Michael McDowell on sun 24 mar 96
Fellow Sufferers,
One of my now deceased mentors was Louis Mideke, a self taught potter from
Northwest Washington. Back in the '50's Lou was participating in national
competitions/exhibitions at a time when functional pieces were still the main
thrust of what was being shown at these events. Although he was usually accepted
into these shows, he was rarely a prize winner. Then the emphasis in jurying
began to change, and the work he was doing was no longer making the "cut". As he
told me his story, he decided to try to make a piece for competition based on
his impression of what they were now looking for. He entered this piece in a
show that was being held somewhere in Florida, I believe, and his piece won
first prize. That was the last competition he ever entered. He went back to
doing the work that was meaningful to him, profoundly simple & functional
pottery. Lou judged his own work in comparison to work from throughout the ages.
The nicest compliment I ever got from him on my own work was when he told me one
of my pieces "looks like it might have been dug up". I have rarely sought to
enter national competition myself. Keeping Lou's story in mind, I prefer to let
my work be judged by time, but just lately I have been thinking of seeing if
what I do anyway will satisfy the criteria of current fashion as well as myself.
So I have been sending away for show prospectii of late.
I've found that there is a lack of standards in how these shows are put on that
is rather disturbing to me. A this point I have only got prospectii from three
competitions, so I have a very small sample from which to form my opinions, but
I thought I might share my impressions so far with Clayart & see what others
have to say. The three competitions that I am basing my remarks on are:
1. The Strictly Functional Pottery National (SFPN), presented by Market House
Craft Center in Ephrata, PA .
2. Feats of Clay, put on by Lincoln Arts in Lincoln, CA
3. Ceramics, USA, held at the University of North Texas
Two of these three competitions require participating artists to totally or
partially release the competition for liability for the work while it is in the
hands of the competition staff. Only Ceramics USA offers that entries will be
insured while in its hands. SFPN places a maximum price per piece of $300 yet
insists that artists accept an insurance deductable of "$250 per incident".
Feats of Clay "will assume no responsibility for loss or damage incurred".
I don't feel that requiring such waivers of liability are ethical practice on
the part of these competitions. In fact I am not even sure that such
requirements are even legal. I believe that in Washington State there is a law
declaring any such waiver void between a consignee & consignor and that the
consignee will always be held fully responsible for loss or damage to consigned
goods in their hands. Since pieces at these exhibitions are offered for sale
this is a consignee/consignor relationship just like leaving pieces with a
gallery or shop. I am not aware of the laws on this matter in other
states/countries but IMHO it should be a law everywhere. What do my fellow
Clayarters feel about this?
A second question I have about these competition/exhibitions is why the
prospectii are so vague about the kind of exposure accepted pieces will receive.
SFPN was clearest on this issue & I suspect does the best. Neither of the other
two prospectii offers any promise of where the exhibit will be reviewed or an
approximation of how many people viewed the previous years exhibit. This seems a
particularly questionable area for Feats of Clay, since the exhibit is being
held at a terra cotta factory, and those who would like to view it are required
to call ahead & schedule a tour.
Perhaps I am missing the point of these events. Maybe it is simply a matter of
putting another line in a resume. A purely astracted datum that participants are
after here, and these other trivia are insignificant. I certainly have the
option of continuing to abstain from them, but I would like to know what others
think on the subject, and perhaps to get information on a larger sample of such
events.
Michael McDowell
Now I've really got to go mow & get after those weeds!
Indianapolis Art Center on mon 25 mar 96
Two of these three competitions require participating artists to totally or
>partially release the competition for liability for the work while it is in the
>hands of the competition staff. Only Ceramics USA offers that entries will be
>insured while in its hands.
Most insurance policies are for liability only. Breakage protection is an
extra charge per object covered, based on the value of the object (can be up
to $0.15 per $1 for the premium) and the premium can run into the thousands
for a ceramics-only show where each and every piece has to be covered.
Maybe not an ethical practice, but a practical one. Otherwise your fees to
enter would be extremely high.
Entering a juried show is not a consignor-consignee relationship, because
the primary purpose is not the sale of your work. Typical
consignor-consignee laws do not apply.
A second question I have about these competition/exhibitions is why the
>prospectii are so vague about the kind of exposure accepted pieces will
receive.
>SFPN was clearest on this issue & I suspect does the best. Neither of the other
>two prospectii offers any promise of where the exhibit will be reviewed or an
>approximation of how many people viewed the previous years exhibit.
