Blog

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.

Is the digital art vs. photography line moving and isn’t it time the shows updated their categories?  I do heavily digitally modified photography.  Recently I was faced with this choice:

Digital art - Two-dimensional work created by the artist using computer technologies. May include scanned images, from the artist or other sources that have been non-trivially modified through the use of computer programs.

Photography - Two-dimensional work created by the artist that includes digital and film photography that has not been manipulated to achieve results beyond what could be produced in a traditional dark room. Hand-colored photography and emulsion transfers are accepted in this category. 

I applied in digital art and the show disagreed.  On one of our emails back and forth the show person put forth this description – “ I personally feel that you should enter under photography since your work takes a photograph and enhances it through digital means but does not totally create a new image from the photograph.  I see the digital category as taking parts and pieces from different sources and creating something new with them, or creating an image using only digital programs from scratch.”  What a wonderful clear description that puts me into photography which I ultimately applied in.

When I first started applying to shows, digital photography was brand new and most shows didn’t really recognize it.  In fact, to a lot of them, digital was a bad word.  There was certainly no digital art category.  Photographers who heavily manipulated were placed into categories like print making or lumped in with photographers

Then shows started adding a digital art category which in the vast majority of shows looks like this – “Any original work for which the original image, or the manipulation of other source material, was executed by the artist using a computer.  Work in this category must be in limited editions, signed and numbered on archival quality materials.  Traditional photographs taken with digital media should apply in the photography category.”  In my opinion this puts me in digital art, which I usually apply in because I am manipulating source material with a computer.  But that word “traditional” can go either way so I am always questioning if it is the right category for me.

At that time (8 or 9 years ago) I don’t know of anybody who was doing pure digital art not involving photography of any kind.  But – the tools are better now, art that is being created today with computers and no photographs at all is very impressive.  And I believe that most photographers, even if their images look completely unmodified, are making use of techniques that could not be done in the darkroom. 

The line is moving and I think shows need to take a good look at their categories and make that division more distinct.

Tell me what you think that description should be.

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 went to the Broad Ripple Art Fair Open Jury in Indianapolis in February. I got to be a "fly on the wall," watching five judges as they decided the fate of 539 artists that had applied for the show.

   Because I am a jewelry artist who participates in juried art shows, and because the jury process has always been dark and mysterious to me, I decided to attend. It was a show to which I had applied, located an hour from my home, and an invitation had been emailed to all applicants.

     When I got there they were finishing up in the photography category. It was in a conference room with a large screen in the front, where the digital images were projected. The five judges sat at two long tables in the front row. Each judge had a laptop in front of them, seeing the same images that were being projected on the large screen. As they viewed the images - all three plus a booth image, the narrator read out loud the artist statement. There is very little interaction between the judges. The images would be up for about 30-40 seconds, the judges would mark their scores, and go on to the next artist.

   I found it fascinating to see the artist entries for photography. They ran the gamut from traditional to contemporary and realism to abstract. Seeing exactly what the judges saw, and in the short time given for each entry, I started to gain an appreciation for the challenge of judging an art show.

    It's all subjective, after all.

     After photography there was a break for lunch and then the jewelry category began. The host briefly showed images from each entry in the category. Then he went back through them, giving 30-40 seconds per artist, while the narrator read the artist statement. Since jewelry is my category, I was especially attentive to the images presented, the booth image, and what the artist said about his or her work. With 128 entries, the highest number of any category, it can all start looking the same after a while.

      "We should score down every time the term 'unique' or 'one of a kind' is used!" one of the judges jokingly said during a break.

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...

This is copied from my blog

You’ve applied to hundreds of shows over the years. You know what to do and not do with your images. ZAPP and JAS have made it really easy to quickly apply and not really think about it. BUT, when was the last time you went into ZAPP and checked your profile? Checked that all your information is correct? Checked your capitalization, spelling and punctuation? Have you checked your artist statement to make sure it’s current?

