Vince Pitelka on sat 6 apr 96
Jim -
For the most part I agree with your post. Competitive exhibitions are always a
gamble. We send in our slides and we take our chances. I also agree that very
few competitive exhibitions are designed to make money for the presenters. In
many cases they barely break even. In the case of exhibitions where the work
is for sale, any profits are most likely from commissions on artwork sold.
But you misunderstand my request for a "juror's statement." I don't care if
it's from the juror. I just believe that show promoters/presenters should be
more upfront about what their priorities are. Also, I imagine quite a few
people involved in this thread resent your implication that we are "bitching"
unnecessarily about things.
Let me explain my concerns a little further. The evolution of art/craft and
the creation of works entirely new and original are always fascinating to
observe and study. One never knows where it will lead, but the process of
creative visualization and realization is invariably exciting. The
contemporary fine art world celebrates this phenomenon, to the point where
contemporary art (like contemporary society) is chaotic and fractured to the
extreme. Art reflects the time and place in which it is made, and contemporary
art is an entirely appropriate reflection of the strange world in which we
live.
I am very much in favor of the preservation and celebration of tradition and
history, but I also celebrate the diversity of contemporary art and the
extremes of artistic expression. In today's climate of expanding parameters in
art and aesthetics it is inevitable, and natural, that the separations between
fine art and fine craft should blur and fade. There's nothing deliberate or
insidious about this, and no one need feel threatened by it. It opens lots of
doors.
As the percieved distinctions or separations between fine art and fine craft
dissappear, people whose ceramic work straddles the line between fine art and
fine craft often find themselves in an awkward situation when it comes to
appropriate venues for exhibition and sale of their work. This in itself is an
old subject, but my concern here is with work which diverges from popular
trends and genres and finds it's own unique niche. Jurors don't know what to
do with it much of the time, especially if they have been asked to (or felt
personally compelled to) mount a "unified" exhibition. If contemporary art and
contemporary craft are becoming increasingly diversified and ecclectic, where
are the ceramics exhibitions that explore this phenomenon? There have been
some, but too many competitive exhibitions, by conscious or subconscious
ommission, push off to the side the work which is fartherst outside the
standards or norms of contemporary ceramics, regardless of aesthetic and/or
technical excellence, instead of including a larger percentage of this work to
reflect the considerable ecclecticism that does in fact exist in ceramics today.
My work is nothing revolutionary, but I am excited about the direction it has
taken, I like to show it, and it has been well received. But recently I have
taken to seeking alternative venues - college and university galleries,
community art centers, etc. (Any suggestions?). I still enter competitive
shows periodically, but with regularity I receive rejection notices with
statements like "The juror(s) worked very hard to mount a cohesive, unified
show." The only "cohesive, unified" shows that my work fits into seem to be
ones which emphasize colored clays, architectural vessels/sculpture, or
ecclecticism (they're rare). That's what this is all about. I would like to
see some shows make more of an effort to encourage and celebrate work which is
radically different, and I would like to see this indicated in the prospectus.
Are there others out there exploring unconventional directions who find
themselves in a similar situation? If no one responds affirmatively I'll shut
up about this once and for all.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - wkp0067@tntech.edu
Appalachian Center for Crafts - Tennessee Technological University
Smithville, TN
Now, the questions is, does this clarify the issue? I'm sure you'll let me
know.
Michael Henderson on sun 7 apr 96
At 09:50 AM 4/6/96 EST, Vince Pitelka wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Jim -
>
>For the most part I agree with your post. Competitive exhibitions are always a
>gamble. We send in our slides and we take our chances. I also agree that very
>few competitive exhibitions are designed to make money for the presenters. In
>many cases they barely break even. In the case of exhibitions where the work
>is for sale, any profits are most likely from commissions on artwork sold.
>
>But you misunderstand my request for a "juror's statement." I don't care if
>it's from the juror. I just believe that show promoters/presenters should be
>more upfront about what their priorities are. Also, I imagine quite a few
>people involved in this thread resent your implication that we are "bitching"
>unnecessarily about things.
>
>Let me explain my concerns a little further. The evolution of art/craft and
>the creation of works entirely new and original are always fascinating to
>observe and study. One never knows where it will lead, but the process of
>creative visualization and realization is invariably exciting. The
>contemporary fine art world celebrates this phenomenon, to the point where
>contemporary art (like contemporary society) is chaotic and fractured to the
>extreme. Art reflects the time and place in which it is made, and contemporary
>art is an entirely appropriate reflection of the strange world in which we
>live.
>
>I am very much in favor of the preservation and celebration of tradition and
>history, but I also celebrate the diversity of contemporary art and the
>extremes of artistic expression. In today's climate of expanding parameters in
>art and aesthetics it is inevitable, and natural, that the separations between
>fine art and fine craft should blur and fade. There's nothing deliberate or
>insidious about this, and no one need feel threatened by it. It opens lots of
>doors.
