William Hewlett on fri 25 jun 99
------------------
Becia,
I hear Ya =21 This may not be an answer to your question, but it may start
an interesting thread. I realize it cost to put on a juried show, but how
much ? One certainly thinks about it when they require a =2420 entry fee
with the slide, or slides.
Then when you later read about the show and find out that there were 200
artists that submitted 400 works, and 40 works, and 20 artists were
accepted, it makes you think about it even harder. Once I entered a show
that required a =2415 fee with the slides, and if the work was not accepted
for the show, they sent back your check and slides. I thought that was
great.
I have wondered how many people subscribe to Clayart and how much clout
we, as a group would have in this respect. Food for thought. What would
happen if no one sent in any slides to any juried shows for a couple months
? Most of us are coming out on the short end of the stick in this current
set up, and if it wern't for us, there would be no shows. Seems to me that
the fair way would be to send back the checks to those who were not
accepted. What do you all think, and what can we, as a group do? I am
sure there are a lot of creative ideas out there.
Joyce A
Mission, TX
Where there is one gallery in a 90 mile radius, and where no artist wants
to be =21
Joanne L. Van Bezooyen on sun 27 jun 99
Hmmmmmmm
1000 applicants at $25 each.......=$25,000
??? artists selected pay $175 each extra........=$???
That totals.....$ income for one show.
I just may go into the 'show' business! :-)
Victor Levin wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Joyce,
>
> here's a view from a board member of Toronto Outdoor Art Exhibition. Our
> problem is that we get over 1000 requests to be in our show. We set up
> viewing committees based on ceramics, painting, jewelry, etc. To view the
> 200 entrants in ceramics we need 4-5 nights. The $25 fee is applied to the
> show fee of $200 if acxcepted. If there were in effect no entrance fee, we
> fear that there would be twice as many submissions and we do not have the
> volunteer time nor the paid staff time to handle that. so in effect, the
> rejected artists are subsidizing the acceptred ones. perhaps the successful
> artists would like to pay an additional $25 to be given back to the
> unsuccessful? sort of a marxist application of to the neediest.
> just a thought. comments?
>
> School Services of Canada
>
> "The Best in Educational Audio/Visual Media"
>
> 176 Albany Ave.
> Toronto, On M5R 3C6
>
> Phone 416 588-0716
Joanne L. Van Bezooyen on sun 27 jun 99
Hmmmmmmm
1000 applicants at $25 each.......=$25,000
??? artists selected pay $175 each extra........=$???
That totals.....$ income for one show.
I just may go into the 'show' business! :-)
Victor Levin wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Joyce,
>
> here's a view from a board member of Toronto Outdoor Art Exhibition. Our
> problem is that we get over 1000 requests to be in our show. We set up
> viewing committees based on ceramics, painting, jewelry, etc. To view the
> 200 entrants in ceramics we need 4-5 nights. The $25 fee is applied to the
> show fee of $200 if acxcepted. If there were in effect no entrance fee, we
> fear that there would be twice as many submissions and we do not have the
> volunteer time nor the paid staff time to handle that. so in effect, the
> rejected artists are subsidizing the acceptred ones. perhaps the successful
> artists would like to pay an additional $25 to be given back to the
> unsuccessful? sort of a marxist application of to the neediest.
> just a thought. comments?
>
> School Services of Canada
>
> "The Best in Educational Audio/Visual Media"
>
> 176 Albany Ave.
> Toronto, On M5R 3C6
>
> Phone 416 588-0716
Victor Levin on mon 28 jun 99
it costs $100,000 to put on a 3 day show. Prizes are worth $20,000. Its a
non=profit organization. the rest is spent of rent, advertising and a staff
of 1.5. The board looks for fat in the budget each year and tries to get
donations for everything possible. the costs have been pretty stable for
the past 6 years. I guess if you are out to make a profit, then you woild
start to short-change the artists to make it a paying business. but that's
what you are complaining about, isnt it?
