dannon@ns1.koyote.com on fri 29 mar 96
The expenses involved for a national competition are more than you imagine.
The cost for insurance, in the case of Ceramics USA, is handled by (this
year) the general policy covering the University of North Texas Gallery. If
it were not, we could not probably afford it. Every cent that came in last
year went for expenses involved in the show, and even then did not cover
everything. Certain expenses involved with juror's accomodation while in
town were donated, prize money was donated, all work involving the
exhibition installation and takedown was donated, the exhibit coordinators
(Doug Gray and I) were strictly volunteers. Jurors such as Don Reitz and
Val Cushing do not work for nothing, nor should they. Their time is
valuable, and their reputations contribute extraordinarily to the success of
any show.
Anyone who has ever worked on such an event knows the enormous amount of
time and effort that goes into it, and that expenses mount geometrically.
If only those who make it into a show had to pay all the expenses, they'd be
howling!! In any case, it does seem to me that if one wants to enter a show
and there's a fee, just do it. If the fee offends thee, don't enter. It
seems a pretty simple choice to me. I enter shows. If there's a fee, I pay
it. If I can't afford it, I don't enter. Some I get in, some I don't. If
it's free (the Fletcher and some others) I'd think it silly NOT to enter, if
shows matter to the individual involved.
Besides, remember what Cage said: The only rule is work. If you work,
something will come of it.
Dannon Rhudy
Indianapolis Art Center on fri 29 mar 96
Thank you, Dannon. You stated very well what Jean Lehman and I have been
messing around trying to say.
FYI, we pay jurors $750 for our regional competition and $500 for our
statewide competition, plus expenses. This is, according to jurors we
approach, on the low end of standard. The jurors are all well-known museum
directors or curators (Indiana Directions '96, which we are now taking
entries for, has Richard Flood, the Chief Curator at the Walker Art Center,
as its juror). We always print a bio of the juror and a list of past shows
they have curated or juried to give entrants an idea of their perspective,
but most of the jurors are well-known enough that anyone entering the show
will know what kind of thing they are likely to accept.
There is a controversy raging among those who sponsor such shows whether the
best jurors are artists or curators/directors/administrators. We have
chosen to go the latter route because our exhibitions program focuses on WHY
MAKE ART, not necessarily on technique, and artist-jurors in our experience
have really focused on technique rather than on concept. On the other hand,
our art fair jurors are artists because we want to make sure what we are
getting is good technique and will sell.
Just a few dull administrative thoughts.
Julia Moore
Indianapolis Art Center
Cynthia Hull on sat 30 mar 96
At 06:30 PM 3/29/96 EST, you wrote:
>There is a controversy raging among those who sponsor such shows whether the
>best jurors are artists or curators/directors/administrators. We have
>chosen to go the latter route because our exhibitions program focuses on WHY
>MAKE ART, not necessarily on technique, and artist-jurors in our experience
>have really focused on technique rather than on concept. On the other hand,
>our art fair jurors are artists because we want to make sure what we are
>getting is good technique and will sell.
>
>Just a few dull administrative thoughts.
A juror is acting as a judge, after all, and I can't see how anyone would be
more qualified to pass judgement on something than someone who has walked it
him/herself. Perhaps what is being created by these shows is the art of
curation/direction/administration. I would like to see the artists gain
control of the art world as they justifibly should. They are too commonly
religated to a position of laborer without decision making status in arts
community.
Cynthia
Hull
Matthew Blumenthal on mon 1 apr 96
At 12:39 PM 3/30/96 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 06:30 PM 3/29/96 EST, you wrote:
>
>>There is a controversy raging among those who sponsor such shows whether the
>>best jurors are artists or curators/directors/administrators.
>A juror is acting as a judge, after all, and I can't see how anyone would be
>more qualified to pass judgement on something than someone who has walked it
>him/herself. Perhaps what is being created by these shows is the art of
>curation/direction/administration. I would like to see the artists gain
>control of the art world as they justifibly should. They are too commonly
>religated to a position of laborer without decision making status in arts
>community.
This is actually a dual post, to this one and the one by Vince that came
before it. Let me preface it be saying that clay is not my main form on
income, and I am sure that I would feel differently about the subject if it
were my rice bowl that was in danger. That said, I would like to point out a
couple of historic facts about art, craft, and such like.
1) Throughout history, the artist has also been a craftsman. A "laborer" if
you will. Someone who learned the skills of a craft so that they were able
to make a living be selling the fruits of that labor.
2) It is only in recent times that the world of "craft" and "art" have been
seperated. The skills of manipulating material, be for utilitarian or
strictly decorative decorative purposes are substantially the same. The
manipulation may be skillful or not, esthetically pleasing or not, but the
skills to manipulate that medium are still the same.
3) The artist never has had, and likely never will have "control of the art
world as they justifibly should" The world of art and the world of craft are
both prey to the world of fashion. If a person wishes to sell their product,
then they had better either cleve to fashion, or create one of their own. If
they do not do this, they had better have another way of feeding and
clothing themselve.
4) Historically and presently, the equation seems to be that 99% of all
popular media is garbage, with a magical 1% that shines though the
centuries. Much of what we see today, even things that move us strongly in
the moment, will not stand the test of time. The only thing that we can do
is make sure that what we do stands the test of our own eyes, minds, and hearts.
Matthew Blumenthal
Oakland CA
Vince Pitelka on tue 2 apr 96
Matthew -
Regarding your statement: "I would like to point out a couple of historic facts
about art, craft, and such like." Where are you getting these "historical
facts?" You make some generalizations that misrepresent the situation I and
many other artists/craftspeople find themselves in. Read on.
