When I first started doing art shows, my naïve assumption was that when I applied to shows A, B, C, D, E and F, they were independent jury events – each show had their own set of jurors different from the others. My jury result for each event was distinct from the others. Part of the “level playing field” concept as I construed it.
Years ago, NAIA considered developing a list ‘recommended jurors’ for show directors. Insidious and egregious. It erodes that concept of independent juries, and shows A, B, C, D, E and F become linked by the jurors. The fate of artists similarly linked and determined: in your favor, if they like your work – not at all in your favor if they don’t. Not to mention art shows would begin looking eerily similar – e.g., very contemporary.
In the past several years I have seen this very thing happening: jurors used in more than one show - heading down that wicked path. This begs three primary questions – at least:
- What constitutes a “good” or “qualified” juror?
- What relationship do juror decisions have to art patrons and how do shows measure that success (or failure) of their jury process - and thus, their show?
- Does using jurors at more than one event not erode or destroy the concept of independent show juries?
The very real impact being if a juror doesn’t like your work at the first show they jury what is the likelihood they will like it at subsequent shows they jury? The reverse also true. Unless you submit different slides to each show to where maybe they do or do not recognize your work in subsequent viewing. Or submit the same slides with the intent of being ‘recognized’ by the jurors.
For example, if you are a wildlife photographer and any given jurors doesn’t like wildlife photography or consider it acceptable for a fine art show – does your choice of slides really matter from one show to the next on which that juror is involved? If they don’t like drip-glaze pottery, and that is your style, will any slide that represents your body of work change the jury results for that juror at any show at which they are involved? Or you do beaded jewelry and the juror has a bias for precious metal jewelry - and against beaded work. If you always get the same results from that juror, the process is no longer independent for you.
Would it not make more sense to limit each juror to only jurying a single event each year? I don’t believe shows have a shortage of people to ask to be jurors for their event. Limiting juror involvement has no negative for a juror – yet my belief is it can, and does, absolutely affect artists and their jury results. Not to mention it limits what the buying public ever gets to see. Is using jurors in more than one event really sound and the right thing to do? The best we can do? Are there not better models out there to use?
Replies
Steve and Ron, I think perhaps you are scapegoating the jurors a bit here. Yes you are both right that your area of photography is not heavily represented in the top tier fine art shows, but don't blame the jurors. The directors are the ones selecting the jurors, they have a good idea of what kind of show they want content wise, and pick their jurors respectively. If a director doesn't think they are getting the kind of show they want they would use different jurors. If you are not getting into art show "A" I doubt it has much to do with if they are using the same jurors as another show, and more to do with that show is just not as likely to take work such as yours. If you got into art fair "A" for many years but now can't, I think it is more a case of a culture shift in general, and not that a show is now recycling jurors.
Ron, your example of black and white photography has no weight in my opinion. A show is under no obligation to accept artists strictly based on percentages of applicants. If the St. Louis art fair got 100 submissions for hand made sock monkeys would they be obligated to let some in? Also the argument of "it will sell" is not a good one either. The sock monkeys may sell well, but do they belong? Buy/sell can do very well, should directors start letting them in too?
Now, I am not attacking either of you guys' work. I actually looked at your website Ron and I thought you had very nice stuff. So if you aren't getting into the "fancy " shows because they are too contemporary, then do different shows. I know there are lots of shows that have plenty of nature photographers in them, in fact I did one, and I barely sold any of my very contemporary pottery btw. You can argue that top tier shows need more of your style work, whether you are correct or not, but I think blaming the recycling of jurors is not the correct route. It is the culture of those shows itself that guides them.
Thank you for this insightful and thoughtful post Ron. You have touched on a topic that is near and dear to my heart. Juror bias and how it affects an artist’s ability to get into shows.
You see I am a wildlife and nature photographer. An argument could be made that I am near the top of my particular field of photography. I have done work for National Geographic, Canadian Geographic, Audubon, Sierra Club, The BBC, and many others. My work has appeared in museums and galleries all over the world, including Museums of Natural History of both, London and New York. As well as a one man show at the National Center for Nature Photography in Ohio. I travel around the country teaching and lecturing about my art form, for such organizations as the North American Nature Photography Association, The Rocky Mountain School of Photography, and The Adirondack Photography Institute.
But in nearly fifteen years of doing art shows I have only one time juried into what most artists would consider a top ten A level show, and I am only rarely able to jury into high B level shows. The reason for this I feel, is juror bias against my particular genre of photography. You see my work is too pedestrian, too traditional, not “cutting edge” enough, for the academicians and gallery owners that are most often chosen to jury these shows.