 The same things are important on JAS but on there your artist statement is even more important. When you’re being juried on JAS, your artist statement is right in the center of the page, easy for the juror to read. And you wouldn’t believe how many people make mistakes in there. The wrong words, extra punctuation, missing letters and the big one is your name! Sometimes just the first name, sometimes the full name, “James does this”, “Mary Smith likes that”. I was shocked during my latest jurying how many statements had names. Have you checked yours lately?

 Your artist statement should be current and if you want a juror to read it, it should be short. I don’t need to know where you went to school, what your life’s path has been or how many years you’ve been doing this. I need to know anything critical to what you’re showing me in your images. This is not your resume, please don’t list all the shows you’ve done. Short, readable and to the point.

 And then there’s the old issue of a name in the booth image. There are still many, many booth shots that have either the artists name showing or the business name. Please, please remove it. It will not help you and it may hurt you. Take down the booth signs that the show gives you even if you can’t read your own name on it. Anything that distracts from what you want the juror to be looking at which is your booth and the work in it. Leave the chair, that doesn’t bother me at all but get out all the signs.

 And I’ve learned a couple of new things in this last round of jurying that I’ve done. Photographers as a group have the most odd looking booth images of anyone. Many of them look like they’re 20’ x 20’ booths and amazingly they show under 10 pieces with no flip bins! Wow! Please don’t take offense if you’re a photographer because it’s probably not you I’m talking about but you probably know someone who fits this. Just something to think about.

 The other thing I’ve learned is that sterling silver must no longer be a precious metal. No one told me! Jewelers - if there are two categories, precious and non-precious and you work in sterling silver, fine silver pmc or gold, you belong in the precious category. And trust me, you don’t want to be in the non-precious category if you don’t belong there. There is some absolutely wonderful jewelry being made these days without the use of precious metals and you don’t want to be competing with them if you don’t have to. Of course if you’re applying in the non-precious category then I’m not competing with you for a space so maybe I shouldn’t be telling you this…

I originally discovered AFI when I was starting to search for shows outside the Pacific NW and discovered a lot of good information on this site.  I was particularly interested in all the information on improving images for jurying and improving the booth image, etc. as we were discouraged last year on continued rejections from shows we really wanted to participate in.

So, we signed up for the Virtual Jury process offered by AFSB, net result, we needed a new photographer and bigger “Wow” pieces, not just our bread and butter best sellers.   So we proceeded to design some new pieces, hired a new photographer, we revamped our booth and hired Larry Berman to edit our images and drastically clean up our booth shot.  We have one show we need 7 images for so in the end, between the new photographer, the virtual jury and the photo editing we spent over 1K in preparing for 2012 applications.

End result? We’re still sorting that out.  However, I tend to be the overly analytical person in this partnership while my husband is the total opposite and he had a good chuckle when he looked at part of this post.  I’ve already driven him nuts with my verbal analysis and ongoing conversation so I thought I’d share the results with this community in hopes that someone might be able to offer a unique perspective or some feedback.  If I’m spending 1K, I want to know if it was worth it and given a 16 year work history in the CFO organization of my day job, an MBA in Finance and a work career in which I’ve had “analyst” in my job title for over 20 years, I tend to overanalyze everything!!  And yes, my husband is snickering over this part of the post:) 

For the first time ever we were only waitlisted for one show this year, all others were outright acceptances or rejections.  That in itself was a great change, we usually have 4-8 waitlists that leave us wondering, agonizing and trying to decide if we needed to change travel plans at the last minute.  Unfortunately the one that we were waitlisted for was a show we’ve done for 4 years in a row and has been in our top 5 shows every year.  So that didn’t feel very good as it is an early season show and was one of the first shows we submitted our new images to the jury. 