>
>As the percieved distinctions or separations between fine art and fine craft
>dissappear, people whose ceramic work straddles the line between fine art and
>fine craft often find themselves in an awkward situation when it comes to
>appropriate venues for exhibition and sale of their work. This in itself is an
>old subject, but my concern here is with work which diverges from popular
>trends and genres and finds it's own unique niche. Jurors don't know what to
>do with it much of the time, especially if they have been asked to (or felt
>personally compelled to) mount a "unified" exhibition. If contemporary art and
>contemporary craft are becoming increasingly diversified and ecclectic, where
>are the ceramics exhibitions that explore this phenomenon? There have been
>some, but too many competitive exhibitions, by conscious or subconscious
>ommission, push off to the side the work which is fartherst outside the
>standards or norms of contemporary ceramics, regardless of aesthetic and/or
>technical excellence, instead of including a larger percentage of this work to
>reflect the considerable ecclecticism that does in fact exist in ceramics
today.
>
>My work is nothing revolutionary, but I am excited about the direction it has
>taken, I like to show it, and it has been well received. But recently I have
>taken to seeking alternative venues - college and university galleries,
>community art centers, etc. (Any suggestions?). I still enter competitive
>shows periodically, but with regularity I receive rejection notices with
>statements like "The juror(s) worked very hard to mount a cohesive, unified
>show." The only "cohesive, unified" shows that my work fits into seem to be
>ones which emphasize colored clays, architectural vessels/sculpture, or
>ecclecticism (they're rare). That's what this is all about. I would like to
>see some shows make more of an effort to encourage and celebrate work which is
>radically different, and I would like to see this indicated in the prospectus.
>Are there others out there exploring unconventional directions who find
>themselves in a similar situation? If no one responds affirmatively I'll shut
>up about this once and for all.
>
> - Vince
>
>Vince Pitelka - wkp0067@tntech.edu
>Appalachian Center for Crafts - Tennessee Technological University
>Smithville, TN
>
>
>
>Now, the questions is, does this clarify the issue? I'm sure you'll let me
>know.
>
______________
So, some comments. I'm also in that no man's land between high craft or art
or whatever with my pitfired pieces. They really aren't functional, and in
my attempts to vend them at fairs etc., the only people interested are other
potters and gallery owners (i.e consignment at 45% their take) I don't
know what I am when I make them. I fancy myself a potter but my gallery
owners refer to me as an "artist" or rather "the artist" which I find very
very humerous. I don't really think of myself as an artist but as a potter
who makes pots that she likes. (I also make functional pots, mostly cups
and teapots, that I hope will keep me alive) I'd like to enter some of my
work in competitions but haven't a clue as to the type of jurried show that
would be interested in my rather offbeat work. (Vince, you've seen my
stuff.... you gotta clue?) I think it's neat but that doesn't mean the rest
of the world will. My thing is to achieve color without artificial (re:
copper carb etc.) chemicals. I figure that the nitrates from the hotdogs
that fall into into the pit are legal however. I make pitfired burnished
pieces with as much color as I can get and often decorate them with rather
intricately carved amphibians. In a college show here recently, the judge
was a sculpter, and, not surprisingly, a sculpter won. There are some VERY
GOOD potters at our little community college and I was very happy to do as
well as I did, but I felt a little sad too. I overheard Royal Nebekker, a
well-known painter to say "It would be nice if some day a potter would win,
but, given the situation here, I guess that could never happen" So, I got
some slides, they're last year's pots but I'd like to send them off
somewhere to beef up my resume (My master's degree is in History and that
don't make me a credible "artist".) I'd appreciate some ideas. Emily in
Astoria OR where the weatherman says its sunny....Iguess he hasn't been outside.
art_selsor@vicuna.emcmt.edu on mon 8 apr 96
I juried a small national show a few years ago. There were several hundred
entries for approximately 35 spaces.
I reviewed and reviewed the trays of slides in my home. Over and over I looked
at hundreds of unrelated material. Finally, I started to develop a "cohesive
approach" to the body of works I was reviewing. I responded to a feeling
of what I developed to be a way to select a group of work that would
"work together". Granted it was a small show and I did have to write a
juror's statement. But I think it was an interesting group of pieces.
I. too, enter competitions once in a while. I just was rejected from the
San Angelo show but it doesn't bother me. A juror must select a body of
work to be exhibited as a whole. It is the perogative of the juror to
select from that which has been submitted. It is not the "grand salon"
of Paris of the previous century and is not meant to set any trends. I
think if you enter a show you must consider the juror as well as the fact that
there may be thousands of entries. What results is a direct correspondence
to the jurors "objective" yet personally subjective choice no matter how
you cut it. So that's the way it is. Hey, some people like it, some people don't
bought a beautiful Tom O'Malley platter at the Studio Potter Network show.
It made it home to Montana and has impressed my students. Hope I am not
rambling. Enjoyed todey working in the studio.- Marcia in Montana
| |
|