At the shows I do attend, my work is very popular with the buying public. I always need to do a double booth at shows simply because I need the space for the people that want to come into my booth and enjoy the work. The truth is if the shows were juried by the public that attends these shows I am fairly confident I would get into many, many more shows. Aren’t art shows supposed to be about connecting artists with buyers? There are buyers for my work, but I need to be able to cut through the bias to get in front of them.
I have included a copy of my booth image for you to see the level of presentation and professionalism.
booth 2012.jpg
Wonderful idea about each show using jurors that have juried only their show. Idea of the year! What a win-win or all involved. Shows would look fresh, artists would have equal chances, bias's would be harder to form. I hope this idea gains traction.
Thank you for the kind words Scott.
I say this because like many if not most, I became an artist because of my passion to create and to make that a living, finding ways to market my work. And ultimately for me it boils down to this:
My fate and that of any artist should be determined solely by the public/patrons. They are my target audience, NOT jurors.
I wrote a piece on this subject today.
Click here http://wp.me/p1HYza-4n if anyone would like to see it.
Munks
Good insight. Exactly what I've said, and you haven't been upbraided for it yet! 98% of the people who attend shows don't know or care whether they're dealing with sleaze...they just know it's pretty or something they want/can't live without. You're right about artists participating in the shows they want, the organizers organizing shows however they want, etc. No one will stand for more regulation...it's obvious in everything I've read on this site. I still think if the artists KNEW which shows openly allow b/s or do nothing about it when alerted to it, then the artists have the choice to apply or not. simple as that. Then perhaps, as I've been told, the "belly aching" could go away. Information is power, and it supplies a most informed choice.
In some ways I agree and some I don't because the jurors should have integrity, they should follow instructions given to them by the show director and they should be jurying each artist against all other artists in their medium.
I think three or more jurors should have at least two exhibiting artists on the panel. I think each juror should have some knowledge in at least two or three mediums other than their own. I think there should always be discussion between jurors and they should be able to verbally justify the score they give. Over 90% of the shows are juried from home on the juror's computer without any communication with the other jurors. I think there needs to be a way for jurors at home to communicate with more than just the mother ship. Maybe IM or multiple party telephone calls.
But to add fuel to the flame. I do know a juror who confided in me about rejecting an artist due to not liking the booth set up. Then when the juror juried another show, rejected the same artist again for the same reason. My question was whether the juror told the artist what was wrong after the first time. The answer was the artist was told nothing even though the juror knew the artist personally.
Larry Berman
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100
Thanks for the reply Larry. Agreed, jurors should have integrity but not sure that offsets the massive biases that some obviously carry for or against certain types of work, genre of works, styles of work and how that carries over from one jury event to the next. Your example, excellent I may add, illustrates that very point. That is the tip of the iceberg. And it is not fair. The same juror is affecting your jury results show upon show, depending on how many they do and you apply to that they do. God forbid you have TWO jurors from previous events that didn't like your work ...... That's just wrong.
I also wonder why all such issues are not of serious concern to= show directors - it obviously is to some, but not nearly enough. Also goes to why juror comments should not be optional but mandatory. Not only important feedback for artists but also the allow the director to understand why their jurors responded as they did and address such malfunctions before jury scores are ever sent out. Also NTF about such jurors and ensuring they never be used again.
As an example, and in no way to pick on the Columbus Arts Festival ... they are gracious enough to show for patrons (and possibly artists) archives of previous year's artists. The point is to say for our discussion .... in 2011 ..... look at the preponderance of black-and-white imagery in the Photography category. Does anyone think this really represents the ratio of black-and-white to color photography in the submissions that show receive? I don't think it shows up that way in many other shows nationwide. If it doesn't, then how does that weighting of black-and-white photography in any show happen unless (a) it is an hefty bias in the tastes of the jurors or (b) the case can be supported that it truly was the strongest of the photography submitted?
Last, the whole role of the booth slide is so confusing. It is off-point on this thread to some extent though not entirely as your example shows, Larry. According to the NAIA newsletter in Fall 2011, of the directors present some said they do not score the booth slide. This was on page 14 in the article entitled: "Booth Images: Report from the NAIA Conference." Specifically #2. "How is the booth image going to be juried? [question]: Will the booth image be scored, during jurying? [answser] All shows present said, "No".
So if the booth slide is NOT scored, how can any artist be rejected based on a liking or disliking of the booth slide? Obviously it did carry the weight of a score. And was applied by the same juror to the same artist at two different shows (there goes the independent jury process). Juror shouldn't have don't that, show director should have been the check. The system failed.