As the acceptances / rejections continue to arrive, here are our final results:

• Shows we applied to for the first time: 5 declined, 11 accepted, a little better than our normal average of about 65%
  • A little more disclosure on this, of the 11 we were accepted into, I truly believe 5 of them were “jury by check”, but they were back up shows if we didn’t get into our first choice.
    • 2 of the shows we were accepted into, we had been told were very hard to get into, so that left us feeling relieved and able to back out of 2 of the jury by check shows.
    • 2 of the new shows are already completed with dismal to mediocre results which made us question our decisions for show scheduling.
• Shows that declined us this year after previously accepting us with our old images: 1 – ouch, that didn’t feel right
• Shows that waitlisted us after previously accepting us with the old images: 1 - ouch
• Shows that had previously rejected us
  • And still rejected us: 7
  • 2012 accepted for the first time: 2, Yay!! Both of these were shows that we’ve been wanting to do for a while, however, both will replace solid, fairly reliable 2 day shows with 3 day shows and will result in an additional trip out of town.  So, until we see the show sales results, the jury is still out, so to speak.
• Shows we’ve previously been accepted at on a regular basis and still want us back:)  7
• Shows we’ve previously been accepted – but never consistently on a  year to year basis:
  • 3 shows, 2 accepted, 1 rejected
• Pending – still have one left to notify for a December show, but fully expect to be accepted, although I should never think that anything is an automatic in this business.

So, we applied to 37 shows for which we know the results. 15 declined, 22 accepted, shows we’ll actually do: 17, some were apps for the same weekend and a couple shows we declined because we couldn’t put together a road trip that made sense, only getting into 1 out of 3 shows that were a 13-15 hour road trip away didn’t make financial sense.

We started the year with a disappointment after not getting called off the one waitlist we were on, we now have 2 shows on our schedule that we’ve tried to get accepted into in the past that are highly rated that are leaving us with high hopes.  We also have 3 other new shows that we applied to for the first time that we have high hopes for, plus our regular schedule of favorite shows that are “tried and true”, so we’re hoping the rest of the year will be stronger than the start of our year.

Was the $1K worth it?  We think so, we feel like we’ve gotten into a few better, more promising shows.  However, getting waitlisted for the spring show we have done for 4 years and getting rejected from a show that we were accepted into last year left us feeling a little perplexed when we felt like we had a better jury submission.  In the end, sales results will tell us if it’s worth it, we’ll continue to track the results and come back to this question in December.

Not sure if this helps anyone, but thought I’d share our journey through the process of trying to improve our images and “up our game”. 

This is Kathy Coons writing, not Don. I am standing on my soapbox!

We were at the Smoky Hill River Festival in Salina, KS last weekend. As bored artists are wont to do, conversations ensued. The favorite topic is of course, "Why can't I get into shows anymore?" Well, the conjecture seemed to revolve around, "It's Zapplications fault!" There is a rumor (I call it a conspiracy theory) that Zapp offers shows the opportunity to have Zapp jury the show for them. They pay extra for this service and that the bigger shows do this, i.e. Cherry Creek, St. Louis, etc...This presents a very real chance for unfair bias, or vendetta's against certain artists or styles. This is why established artists are not getting accepted into shows that they routinely or at least occasionally used to be invited to.

Does anyone have any solid evidence for this? And why would a show do this? More importantly, Why would Zapp risk their reputation by doing this? I guess it could cut down on the promoters expenses by not finding, bringing in jurors, housing and feeding them. But it seems like the shows would want to change up jurors every year, and have a choice in who picked their shows.

I can imagine that this "jury" would get really tired of seeing the same images, over and over. They would be inclined to say, "Seen it, been there, done that, rejected."

So, if this is the case, do we need to get a new body of work images as well as a new booth slide every year! It is quite a challenge to come up with a new set of jury quality work, have the pieces professionally photographed and go to the expense of framing them. And then finding a place and appropriate light to set up your entire display, set it up, photograph it, tear it all down, pack it up again. Hey folks, many of us are retirement age. This is a lot to ask of a greying population of artists!

Why do the applications rarely tell artists who the jurors are? I think that is a fair question. Why would a traditional painter apply to a show with only contemporary museum quality jurors? I would think shows would want one experienced art fair artist on their jury. Don't they realize that the reason shows are in business is to provide the public and the artists a chance to meet and buy art goods for their home? Most people want a good mix of art to choose from. Not all Realism or Nonobjective art. 

So, has anyone else heard of this?? Anyone have any proof?? If it's not true, then we should quit speculating. If it is true we should be uproarious with our hearty disapproval.

You may think that I have it out for Madison “On the Square.”  I don’t, and it may only look that way.  I have always loved that show. However, they keep making these decisions that are questionable at best and are at worst are illegal.