Someone else said this as well--there are never any guarantees about
exposure. If you are trying to enter these shows to sell your work, you'd
be better off doing an art fair because the public at fairs all know that
the show is for the purposes of selling work. Juried competitions are ways
to have a really great exhibition of a wide variety of work, and the people
going to them are just going to look and see, not buy. As for whether they
will get reviewed, well, it depends on the relationship between the show and
the press, which can vary by the minute.
Julia Moore
Indianapolis Art Center
Kristin Conrad on mon 25 mar 96
>I've found that there is a lack of standards in how these shows are put on that
>is rather disturbing to me. A this point I have only got prospectii from three
>competitions, so I have a very small sample from which to form my opinions, but
I, too, have started to consider entering shows this year. So, I have sent
for and received at least 6 or 7 prosectii and the lack of standards most
troubling to me is this. I have obtained this show information
specifically from ceramics magazines in an effort to weed out shows that
aren't particularly looking for ceramic entries. However, I have received
multiple prospectii in which, after reading repeatedly, I suspected they
really had no intention of accepting functional ceramic pieces, although
they never specifically said that (because I am sure they would gladly
accept the $20 entry fee from me). These shows were described so broadly
and hazily, that I could not get any idea what they were even based on, or
what kind of work they WERE looking for. I have no gripe with shows
representing a broad range of work IF they state openly that that is what
they are trying to represent. I also like shows that state what they are
looking for specifically (i.e. functional shows, or ceramic sculpture).
But to send out a very non-specific prospectus in the hopes that I might
just take my chances and give them my $20 entry to fatten their pockets is
to me unethical. I won't waste my money, but I have already wasted my time
and some stamps.
So here's to MORE exhibits which define themselves better to their public
and to their entrants. Besides, as a person who likes to view shows, too,
I much prefer the show to have some theme. The "flea-market" approach to
art shows is just BORING (to me).
Kristin Conrad
Rollinsville, CO
Michael McDowell on wed 27 mar 96
With regard to Julia Moore's comment that liability insurance for individual
pieces at competitions might cost up to a dollar for each individual piece, thus
making the cost of entry prohibitivly high. Julia - figure it out - SFPN had
something like 270 entrants paying 15 to 30 dollars to have their work juried by
slides, yet only 83 pieces were accepted and would need to be covered by
liability insurance. Who's kidding who?
Michael
Valice Raffi on wed 27 mar 96
>So I have been sending away for show prospectii of late.
>2. Feats of Clay, put on by Lincoln Arts in Lincoln, CA
>particularly questionable area for Feats of Clay, since the exhibit is being
>held at a terra cotta factory, and those who would like to view it are required
>to call ahead & schedule a tour.
Sorry to take so long to get back to you... (the deadline for entries on
Feats Of Clay was past at the time of your post).
I've gone to the Feats Of Clay exhibit for the past 5 years and was
accepted last year. The accepted works are mostly sculpture but there have
also been many pieces in the shows that are tea sets, cups and platters,
but these are also more sculptural than functional. I was *humbly* honored
to be accepted, one of 59 out of 860.
The terra cotta factory (Gladding McBean)is quite impressive! Part of the
show is placed inside a gigantic beehive kiln, as is the food & wine during
the reception(s). The rest of the show is located in an area which houses
the molds used in the architectural tile work of the company. Gladding
McBean is a 120 year old company, that did a tremendous amount of work in
the 20's & 30's. They've remained in business by producing terra cotta
pipe (& still do decorative tile, gargoyles etc.)
The show has 2 receptions, the first for local businesses and arts patrons
who pay for the priviledge of "1st crack" at the art. Many of the works
sell that first night. The 2nd is for the public (who also pay to attend),
aprox 500 last year. The tours are set up because Gladding McBean is not
only a working business, but also almost a museum. It is truly an amazing
place. I think 4-5,000 people attend during the show.
As I am "local", I delivered my piece, and I too was worried about the
insurance factor. but I have never heard of any breakage.
I encourage you all to try and get to a show there if you have a chance,
it's about 45 minutes from Sacramento.
Valice
Indianapolis Art Center on wed 27 mar 96
I said BREAKAGE, not liability! If a piece that got accepted into the show
is valued at $2000, at $0.02 per $1 of value, that's $40 in breakage premium
for JUST THAT ONE PIECE!!!
Entry fees usually go towards the cost of printing and mailing a call for
entries (total cost of these items generally about $500 for a cheap piece),
compensating and paying the expenses for a juror or several, and paying the
costs of administering the competition as a whole (people don't come free
for these things). 200 entrants at $15 ea. is only $3,000--that's before
any insurance, catalogue, etc. $ for awards are usually raised separately
because it's not fair to have entry fees pay for awards.