School Services of Canada
"The Best in Educational Audio/Visual Media"
176 Albany Ave.
Toronto, On M5R 3C6
Phone 416 588-0716
Ray Aldridge on mon 28 jun 99
At 07:57 PM 6/26/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Joyce,
>
>here's a view from a board member of Toronto Outdoor Art Exhibition. Our
>problem is that we get over 1000 requests to be in our show. We set up
>viewing committees based on ceramics, painting, jewelry, etc. To view the
>200 entrants in ceramics we need 4-5 nights. The $25 fee is applied to the
>show fee of $200 if acxcepted. If there were in effect no entrance fee, we
>fear that there would be twice as many submissions and we do not have the
>volunteer time nor the paid staff time to handle that. so in effect, the
>rejected artists are subsidizing the acceptred ones. perhaps the successful
>artists would like to pay an additional $25 to be given back to the
>unsuccessful? sort of a marxist application of to the neediest.
>just a thought. comments?
>
What I wonder about is how the figure of $25 was arrived at. Was it felt
that a non-returnable jurying fee of, say, $15, or $10 would be
insufficiently discouraging to the rabble?
Nor does this sound like the sort of rationale that is designed to improve
the quality of the show, if I may say so without giving offense. It seems
to me that though making application somewhat easier and less annoying
might result in more applications, it might also draw in new talent that
might not otherwise risk the $25.
In any case, the process of jurying 200 applications should not take even a
single juror 4 or 5 nights, in my opinion. It may not be kind to say so,
but many applications can be sorted out for rejection by holding a strip of
slides to the light for a few seconds. Ideally, we would wish that
everyone receive due deliberation and at least a minute of two on the
projection screen, but it seems to me that a more expeditious jurying
process, combined with a much lower jurying fee, would please more artists
in the long run.
I'm also curious as to what kind of honorarium is paid to the jurors, and
if that honorarium is to any extent predicated on the sum of jurying fees
received.
By the way, I would think it could be an uncomfortable philosophical fit
trying to be a Marxist potter. Any cry of "Death to the bourgeoisie" would
amount to a cry of "Death to all my customers."
Ray
Ray Aldridge on tue 29 jun 99
At 09:16 AM 6/28/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>it costs $100,000 to put on a 3 day show. Prizes are worth $20,000. Its a
>non=profit organization. the rest is spent of rent, advertising and a staff
>of 1.5. The board looks for fat in the budget each year and tries to get
>donations for everything possible. the costs have been pretty stable for
>the past 6 years.
Please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely
puzzled. Are you saying that in order to put on a three-day show, you must
have a year-round staff and rent year-round premises? $80,000 is a lot of
money to spend on rent, advertising, and salaries, just to produce a
three-day non-profit event.
You could do the clay community a signal service if you were to explain
this a little more clearly. Perhaps if artists understood where the money
was going, they'd be less angry about what seems exploitive fees. I have
no doubt that your event is one of the least-exploitive ones, but it still
seems to take an awful lot of administrative overhead.
Ray
Philip Schroeder on wed 30 jun 99
In a message dated 99-06-28 09:31:39 EDT, you write:
<< n any case, the process of jurying 200 applications should not take even a
single juror 4 or 5 nights, in my opinion. >>
The guy who takes my jury slides had the opportunity to "sit in" on the jury
process of a major art fair in the midwest. Each applicants slides were
projected for an average time of 5 seconds, That was it, yes/ no. The whole
show, all media, done in one evening. Rightly or wrongly, I believe this is
how it usually goes.
Phil Schroeder in Chicago
William Hewlett on sat 3 jul 99
------------------
This certainly has got interesting. When I mentioned that S. TX Art
Museum, in Corpus, Christi ,returned juried fees to those who were not
accepted, I never dreamed it would end up in a dabate about unions. I
called them and got part of the information I am after. How can they do
what they do, and not other organizations who charge jury fees. They are
going to go back in their files to find out how many applicants they had,
and how many were accepted. In the mean time I was told that the jury fees
went to 3 prizes. A =242,,000 first prize, a =241,000 second prize and a =
=24500
third prize. Obviously they had a lot of people in the show to cover
=243,500 in cash awards. (jury fee was =2415) Further more, the two top
winners were invited back to have a 2 person show.