Now, the latest decision is they have made is to charge an additional fee on top of the booth fee if an accepted artist wants to pay by credit card.  The fee is $20 for a double booth and $10 for a single booth.  I am not a lawyer but I am somewhat familiar with credit card fees.  As I understand this, it may not be illegal to charge the fee, but all the major credit card companies have clauses in their contracts that do not allow for this fee to be charged.  They have that fee so that people will use credit cards instead of paying cash or using personal checks.   This sounds to be like an illegal practice.  And that is only my opinion.  In addition, they could get away with it, if they told artists that they would give them a $10 or $20 discount is they paid in cash, but the Madison “Art Fair on the Square” is making it a penalty to pay by credit card.

I hope that artists will question this practice and put a stop to this.

I am going to forward this to Annik Dupaty, the Madison, AFOS, Director of Events and see what her response is.

I do come up with the same conclusion that I did for the jury blog I posted earlier in the week.  JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD. And I’m not even sure that it applies if it is an illegal fee.  And again it appears as if Annik is more concerned with the bottom line than the ethical running of an organization.

I had suspected for a couple years that Madison On the Square was not doing a conventional "on site" jury.  I just saw an e-mail they sent out on March 16th informing applicants that the jurors will be given 8 days to review the applicants.  To me this smelled of "off site" jurors being given the code to get into ZAPP ADMINISTATION for jurying at their own leisure. 

I think that this is the absolute wrong way to go for a jury process.  So why would they want to do this?  Saving costs would be tops on the list of reasons to do this.  They charge $35 per artist jury fee.  Let's assume that they get 1200 applications.  This is a top 50 show.  Maybe they will get even more.  Sure I know that there are between 62 and 87 re-invited artists that don’t have to pay a jury fee.  However, that's still about $42,000 just in jury fees not counting late jury fees.  Even if they paid 4 paid jurors for 2 days covering all the expenses for airfare if necessary, hotel and food, additional support employees, ZAPP projectors, or computer rental, etc, I would think that quite a tidy profit could still be derived from this profit center of the show.  Or perhaps the director doesn't want to be bothered with the tremendous effort involved in producing an "on site" jury.  I understand this as I've done it but....well, I guess, that's part of the job.  Maybe the director doesn't think that they are any qualified jurors within a 1000 miles.  No, that couldn't be.  I know that looking at 1200 applications, 4800 images, is a chore.  If done over 2 days, 600 artists are very manageable.  Sure it can be visually and mentally exhausting.  But I don’t think that’s the problem.  Ok, so I'm perplexed.

If the jurors are looking at the images ‘off site’ then the images are not looked at simultaneously as it says in the prospectus. They are not looked at simultaneously by the jurors as is done in a ZAPP projected jury.  And in addition, when off site they are not projected; they are looked at on a monitor when viewed off site.  When viewed on the on-line ZAPPLICATION process, the images are looked at individually with only a very small thumbnails being seen as a grouping at the end and on the scoring page; these small hard to see thumbnails are the only simultaneous viewing of the images.  This seems very deceptive to me.  By the way, I have been suggesting for 3 or 4 years to ZAPP that they enlarge these grouped images.  I finally hear that they may do just that.