You figure it out, Michael. Nobody's twisting your arm to apply for
competitions--I know many, many artists who do just fine without the whole
scene.
Julia Moore
Indianapolis Art Center
Nils Lou on wed 27 mar 96
Looks like you guys are finally beginning to figure out the "Lottery
Scam" aspects with entry fee shows. Why not a fee if you are accepted?
- I know I keep harping on this subject, but it is a serious issue--Nils Lou
On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Michael McDowell wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> With regard to Julia Moore's comment that liability insurance for individual
> pieces at competitions might cost up to a dollar for each individual piece, th
> making the cost of entry prohibitivly high. Julia - figure it out - SFPN had
> something like 270 entrants paying 15 to 30 dollars to have their work juried
> slides, yet only 83 pieces were accepted and would need to be covered by
> liability insurance. Who's kidding who?
>
> Michael
>
Jean Lehman on wed 27 mar 96
Michael McDowell has enough mis-information in his posts that I will
respond without TRYING to be too defensive...
First, the Market House Craft Center (that produces the Strictly Functional
Pottery National) is a non-profit volunteer organization.
Second, the SFPN limits the selling price of entries to a ceiling of $600
(not $300 as Michael stated in his post of 3/24).
Third, entry fees were $10 for one, $15 for two, and $20 for three entries
(not $15-30 as he stated in his post of 3/27).
It is clear that Michael has never been involved in an organization that
puts on a major event...
or he would know that:
It costs MONEY to print and mail out the prospectus to prospective applicants.
It costs MONEY to advertise in magazines to attract applicants.
It costs MONEY to get the juror and bring him/her to the site.
It costs MONEY to put together a quality catalog with 45 or more photographs.
It costs MONEY to print and mail out invitations to the opening reception
It is amazing how the expenses add up. Even the phone bill gets very high.
etc. etc. etc.
The Market House Craft Center ALREADY plans on "spending," or "investing"
(which could be called "losing", I suppose), $1000 on prize money because
our sponsorships are not large enough to cover the awards we want to be
able to give.
We do not charge admission to view this exhibition. We work very hard at good
We do always try really hard to break even on the SFPN. If we SHOULD come
out ahead that money will be put back into the exhibition for prizes or
upgrading the prospectus, the catalog, or whatever. I would hate to feel
like we had to put a thousand dollars or more aside for insurance
deductibles. So far, the SFPN has had NO insurance claims. But the Market
House Craft Center cannot afford the kind of loss that COULD happen. If
anyone has suggestions, we would be MORE than happy to listen. We agree
that it is hard on the artists to have to bear this burden and if we can
figure out a way to avoid it for next year we will try. Maybe we could try
to split that responsibility in the future. (Just thinking of solutions
here... that idea and any others would have to pass through the Market
House Craft Center's Board of Directors before it could become reality.)
We are very proud of the Strictly Functional Pottery National, and are very
pleased at the support we have received from the PA Council on the Arts,
from our business sponsors, from the craft community, and from the public.
We can always improve. If you have ideas to help us do that, we very much
appreciate them.
Jean Lehman (only a LITTLE defensive, as Project Director, SFPN)
j_lehman@ACAD.FandM.EDU (that's an _underscore_ not a hyphen)
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>With regard to Julia Moore's comment that liability insurance for individual
>pieces at competitions might cost up to a dollar for each individual
>piece, thus
>making the cost of entry prohibitivly high. Julia - figure it out - SFPN had
>something like 270 entrants paying 15 to 30 dollars to have their work
>juried by
>slides, yet only 83 pieces were accepted and would need to be covered by
>liability insurance. Who's kidding who?
>
>Michael
SLPBM@cc.usu.edu on thu 28 mar 96
Nils-
About this fee thing if you are accepted.... would it be fair if the fee were
say.... $50 to be in a show and zip if your work were rejected? at what
point does being in a show become a losing venture?
Two separate ideas but with a big question mark behind each.
Alex in Utah where the crocuses are making colorful noise in my front yard
Nils Lou on thu 28 mar 96
Yes, exactly! I have no problem with a fee so long as I get value for it.
For example, if I send in my entry and it is accepted I would pay an
appropriate fee to cover most expenses, perhaps awards or color catalog.
I can see an appropriate fee being $100 in an important national show.
With 50 selected that raises $5000. In addition, you have sales with the
gallery typically taking 30-40%, sometimes more. In addition, the gallery
is responsible for some costs--are they not getting publicity. Surely
they must have a budget for operating expenses. As for high paid jurors,
baloney. In most instances they are paid a modest honorarium unless there
is unnecessary hype promoting either the juror or money scam.
