The college professor went ìballisticî. He menacingly
picked up his work and stalked out of the museum, angrily declaring
that he had not been rejected from a show in 22 years. This anger
would boil within him for months to come, and he would likely
not again risk being cut from a juried show.
Like so many others that day, he probably felt humiliated, dumbfounded,
and deeply hurt. It was extremely difficult for him to accept
the fact that his advanced and high quality art had been juried
out of this exhibit. Because this elimination would also be a
threat to his professional status and general reputation, this
experience would probably only be discussed in confidential moments.
He was not in any mood to consider that this same jurying had
eliminated more than 800 pieces of art, along with his work .
There had been a large number entered, and there had to be a large
number eliminated...that process of culling, that blind jurying,
was of a nature that had to overlook artist professional achievement,
status and history. The jurors could not worry much about the
hurt that would be felt by those rejected. Because of the goals
of the museum and jurors, in this case at least, the background
and professional achievements of the artists could not weigh much
as criteria for acceptance. The professor was in broadly mixed
company, and among a huge number of those being juried out.
In another case some years ago, an individual artist threatened
a law suit to an organization because that organization wanted
to allow curators, dealers and art consultants to view all the
slides of art work that had been entered into an exhibit, including
those which had been juried out. This viewing had been hoped to
open opportunities for professionals to view work which they might
then use for their own exhibit and sale purposes. At first blush
this seemed like a positive opportunity for the artists. However,
the artist threatening the law suit believed that the recognition
of rejection would besmirch a reputation. The fact that this artist
was only one among hundreds that had been juried out did not lessen
the potential humiliation and fear.
May it be sufficient and obvious to say that large numbers of
artists have experienced similar rejection, resulting in some
personal hurt. If one is willing and brave enough to submit to
the jurying process, rejection will eventually be experienced
by all. If one continues to attempt to get into these juried shows,
then one must be resilient. If one is repeatedly juried out of
such exhibits, then that resilience should manifest itself as
other directions taken to get the work displayed.
THE INSTITUTIONS
Museums and public venues have their individual Missions. Most
of these will include goals providing opportunities for the public
to see quality art, and to provide opportunities for artists to
show their work. But with the very large number of artists vying
for the exposure, and with the small number of slots available
to show work, there must be some process of selection.
Sometimes this selection process depends upon one or a few individuals
who make these choices. Individual persons employed by the institutions
can play important roles in both large and small venues, perhaps
with a director or curator making all exhibition decisions. At
least the very least these personalities play a very persuasive
role in any selection process and by establishing the direction
an institution might take. With these persons ìin powerî,
we have the situation when artists speak about fears of offending
the director/curator, and of the need to pay homage to them, and
to kiss rings (or A particular body part). These museum and gallery
professionals can guide the direction of exhibits one way or another,
sometimes influencing the process for decades. Clearly these personalities
can help or hinder reputations by offering or denying opportunities
for artists to bolster their resumes. Benign neglect isnít
exactly a stab in the heart, but it is a necessary non-action
that institutions must take when arranging their exhibit schedules.
The directions institutions take, with opportunities being created
or eliminated, can certainly be seen in Wisconsin museum activities
of the past 10 years, including the Milwaukee Art Museumís
elimination of its Wisconsin programs, The Wustumís proartist
stance in Racine and its associated forthcoming new Racine Art
Museum, The West Bend Museum of Artís commitment to Wisconsin
artists, and so forth. Some prominent professionals have altered
and molded the processes to considerable extent, with good or
bad results for Wisconsin artists. Philosophy, point of view,
politics and influence, personal preferences...increasing support
to enhance the visibility of regional artists, and sometimes the
reverse.
If the institution is interested in exhibiting the work of living
artists, and then confronts the large number of artists who are
looking for exhibit time, the process for selection may come down
to some variation on established jurying methods. This is often
done in hopes of arriving at a quality exhibit by a means that
might best keep the influence of personalities and the intrigues
of politics, friendships, antagonisms...the conflicts of interest,
out of the selection process as much as possible.