What I also find interesting is out of the cahos of union debates Calvin
took the bull by the hornes and offered some very good ideas. So, Calvin,
you can sign me up also. Don't know what I can do at the moment, being so
isolated in S. TX but I=22m sure we will think of something. In the mean
time I will continue trying to find out how they managed to return fees,
and still give out awards. Tried to talk to the director of the museum
today, but he =22was in a meeting=22 but his assistant is trying to be =
helpful
and will give me the information when she has it. I don't like the idea of
a union anymore than the majority of people out there, and I don't like the
implication of having =22Marxest=22 ideas because I think there are better =
ways
of doing things by people who run shows. Maybe the concept of returned
jury fees threatens their pocket books. Who ever thought of the idea of
presenting this at the next NCECA had a good idea also. It certainly
wouldn't hurt.
I am sure there are others that are as isolated as me, and the only way
they can get their work shown, is through jureid shows, or traveling 250
miles, one way, to some gallery that may take work on consignment. If
there were galleries in a 50 mile radus to put consigned work, I would be
overjoyed. But until I get out of this God forsaken place, the only way I
can get in any good show that I could make any sale at, is send out slides
and fees.
Joyce A
Mission TX
105335.63=40compuserve.com
Tom Wirt on tue 6 jul 99
Subject: Re: re juried shows
> Tom
>
> I checked out Yahoo and found it (the NAIA web site mentioned by Bob
Briscoe). The problem is that every time I tried to
> access their Java applet thumbnail deal my computer froze. I figured it
was
> my computer so I went to the library and used theirs... darned if it
didn't
> freeze theirs up too. How strange! I also found a Sunshine Artists Mag
> article that wasn't too favorable. Their take is that there are too many
> decisions made by too few in the name of too many.
> What has your experience been?
>
> Bobbi
Bobbi, I'm posting this reply to the list because I think the group
should read more about NAIA (National Association of Independent Artists),
especially in light of all the "union" discussion. I've been a member
essentially since the inception a few years ago. Other than that, no tie or
ax to grind.
The NAIA was originally formed as a result of some grievances by a number of
artists at a big show in Chicago. Some of the artists got together and
decided to do something to help improve shows and the show application
process (speaking of retail art shows here). This was 5 to 6 years ago.
A steering committee was formed a number of people put in a large amount
of time and effort to get the ball rolling (and I suspect some of their own
cash).
After a couple of years the goals of the organization were set up, bylaws
drawn up and the organization formalized. It is true that a small number of
people seem to be making "the decisions" right now, but I'd submit that it
is the only way to get such an organization going. Just look at the
discussion on this list if you think you can draw an easy consensus among
artists.
The group was set up to cover all the fine arts/fine crafts. Geez, they even
went so far as to make a potter chairman. If you don't include a wide
group, you've got no clout. Also, they did not chose to take and
antagonistic attitude towards show organizers as seems to be the attitude on
this list. Their stated purpose was to become a voice for the arts
community in working with the organizers to develop top quality retail
shows.
In the first couple of years they did some major primary research on what
artists want at shows, and with the organizers on how shows are run and what
their needs are. They've represented the artists at several organizer
meetings and workshops. They've started the ball rolling on standardizing
the slide process. They've published 5 or 6 (maybe more) excellent
newsletters informing membership of activities and decisions. They realize
not many can get to the annual meetings (this year at Ann Arbor) and
therefore solicit input regularly. Right now, decisions are made by the
board and at the annual meeting and the whole membership doesn't get to
vote on everything.....but, again, I'm not sure that's feasible at this
stage.
NAIA also has the goal of getting some high quality shows going in venues
where there are none right now, and they've gotten one or two going. There
has also been discussion of putting together some sort of standard process
disclosure statement for display at shows.
I'm sure there are a number of things I've missed, but I'd suggest that one
might look at this organization before talking about getting something new
going. They've done an awful lot in just a few year's existence, and I
believe they're really gaining credibility within the organizer industry.
For me, if there's a segment missing, it's that the focus is just about
solely on retail shows, but then, with the Rosen Group's activities, I'm not
sure that there's much to be done there. Just wish the ACC was on our side
as much as TRG in wholesale. I have to second John Baymore's post
regarding supporting current organizations before trying to set up new ones.
If artists are to have as voice, they need to speak as one group, not as
separate disciplines (IMHO).
As to the website, I just pulled it up using IE5 and had no trouble
navigating everywhere. Might try again. http://naia-artists.org
Sorry this is so long, but I just had to throw in the whole quarter.
Tom Wirt
| |
|