I am currently installing a show- 3rd Oregon Clay Invitational at
Linfield College. I have an operating budget of $4000 for the year! No
fancy catalog, but definitely mucho publicity which is mostly free. The
invitees pay for shipping to the gallery I pay return. The mailer costs
about $200, postage $100 and return shipping for 35 entries about $400.
If I can't budget the show I don't put it on. If I run short local
companies contribute because I ask and they are proud to have the local
prestige of a national invitational. Half of the show are "biggies".I
believe it is time for these show organizers to get off their collective
butts and pay the freight. They are the beneficiaries. Yes, If you get
accepted a fee is appropriate--if not shipping costs...Nils Lou
On Thu, 28 Mar 1996 SLPBM@cc.usu.edu wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Nils-
> About this fee thing if you are accepted.... would it be fair if the fee were
> say.... $50 to be in a show and zip if your work were rejected? at what
> point does being in a show become a losing venture?
> Two separate ideas but with a big question mark behind each.
>
> Alex in Utah where the crocuses are making colorful noise in my front yard
>
Michael McDowell on thu 28 mar 96
Please let me apologize to Jean Lehman for the misinformation in my previous
post regarding the dollar figures for entry fees & the limit on prices for
entries to the Strictly Functional Pottery National. I hope I have learned from
this that I should not simply rely on my memory & dash off responses quoting
figures that I could & should verify before posting them to the list. I do very
much appreciate the efforts of Jean & all those involved in putting on the SFPN.
I feel you do a real service for the community of potters in presenting
functional pottery as an art form to a national audience. If the tone of what I
have posted on this subject so far has put you on the defensive please let me
try to alter that tone if possible to encourage you to accept my remarks as
constructive criticism. I do want to affirm the good efforts that are going into
the SFPN, but I also want to encourage even better efforts in the future.
Taking the time to get the numbers correct here, this year there were 722 pieces
submitted for jurying for the SFPN. 83 pieces were accepted. Somehow you have
managed to provide insurance coverage for loss exceeding the $250 deductible
already, so I am wondering what could it cost to remove that deductible? If the
figures Julia Moore quoted in her last post on the subject are correct, and
coverage can be had for $0.02 per dollar of coverage and you need an additional
$250 of coverage for each of the 83 pieces (though I doubt that all 83 are
priced above $250) this amount would be 83 * $250 * .02 = $415. If this expense
was to be spread out amongst all entries that would amount to $415/722 = $0.57
per entry. This hardly seems like it would be prohibitive, I think it is more a
question of priorities. I am simply suggesting that SFPN should make taking full
responsibility for accepted entries a higher priority. The competition has
increased prize money significantly each year. I don't think that diverting some
of that money toward fully insuring accepted entries would be inappropriate.
Jean, as I said in the e-mail message I sent you directly back on January 31st,
to which you never responded, "After all, every piece that ends up being
accepted is a "winner" and this seems like only giving them their due."
The CERAMICS USA competition has somehow managed to provide for full coverage
for pieces accepted to their exhibition. Perhaps we could hear from someone
involved in that event how they have managed to do so.
Jean, I will assume that you are serious in your request for suggestions on how
you could make your competition better. Please don't respond defensively when
you then get actual suggestions. I will risk further calumny and offer you yet
another suggestion. From the point of view of one of the mass of entrants who
simply get a rejection letter for the money & effort spent in submitting for
jurying, there is plenty of room for improvement in the area of feedback
provided to the "also rans". I am not so naive as you may think regarding the
fact that it takes lots of cash & effort to put on an event such as SFPN, but
surely you must realize that you will only improve it by even further effort &
expenditure. If the competition could offer more information to those who are
not accepted on just how well their respective entries were recieved, you would
certainly be providing greater service to the community of potters this event is
supposedly intended to benefit. You might find that the more feedback you
provide to rejected entrants, the more entries you will get over time. I realize
that this would not be a trivial task to accomplish, but it would provide a real
service to all participants as well. Something to think about?
Michael McDowell
Ron Roy on fri 29 mar 96
Hello the list,
I must say I feel the same way as Nils about juried shows and have decided
to forgo most unless they meet my criteria.
Jurors must be included in call for entry.
Jurors statements as to what attitude they will bring to the selection process.
Charge to the jury must be published.
There are other criteria I use and have to do with how I feel about the
organization sponsoring the show.
When I am asked to be a juror I insist on a statement in the call for entry
so those who are considering entering have some idea of what work a chance
of getting in.
I believe we should all have criteria for shows and we should let those who
decide to mount an exhibition know what we expect of them - even if we
decide not to "take a chance." RR
| |
|