THE JURYING PROCESS
The exhibiting venue will call for entries, usually producing
a prospectus with all appropriate information about rules, requirements
of size and weight, methods of framing, dates of the exhibition
and deadlines, a mention of the jurying procedure with the names
and qualifications of jurors, awards, fees, and forms to be filled
out with artist name, address, media, titles, etc. Artists must
read this prospectus very carefully, especially because when a
large number of pieces are competing, entrants with errors or
which display some incompetence can easily be eliminated to reduce
the number that must be viewed.
The actual art entries are either expected to be brought to a
site on the appropriate date(s), or slides of the entries must
be provided for scrutiny on a deadline. Of course, having the
actual work viewed by the jurors is a superior way to judge the
entries, but if one has two hundred artists each submitting 2
or 3 works, the amount of work space and storage room required
to do the job is huge. Therefore, the slide jurying method is
often employed. The submitted slides must be organized, placed
in projection trays perhaps with one set for each juror, the jurors
must make their selections in a timely fashion, the selections
of each juror must be compared with other jurors, and the selected
artists must be notified.
Artists must learn to provide the highest quality slides possible.
This means that leaning a painting against a tree, or photographing
a piece in bad lighting, or otherwise failing to do the best possible
slide production, may prompt a piece to be juried out. Remember,
one is in some sort of competition with other artists who will
do the best job possible, and the jurors will make conscious or
unconscious responses to the image as presented...the whole image,
errors included. If there are hundreds of slides to look at, judgments
are sometimes made quickly, so each entrant must create the best
possible chance to survive the jurying process. This might mean
learning some simple photographic skills, or persuading or paying
someone more skilled to do the photography. The culling of entrants
is therefore not purely based upon recognition of what work is
high quality, but also how the work is effectively represented
in the slides.
When the jurying is by slides, there is also usually a final viewing
of the actual pieces chosen to see if the objects match the slides,
and to award prizes from the actual objects. This is a point at
which the jurors must actually be present to review the work they
had selected. If they find that an actual work grossly fails to
meet their expectations, there is a chance that such an object
might still be eliminated.
The matter of charging artists fees to enter is a subject of discomfort.
Usually there are large costs involved in creating these exhibits,
and not every organizing entity has the necessary funds to do
this without budget help. Some of the costs that artist fees help
to cover are: creation and printing of the prospectus, including
its mailing; payment for judges, which will include their travel,
lodging and food; printing and mailing of invitations and often
a catalog; cash awards for artists; opening costs to include food,
drinks, catering, etc. It would not be unusual for organizers
to lose money on these exhibitions, even when charging artist
fees.
THE JURORS
Qualified persons somehow involved in the arts are usually chosen
as jurors. In the end, no matter what the juror background and
skills, the selection process is achieved thru a bit less than
totally objective means. Every juror carries personal preferences,
opinions arrived at independently by personal experience, or they
may have notions which are imitative of others. There may be deeply
felt philosophical ideas which may be akin to those of a zealot.
The judge may see in a work some historical antecedent, similarity
of a piece to some style of work currently touted in New York
or art publications, and therefore decide to say yes or no as
a result. A work or style might appear imitative, outdated, cautious,
adventurous, or exciting depending upon whatever prejudices, preferences
and preconceptions the juror might have. And of course, there
is the personal mood of the day, brought on by a cup of coffee,
a sleepless night, or an argument with a lover.
It is only hoped that the experience of these jurors is enough
to provide insights that will result in an exhibit that is satisfactory
to the greatest number of viewers. No matter who chooses, and
no matter what is chosen, there will be differences of opinion
and criticism from some expected number of critics. Obviously
a large number of the submitting artists will be unhappy.
Why do these jurors agree to do this job? It is true that almost
always some monetary reward is offered to potential jurors, and
this can range from a couple of hundred dollars to considerably
more, depending upon the means of the venue and the qualifications
of the jurors. Usually travel and living accommodation expenses
are covered as well, with the distances and type of travel greatly
affecting costs. However, the money is unlikely to be the greatest
motivating factor for well established and experienced jurors.
Here are some of the other possibilities they are willing to get
involved.
