Listen live: Monday, Feb. 24, 5 pm, ET
The two most important things about earning a living in the art fair business:
- Getting into the event
- Having work that people will buy once you're there
Co-host, Cindy Lerick, CFEE, joins Connie Mettler for a nuts and bolts discussion about the jury process for art festivals. Cindy is one of the only show directors who has managed 4 major shows, Uptown in Minneapolis, Main Street in Fort Worth, the Saint Louis Art Fair and the Sausalito Arts Festivals. In addition for many years she has traveled to event's juries for ZAPP to be a Tech help.
There are many variables from show to show. Most show directors don’t know how others shows run their jury. Some have plenty of discussion, some have none, some have no directions given to the jurors. Scoring systems, projection, length of time, selection of jurors, there is no standard. We'll explore some of these variances.
A few topics we'll address:
What is the difference between a projection jury and monitor jury?
- How the jury ties into the show's look
- Who is the competition?
- Are the jurors the same from year to year?
- Do show directors jury their own show?
Questions galore! We encourage your participation. We want to hear from you. Will you please put any questions you'd like answered in the comments below? Or send them to me in an email.
If we get enough questions we'll host another live podcast where you can speak with Cindy directly.
Comments
You know, an art festival is a great way to show what you have to the general public, try out new ideas, and get instant feedback and some sales, all for an investment of a few thousand dollars and some time. Yes, jurying, yes, the booth fee, yes, the tent, but still, for an investment of say $1,000, less if you can borrow a tent or build your own booth (as i did for my first art show, $100 for a bunch of old doors and $25 for paint, $400 for booth fee), where else can you get a chance to throw your ideas against the wall and see if they stick?
To your point, Katie, the market will solve the problem of which shows stay on, which change, which go away. And, yes, there are younger folks (I am 60) who come into my booth wanting to know all about how you go about showing at a show, where do you get a tent, etc. My perception is that these younger people haven't quite got it together yet to be able to afford the $1,000 or so it takes do a minimal show, instead they try poor venues (coffee shops, restaurants, farmer's markets)m and can get discouraged when not much happens there. But at least those venues are a place for an artist to start. I say 'poor', not because i dislike coffee shops, restaurants or farmer's markets, as there is a different level of professionalism, audience expectation and craftsmanship (or craftwomanship) than at a professional show.
Anyway, I have high expectations for the continuation of the art market, and art shows. i also expect that many of the younger people are busy building their professional lives, and once they have that, they will become artists, a path familiar to many of us.
Ok I will shut up now, back to packing for la Quinta
Oh wow, Connie, what a story about Sonny! But a story that's definitely familiar. I do wish there were more chances taken, more opportunities given, more diversity. At some point, the future might force that hand as the older generations retire from the streets and a large vacuum opens up.
Who are the young folks willing to take the risk, willing to pay thousands on a booth/fees/inventory, willing to build up that thick skin of rejection and low sales and terrible weather and long drives? Who's willing to trade in security and big stable paychecks just to live a life that's an alternative to the traditional workforce in the name of living their dream? While I see a few out there, I don't see a lot of artists my age (40) and younger in the traditional art shows (craft for sure, but not fine art per se).
The show "look" may indeed have to change. Perhaps it's a little more daring, a little more left-of-center, a little less slick, a little more rebellious, a little less gallery. But at least the show would, indeed, go on.
Great analysis, Katie. AND very true ... sometimes lightning strikes and someone who has been applying for years to a show gets chosen (as you said a juror "gets" the work) and great sales ensue. We had a dear friend, Sonny Dalton, whose work was kind of outsider and invariably interesting to the general public. We traveled to Denver to participate in Cherry Creek one year, we'd been lucky enough to do it multiple times. Sonny was selected -- he nearly sold out -- and never got in again.
It is amazing that after all these years and all the changes in the economics of the US, the rise of the Internet, etc., that the shows go on. My hope is that all involved in the art fair biz will keep their eyes open and evolve with the times. It is a cool cultural tradition in our country that commerce like this is not regulated (laws, licenses, permits, bribes) to make it impossible for individuals to get out on the street and take their chances.
Connie, thank you for asking both of my questions! Cindy's answer to my second question surprises me actually - not the answer, but her willingness to admit: "We don't care [how much] you sell...We'll steer away if someone will say, 'oh they sell really well.' We're not here about selling...we're here to get the best art. It's never been about the sales." So in this respect, it's a Gallery attitude not an Art Fair attitude – which is something artists struggle to understand.
For top tier shows, like St. Louis, for example, it's more about the presentation, the reputation, and the consistent "look," rather than providing an art market. In other words, they provide a space for collectors to be seen and to collect, over providing a space for average walks-of-life to buy artwork. It's a fuzzy line, but I think helpful to those artists out there who simply aren't gallery-caliber. This attitude says: If you know this isn't you and will never be you, stop applying to that type of show, no matter how profitable you are in other shows.
On that note, though, I'd like to play Devil's Advocate. Here's a real-life scenario: Artist A "plays by the rules," gets into "X" Top Tier show every year, and yet notices her sales are in decline year-over-year (due to a number of potential reasons: oversaturation, collectors are done collecting, or too expensive for or doesn't fit the taste of the changing local culture, etc.). Artist B finally gets into "X" Top Tier show after years of applications (one juror – who understood the work beyond the slides and booth shot, beyond the "rule playing" – fought for Artist B). Artist B has an incredible response, with frequent comments like "this is so different, it's so great to see something new in the show, this is so much more affordable" and doubles her typical show total. Despite this real-life success/profitability, the odds Artist B will get back into this show the following year are still slim because Artist B doesn't completely fit into the rule-playing template.