Now let's look at it from the artist’s viewpoint as to why this is a problem for them.  Jurors would perhaps be dispersed across a large area in different time zones.  (Ok so the 2 jurors that they’ve announced are from the Madison area). Maybe they would be looking at the images during the directors working hours and maybe not?  What if they had multiple questions with no one to answer them?  What will their pre-jury instruction be?  Who will enforce the rules?  I've been to enough live juries to know that there are a lot of questions.  Will the jurors be looking at the images on quality monitors, or even similar monitors?  Will different judges be seeing the same thing from an image or not?  Perhaps juror 'A' has an old CRT monitor that's 10 years old and is totally not able to be controlled for color and brightness.  Perhaps juror 'B' has a monitor that cost $50 at some box store and the contrast is so bad that there is no shadow detail seen or the highlights are completely non-existent.  Laptops are notorious for their poor quality of images.  The point is that the jurors may not be seeing the same thing.  As a professional photographer I know how important "calibrated" monitors are.  Calibration standardizes what is seen on a monitor as long as it’s capable of control.  Ok, let’s proceed.  What if juror 'C' has a young child that is home and needing attention while they are jurying images during this 8 day process?  The jurors could be very distracted from doing their due diligence for any number of reasons:  diaper change, ice cream time, homework, domestic dispute, etc.  What if juror 'D' worked really hard all day but waited till the last moment to jury the images.  Perhaps they fall asleep at their screen and are half conscious giving a score and click on the wrong button.  Will that juror be doing justice to the jury system by being totally exhausted at the end of their work day?  Not likely.  Jurors “off site” can look at images for different lengths of time.  Is this fair?  They can even research web sites and explore other images done by artists.  Is that fair?  What if the juror decides to consult with what friends think of an artists’ work.  The images could be copied and pasted to be seen anywhere.  This alone has been a major concern for many artists.

The bottom line for me and I hope many artists is that they are not, let me repeat that, are not being judged equitably.  For $35, or $5 or $75 for that matter, they deserve a fair shake.  Having jurors not "on site" is not a fair and equitable way for shows to be jurying.  There are way too many variables for the jury process to proceed along this path to give the artist what they are paying for and deserve.  For years this show was run successfully by intern directors:  graduate students, in the arts program at UW Madison, who would be the director for 2 to 3 years.  Now a paid director has taken over and it seems that what is now important is the bottom line.  It is no longer the well being of the artists and what is in their best interest.

Is it a stretch to assume that all of this has something to do with the chaos that has been going on in Madison and Wisconsin?  Is it a stretch to say that this has something to do with the current administration in Wisconsin defunding the Wisconsin Arts Board?  Ok, I certainly will not go there as it is off point.

The control, the standardization, of the jury process and of the jurors as a group is gone with this newest move by Madison On the Square.  It is no longer a "level playing field" for artists.  The shared experience is eliminated.  This smacks of a director giving up and giving in.  So I decided to email Annik Dupaty, the Director of Events, Madison Museum of Contemporary Art.  She is the director of the show.  I simply asked if it is true that jurying takes place off site and her reasoning for this.  She responds first by saying that jurying off site is the “standard of the industry.”  I don’t know where she gets her facts on this.  ZAPP does not even know what the percentage of shows jurying off site is.  She also claims that the system was set up that way when she took over as director.  I know one of the previous directors and this system for jurying was not in place while he was director.  There was a director between his term and Anniks taking over.  The graduate student director before Annik took over quit the post as director and did not graduate.  She states that,  “in these hectic ‘modern’ lives we lead it is hard to get full-time, busy working people to (1) align schedules, and (2) commit to being here for 1-2 full days straight”  Well, we have always been in these hectic ‘modern’ times.  Every generation lives through their own modern period.  Jurors were brought together for 50 years before this and other shows started to ask jurors to view images off site.  Jurors were in one location long before the shows were making the amounts of money they make now.  If jurors were paid a decent amount, I don’t think finding jurors to participate would be an issue. Many would relish having been a juror for the show and adding it on their resume or curriculum vitae.  She further states, “…and it isn’t necessary with the technology available to us.”  Well, that brings it full circle and to the conclusion that I reach and that is:  JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN’T MEAN THAT THAT YOU SHOULD.  The world is full of misguided decisions made with the idea that just because something can be done means that it should be done.

Since the costs for jurying have been so dramatically cut, have the jury fees or booth fees been reduced?  Would Annik be willing to send out a fair Survey Monkey to see what the applying artists feel about “off site” jurying?  I’d love to hear that the applying artists think it’s a good idea and that I’m wrong about all of this.

I think artists deserve an explanation so they can decide whether this is a show that they want to participate in.  They ARE the show.