First, there is a prestige aspect. To be asked to pass judgment
upon art suggests that the juror has gained respect and recognition
in a professional field, and the juror can add this experience
to a resume. Secondly, perhaps less consciously than subconsciously,
the juror can introduce (impose) personal convictions and professional
standards and influences upon some limited body of work, artists
and public. Thirdly, there can be the element of altruism, when
the juror believes that some public good is being done by participating
in the jurying process. Fourthly, the process can be both intellectually
challenging and fun, and can expose the juror to what artists
are doing at a particular place and time. Jurying, especially
by slides, can be tedious, tiring and difficult. Jurors truly
earn their money and do expose themselves to some potential criticism.
They deserve our respect and thanks.
THE ARTISTS
Working alone in studios artists experience a variety of thoughts
and emotions as art is produced. There is the intellectual element,
the emotional component, and the physical involvement. Often enough
the artists find themselves in a ìzoneî like the
athlete, the writer and the performer who reaches a state of emersion
that is satisfying and sometime addictive. Perhaps this is the
ìnuminousî moment...a taste of rapture...that place
and state of being when one finds a satisfaction in the process
of living that most links one with the flow of the Universe. There
are no drugs involved...there is only the individual being somehow
linked deeply by the creative process to the engine of Life and
Energy. What endorphins come into play a scientist must determine.
Now, fast forward to the reality of the jurying process. After
stepping from the studio or place of creative endeavor, the artist
then faces the practical, tedious and unhappy experiences associated
with exhibiting the art. After those hours spent in what may have
been the joyful emersion of art production, the artist will have
to face the unpleasantries of seeking out venues...dealers, museums,
markets and other places for public exposure. One will have to
submit to the judgment and criticisms of persons who have not
traveled the same paths, who have not thought similar thoughts,
who have not worked hard to learn specialized insight and peculiar
knowledge. The art may become just another commodity in the overflowing
marketplace, being subjected to processes well out of control
of the creator of that art.
While in the studio the art object and process was controlled
entirely by the artistís hands and thoughts. It became
the child of the artist...the vehicle for idea and physical expression.
It was truly an extension of the artists flesh and mind, perhaps
created in a near state of bliss. Imagine then the realities of
submitting the things created to the jurying process. Not only
must the artist follow the necessary procedures of filling in
forms, making slides, following directions and delivering work,
but the artist must give up control in the selection process to
others who have not experienced and thought nearly as much about
the individual works as has the artist. The knife of the juror
is at hand to slice thru the entries, doing a necessary job, perhaps
stabbing the hearts of some artists in the process.
Many artists will decline from entering these jurying attempts
for a variety of reasons. There are those for whom the amount
and type of effort involved is too unpleasant. There are those
who do not believe the particular juror will view their type of
work with objective eyes. There are those who do not like the
venue or personalities involved. And, there are those very accomplished
artists, independently successful, having gallery representation
and/or professional status with colleges, who have no need to
address these juried shows...and who do not want to be found wanting
if someone refuses them entry.
A CONCLUSION?
Whether to attempt or not to attempt...entirely a personal matter,
and undoubtedly everyone wavers when considering whether or not
to enter the fray. However, experiencing the success of acceptance
a few times is a very encouraging persuasion. Likewise, continued
rejection is quite a deterrent.
The institutions and organizations that create these juried shows
must be praised. What they do, the planning and work involved,
is difficult and sometimes unpleasant. However, considering the
pros and cons, it does seem that any jurying scheme is better
than not having any opportunity at all. And the jurors must be
thanked...simply, someone has to do it with as much an accomplished
and objective eye as possible. The artists are more than likely
to be even less objective in their choices than are the less involved
jurors.
Finally, the artists must be considered the most important cog
in this wheel, for they are the underlying reason for these exhibits
ever being attempted in the first place. They produce the art
objects. They are the motivational force, the bedrock, and ground
zero for artís existence and visual expression, and they
brave the process of selection.
If someone can find a better way than the juried shows to reach
the most artists and the greatest number of viewers, then let
those processes take over. Despite hopes for the Internet to help,
despite complaints about the jurying methods and potential the
flaws in the jurying system, juried exhibits remain an extremely
important means and method for art to be shown. At the very least,
the juried show will be part of the mix for decades to come.
Eliminate all the juried shows and experience the vacuum.
Back to Compositions