Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your turn.

  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?

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.