"Throughout history, the artist has also been a craftsman. A 'laborer' if
you will. Someone who learned the skills of a craft so that they were able
to make a living by selling the fruits of that labor."
Throughout history the role of the artist has changed almost constantly, and
never more than during the 20th century. Although I agree that the artist
SHOULD BE a fine craftsperson, what you describe here is a very antiquated view
of what an artist is.
"If a person wishes to sell their product, then they had better either cleve to
fashion, or create one of their own."
From the standpoint of mercenary capitalism this is certainly true, but what
does it have to do with artists, and what does it have to do with the
discussion at hand? True artists work from the heart and soul. If their work
sells, they are indeed fortunately. In the fine craft world there is certainly
more tendency to be steered by fashion, and I certainly do not begrudge those
who do so in order to make a decent living, but what makes the world of art and
craft so lively and worthwhile is the risktaking - the true original
innovation, which may or may not find favor in the marketplace now or ever.
"Much of what we see today, even things that move us strongly in the moment,
will not stand the test of time. The only thing that we can do is make sure
that what we do stands the test of our own eyes, minds, and hearts."
I agree 100% here, but again I must ask, what does this have to do with the
discussion at hand? My post referred to work I do which has been very well
received in certain venues, but is so different from almost all of what is
being done in ceramics today that jurors are baffled by it and cannot fit it
into their "concept" of a unified exhibition. This happens to both sculptors
and vessel makers all the time when their work is completely different from any
of the stylistic directions currently in fashion. It is a very destructive
trend, because it has the effect of supressing risktaking and radical
innovation. If that is in fact what is happening, it reflects very badly on
our society and our media.
At some point we have to question the purpose of many of the competitive local,
national, and international exhibitions in the fine craft world. Very few of
them seem to deal with work that really takes risks. Is it because show
presenters and jurors don't have the guts to commit to work which is radically
different? Or, to state it another way, is it because the show presenters want
an exhibition which is "safe" and devoid of controversy? Or is it because the
trend is towards exhibitions with a very specific "theme" rather than
exhibitions which celebrate work that breaks new ground in an exciting and
innovative way? The presenters of competitive exhibitions need to carefully
examine and define what their motive and mission is, and act accordingly in
designing and promoting their exhibitions.
Vince Pitelka - wkp0067@tntech.edu
Appalachian Center for Crafts - Tennessee Technological University
Smithville, TN
Hluch - Kevin A. on tue 2 apr 96
Clayartistes,
I'm so glad to discover that only quality art is accomplished by bonafide
"risk-takers". Now all I need to do is determine who has taken the
sufficient quotient of risk to come to a conclusion about the "quality" of
the expression.
God forbid that the role of the artist should change from the present
enlightened conception.
Apparently, if risk-taking is the prime ingredient of today's artistic
expression then we must admit that driving while drunk is a supreme
aesthetic statement.
I've seen so much "broken ground" lately that I'm beginning to imagine
the art world as a plowed field.
Kevin A. Hluch
On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Matthew -
>
> Regarding your statement: "I would like to point out a couple of historic fact
> about art, craft, and such like." Where are you getting these "historical
> facts?" You make some generalizations that misrepresent the situation I and
> many other artists/craftspeople find themselves in. Read on.
>
> "Throughout history, the artist has also been a craftsman. A 'laborer' if
> you will. Someone who learned the skills of a craft so that they were able
> to make a living by selling the fruits of that labor."
>
> Throughout history the role of the artist has changed almost constantly, and
> never more than during the 20th century. Although I agree that the artist
> SHOULD BE a fine craftsperson, what you describe here is a very antiquated vie
> of what an artist is.
>
> "If a person wishes to sell their product, then they had better either cleve t
> fashion, or create one of their own."
>
> >From the standpoint of mercenary capitalism this is certainly true, but what
> does it have to do with artists, and what does it have to do with the
> discussion at hand? True artists work from the heart and soul. If their work
> sells, they are indeed fortunately. In the fine craft world there is certainl
> more tendency to be steered by fashion, and I certainly do not begrudge those
> who do so in order to make a decent living, but what makes the world of art an
> craft so lively and worthwhile is the risktaking - the true original
> innovation, which may or may not find favor in the marketplace now or ever.
>
> "Much of what we see today, even things that move us strongly in the moment,
> will not stand the test of time. The only thing that we can do is make sure
> that what we do stands the test of our own eyes, minds, and hearts."
>
> I agree 100% here, but again I must ask, what does this have to do with the
> discussion at hand? My post referred to work I do which has been very well
> received in certain venues, but is so different from almost all of what is
> being done in ceramics today that jurors are baffled by it and cannot fit it
> into their "concept" of a unified exhibition. This happens to both sculptors
> and vessel makers all the time when their work is completely different from an
> of the stylistic directions currently in fashion. It is a very destructive
> trend, because it has the effect of supressing risktaking and radical
> innovation. If that is in fact what is happening, it reflects very badly on
> our society and our media.
>
> At some point we have to question the purpose of many of the competitive local
> national, and international exhibitions in the fine craft world. Very few of
> them seem to deal with work that really takes risks. Is it because show
> presenters and jurors don't have the guts to commit to work which is radically
> different? Or, to state it another way, is it because the show presenters wan
> an exhibition which is "safe" and devoid of controversy? Or is it because the
> trend is towards exhibitions with a very specific "theme" rather than
> exhibitions which celebrate work that breaks new ground in an exciting and
> innovative way? The presenters of competitive exhibitions need to carefully
> examine and define what their motive and mission is, and act accordingly in
> designing and promoting their exhibitions.
>
> Vince Pitelka - wkp0067@tntech.edu
> Appalachian Center for Crafts - Tennessee Technological University
> Smithville, TN
>
| |
|