Jeff Condon's paintings at the Krasl Art Fair - a beautiful July day on the shores of Lake Michigan




Sun setting over the Bluff in St. Joe in February

On Friday morning (February 4) I was in St. Joe, MI, to assist in the jurying of the 50th Annual Krasl Art Fair on the Bluff along with four other jurors that included veteran artist Jerry Berta and art professionals associated with the Krasl Art Center. Director Sara Shambarger has been on the job here for 16 years and knows how to run a jury and is very explicit about following all the rules. She uses Zapplication and insures that there is a comfortable setting and enough technical equipment so that every applicant gets a fair chance. We all had laptops linked to a Mac Mini and the images were projected on five screens. (These details are included because I don't want Nels bugging me about set up, etc.) ;)

It is hard to jury into this show because approximately 50% of it is filled with pre-juried artists, chosen by the judges from the previous summer's street jurying. This information is spelled out in the prospectus. 95 artists will be returning leaving approximately 120 openings for the 2011 show. Because of their date (smack in the middle of the biggest art fair weekend of the year) they also have a wait list of 100+, to insure a good looking show in case some of the applicants choose to go to Madison, Cain Park, Plymouth or State College.

There were 861 applications, 157 more than last year. Sara said she thought it was because she did more outreach, advertising for artists to apply. I think it was partly that but more than likely because of the great word-of-mouth from artists who were happy with their sales in 2010, plus these good reviews here "Krasl Art Fair", "Back to the Future" by Barry Bernstein and "Krasl Art Fair on the Bluff" by Leo Charette surely didn't hurt.

So, how did it go? Very smoothly.

For each category we were first shown the invited artists images. Then there was a preview of the total category and then we did the scoring round. For each application the description was read. There was hardly any discussion, it was very serious. In fact, we were asked to keep any communication to a minimum. We could ask questions.

Here are some stats to give you some kind of idea of what kind of competition the various categories have. The smallest number of applicants is in the Printmaking/Graphics category with 8 applicants. The largest category is jewelry, broken into jewelry non-precious and jewelry precious, for a total of 176 applicants for the nine spaces available in this category (remember there are invited artists and in jewelry 10 are returning). 100 photographers applied for 12 spaces. There were two categories in fiber - wearable and decorative, for a total of 62 applicants. There is space for 9 artists in fiber art. Wood had some beautiful entries, but only 8 out of the 50 applicants will be invited to participate.

(Full disclosure here - in the year's when we were doing shows (1978-2006) we applied to this show several times and were never accepted).

What did I think of the quality? Overall there were very few substandard applications. By that I mean, images ill-prepared, out of focus, propped up on chairs, groups of images gathered on table tops or clearly from people who don't understand about the business. A few questionable booth shots where they seemed like an after thought by the artist, but 90% were "ready for primetime" in that they were well exposed, showed a theme and a body of work that had clearly been carefully chosen for the presentation.

Tips for applicants? Just what everyone always says, do fine work, choose your best images, get everything in on time, complete the application, make your booth shot pristine. The first image is the most important because we all read left to right. Right?

The jury returns in July and does a street jurying for the following year's invitations. I am looking forward to being there then and hopefully will be seeing you.

This from the Coconut Grove Grapevine:

You may remember, in October, we sat in on the two-day blind judging process for the upcoming 48th Annual Coconut Grove Arts Festival. Well the artists have been chosen for the festival to be held February 19 to 21, 2011.

Out of 1232 applicants, 360 were chosen from the US and Canada. Over 100 of the artists chosen are from Florida and 19 are from the Miami area. Hans Feyerabend, Dan Bondroff and George Rodez are three Coconut Grove artists chosen.
Read the rest of the article here: http://coconutgrovegrapevine.blogspot.com

The article about the jurying is entitled "Long,tedious process involved in judging the art".

Now, that is funny! This second link is an interesting take on an art fair jury from an outsider, a reporter for the Grapevine.

Getting into or not getting into the Grove has been an important part of the festival business for a long time. At one time it was a make or break deal for many artists. For northern artists it meant winter income and many would trek to Miami for a string of shows. Those days are gone for many of us. The overhead and the low sales really meant it was better to stay home and shovel snow. Read the articles about the jurying and how they made their choices, ruminate a little and send us some feedback.

Are you going to be at CG in February? Did you decide not to apply this year? Why? Share your CG experiences. Do you live in Florida and feel like you're not invited to the prom if you are not at The Grove?