That's the "Profitability Story" that real dollar numbers can tell. Artist B could inform the director of the responses she received from the public, and the director could choose to believe her or not, but the numbers don't lie.
But why should the director care about the numbers?
If top tier artists continue to keep their sales up, obviously there's no problem there. But if top tier artists' sales are down, and the buying public is bored with the standard-issue selection, this would eventually erode both the show's attendees and the show's applicants. Over the past decade, I've watched this happen at the small to mid-size tier shows. And while top tier shows are more immune (because the talent is of a higher caliber), it might be something to keep watch for. At the end of the day, everyone's here to make money. The city, the neighboring businesses, the vendors, the show organizers, and the artists. The public is who ultimately funds each and every one of these entities. So we have to keep the public happy.
It's a wonder, in this digital day and age, that art festivals are still alive and relatively well (ok maybe not like the 80s/90s, ha!)...and this begs the question: will the bubble ever burst? Are there signs we should account for? Are there old traditions we should pivot away from? Definitely food for thought.
Thanks again, Connie (and Cindy), looking forward to more info to come!
To everyone who submitted questions and your question wasn't addressed in yesterday's podcast we will host another podcast within the next month with Cindy Lerick again and one or two artists who have been successful in being accepted to the upper tier of events.
(My apologies to you for not getting to them yesterday. I've got them saved for the next one.)
Great comment, Mark, re all the pieces of that.
Thank you for a great podcast yesterday, very informative.
One comment that I had, a suggestion really, for some of the newer artists, is this: attend a mock jury session, if you can, or real jury session for one of the shows that you feel is representative of a show you want to be in. A few years ago I attended a mock jury session put on by Cherry Creek, where they actually took submissions from artists in advance, then brought in the jurors from the previous year's show to do a session on the submissions. There were perhaps 60 or 70 artists present; it was both reassuring and humbling to see your work up there on the jurying screen, and listen to the jurists comment on their impressions.
Some of the results were incongruous: I remember distinctly two women, one a very well dressed photographer, lots of expensive jewelry, the other a silversmith, who was nervous, not well dressed and almost shaking with fear. Once their work was projected on the jury screen, #1's work was, at best, average, and you could tell by her reaction that even she realized it once she saw it on the screens, #2's work was absolutely stunning, flawless, imaginative, and caused 2 of the jurors to actually gasp in admiration.
None of those two sets of reactions would be apparent simply by talking to either of the artists and looking at a portfolio one on one.
My point, participating in the mock jury really helped me, and others, see where their work stood in relation to other's. For me it was reassuring, for #2, it gave her the confidence to apply to shows, for #1, well, it at least saved her from wasting alot of time with show applications and showed her quite plainly where her work stood in relation to others.
Well, as long as I am droning on and on, a comment to Peter: my impression, there probably is either a bias or perhaps simply alot of competition in the photography medium. The photographers that I have exhibited next to, in La Quinta, Sausalito, Golden, they have absolutely stunning shots, in large format prints, 3 x 4' up to I think 4 x 6' some even larger. yes, they have to haul all of these framed prints around; there are also alot of cameras around these days, so my impression is that perhaps people perceive a photo as somehow 'less rare' than, say, a one off sculpture in a new medium. So, these photographers have to have everything much more perfect looking than other artists, simply as there is much more competition. Also, again my opinion, these photographers have been at it at least 20 years before they have the 20 or so killer photos, out of the thousands they have taken, for an outstanding display. So, hang in there, it takes time, persistence, and being aware that there is alot of competition in your category. You are at year 3; this is how long it took me, 3 years of shows, to decide if this was something I actually wanted to do, and if I really had anything of interest to people or if my work was simply new bright shiny objects and interested would pass after a year or so.
So, $0.02 of opinion from another artist whose work sometimes has to compete visually with huge stunning photographs at shows. Obviously it would be better to hear from Cindy
Hello Cindy, I'm a fine-art photographer and have been doing shows for 3 seasons now. So far I've found it to be very competitive and difficult to get into the better shows. I've also had a very strong impression that there is a bit of bias against the photography medium.
My questions are:
1. Do you think that there is a bias against the photography medium?
2. If so, are there any insider tips you might recommend for fine-art photographers show applications?
3. And one last one: From a passing the jury standpoint do you think it is better to keep all the jury images in one category (i.e. all Mountain scenes, all photos of Trees, cowboys, or wildlife) or is it okay to mix things up (i.e. a mountain scene, a tree, a bird and a astro-photograph)? Why?
Please elaborate as much as you can. I'm trying to figure all this out. Thank you so much
Question:
What are your best tips for a successful booth shot? And what are common pitfalls to avoid in a booth shot?
Thank you!!!
Two questions for Cindy:
1. Shows that have stricter jury process standards appear to select similar batches of artists over the years vs shows that have looser processes. Do consistency and the show's "look" matter more than diversity?
2. Juror/Director taste vs Public taste can be very different. Artist Profitability is clearly a plus (one example: more buying = more sales tax for the city). How could Artist Profitability could become an additional factor when applying to a show? Would this even matter to jurors or are they simply interested in aesthetic? If the former: much like a booth shot indicates aesthetic and professionalism, proof of a previous show total or show total from a similar show-size/city (i.e. via a Square report) could act as an additional weight/score for jurors, especially in tie-breakers. It wouldn't be a requirement, but an added boost.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next