they had to deal with and the time limitations inherent in the process what else can be done? Like I said, I didn't see the entire jury process and I imagine, based on what I did see, that some elimination may have been easier than others based on comparisons of image quality and of course the quality of the work itself. Again, based on the quality of the sample I saw it would have to be a difficult and challenging task for anyone. Cheers!

Apparently this is the second year that Cherry Creek Arts Festival has done the Colorado Artist Image Review Workshop. I missed any announcement of it last year and thought it might be of value to sign up. I've seen on this Blog that other festivals are also hosting this type of review. I hope the trend continues with other festivals as well!

Terry Adams of the Cherry Creek show was there with his support team, a representative of Zapplication and I especially enjoyed meeting Jerry Gilmore who acted as the juror/review person for this event. He seems to be popping up quite a bit as of late, just heard him on the BlogTalkRadio presentation as well. He was very gracious and generous with his time answering questions for this event.

To say the least, as Jerry pointed out, if you haven't seen your slides projected before an audience, or even projected them on your own, it is WELL worth it. Terry told of one artist last year who stormed out of a presentation. He followed him out and asked what the problem was. The artist reported being quite embarrassed at the quality of his work when presented this way and he was on his way home to fix it! Although I didn't storm out I too was disconcerted about how one of my images presented when projected. Had I not been in this presentation I might never have known that this one image (out of the 40 or so I have on Zapp) was formatted differently and thus showed up washed out and lifeless. It is one that I have used quite frequently as-of-late so I was concerned about the impression I was making! I too immediately went home and went about the business of finding out what was wrong. I dropped an email to Larry Berman about it and he was quite gracious about helping me as well. It was only after reviewing all of my stored images (not the ones stored on Zapps website) that I found the problem with this culprit. Zapp requests that images be stored in sRGB mode and wouldn't you know it, this was the only one that wasn't.

Although no guarantee of how your images will appear when projected one of the things you might do is preview them in a browser window. When I did the "Preview As a Juror" on Zapp this inconsistency in image quality did NOT show up.

So back to the issue at hand. The other eye opener was the difference in quality of images depicting people's booths. I've done a lot of work this year myself to make the best presentation possible after getting some useful feedback from Jim DeLutes and was rewarded with a complement by Jerry saying that my presentation was very professional. Some of the others at the review had a long way to go. And cropping of your booth shot. I thought that I had it pretty tight but got some feedback suggesting that I crop it even tighter!

Pre-review Booth Shot: Review Booth Shot

I'm especially sensitive to the idea of large blobs of white in an image, especially when you consider that the jurors are sitting in a dark room for long periods of time and a big white area will tend to blind you when it comes up on the wall/screen. I tried to bring down the brightness in the second image but it started to turn to grey so I left well enough alone. You can see in my second image that I removed the bins and really cropped the booth down very close. It should be noted that some shows want to see everything that you will have in your booth including the bins and chairs!

Some things that struck me about some other booth shots were, browse bins that were pointed into the light so that they looked like shining beacons in the sun (see mine above left), bins that obscured what was in the booth, chairs that obscured what was in the booth, etc. Jerry pointed out how backgrounds can tend to swallow the art, there needs to be contrast between your background and your art. For jewelers, especially if your work is small, it's nice to see professional display cases but if you can't see the jewelery, hanging large photo posters on the back wall is better than the lovely swag fabric. Also, it is a good way for people on the street who can't get through the crowd to preview your work. Oh, and by the way, lose the posters with your name or the company name in the background, jury's are not supposed to see names, the same goes for paintings, etc. use a photo editing program and get rid of the signatures or names.

As for cropping those art images, I know this seems quite elementary, but if you have 2D work lose the frame, unless...it is an integral part of the art. It is easier for a photographer to have images of their work especially in these days of digital capture but if you are taking pictures of your 2D work for gosh sakes make sure it is square to the frame! There were several images in this presentation that looked like they were taken from the side which created a distorted perspective (like looking down a tunnel).

Finally, bodies of work, I struggled with this one myself. Juries want to see a cohesive body of work. At first I thought it better to show a range of work, uh uh. Tis better to show that you have an ongoing theme rather than a smattering of this and that. One artist at the review was arguing this point and still insisted that their body of work was ALL of their work, good luck with that. I appreciate that they like to take images of whatever, I like diversity also, but when it comes to a jury I put my best foot forward and show a cohesive body of work, whatever it is.

All-in-all it was really instructive to participate in this kind of event both for what needs help as well as what looks good. If you have the opportunity to go to a show preview do so.

Wednesday, November 21, 12 noon ET

In a business full of taking chances the first big challenge an artist has is to make the jury cut at the shows. After all, if you can't get into the show you aren't in business. I'll be speaking with

• Mo Riley, Executive Director of the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair: Mo came to the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair (the original one) about 3 years ago from the Detroit Festival of the arts. She inherited a complex jury system that has over a dozen jurors from various media who attend on consecutive days, breaking the jurying down into small pieces.

• Lyn Sedlak-Ford, Board Member Art in the Pearl, Portland, OR: one of a group of 14 artists who started this show 17 years ago. There are 3 left of the original group. We'll talk about how an artist's organization chooses a jury and what they expect from their jurors.

• Jerry Allen Gilmore, juror for many of the nation's best art fairs: with an MFA in painting and drawing he has had a career both as an artist, exhibiting internationally, and as an arts administrator in Colorado. Currently he is concentrating on curatorial projects, artist portfolio reviews, jurying for regional and national art institutions and on his own artwork.

We'll talk about:

• how to choose a jury, qualifications, diversity, experience

• demands on the jury

• how they showcase the applications

• jury instruction
• different kinds of jurying

Do you have questions you'd like me to ask? Please add them below.

We'll also be taking questions from callers at this #(805) 243-1338