pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on fri 13 feb 04
=?iso-8859-1?Q?e_notion_of_the_=22Salon_de_Refuse=22_=2Cm_as_well_as_the_?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?whols_slide-game_to_rot_things_in_their_way...?=
Hi Susan, all...
Too, some Shows do not rely on 'slides' or other silly
perfunctorate ways of demeaning or punishing all concerned,
but, instead, rely on the actual Work beingsent or brought
to the Gallery or it's annex.
That was how we used to do it.
Had I a Gallery I would never do it any other way.
One sees the actual Work...decisions are made, the Juror or
sometimes the small panel of Jurors ( of whom I was one)
made the elections according to various criteria, as well as
if the Show had some theme or intended focus...
Anyway...
'Slides'...
Sheeesh, what crap! The whole game of 'slides' disgusts me,
for one thing BECAUSE I have seen the difference between the
slides and the Work often enough...I have seen the game
played...and often enough enough where Jurors liked the
'slides' and then the Work itself sucked when it did show
up. Or bore no relation TO the items represented in the
slides.
Maybe it makes more sense to have Shows as are only an
exhibit those 'slides' as are submitted...it would be so
much more...'honest'...AS a 'show-of-slides'...
Rathar than it being about the 'slide-game' and it's
conflicts with sincerity and Work, with the Work as a
pretense for making 'acceptible' and good looking slides to
send in, as where the Work therebye is made to be a second,
maybe distantly second, consideration...if not per-force, an
incidental.
But I guess they make it 'easier' for shows as are a long
way from the Artists...
And everyone is big on 'slides' and the slide game...or,
almost everyone...or those as play it well, no matter what
their 'work' is or may be made to appear as, in other ways.
Their 'work' ends up being...'slides'...
Oh well...
...sigh...
Phil
Las Vegas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Setley"
> In a message dated 2/13/04 9:35:44 AM, kef@KFORER.COM
writes:
>
>
> > Hi Phil,
> > Maybe, probably, I missed something when I first read
it. I wondered
> > whether there was a show from which people were rejected
or was this an
> > attempt to create an anti-show show? Probably an idea
I'd have been
> > keen on in my anti-Shakespeare-Essay days, but one that
seems like a
> > conceit now unless very well done (form and content
triumphing over
> > subject).
> >
> > Or is the idea to create segregated exhibits, one for
those juried
> > acceptable, the other for those not? If that's the
sense, as you seem
> > to read it, well, okay. It's nice to be shown, but why
keep the jury at
> > all, why not get rid of it altogether? It's a
compromise, I suppose. We
> > all need to categorize and structure, and one of the
purposes of a jury
> > is to help us evaluate and understand work. They can
still do that
> > without having to give out pass/fail. How about
organizing the work
> > around other principles, then let the public judge for
themselves, if
> > they need to?
> >
> > Kathy
> > Locust
> >
>
> Someone who has been on a jury was just talking about
this. They had 140
> applicants and 30 openings for potters. Ten of the
applicants were a slam dunk and
> one would have to have been an idiot not to include them.
>
> Thirty were not nearly as good as the rest and were easy
to reject.
>
> That left about 100 -- for 20 spots. He said that often it
came down to the
> quality of the slides sent in.
>
> That's sort of what happens in publishing, too. You might
have written the
> most brilliant children's book in the world, but if you
write it on a paper bag
> in crayon and have your six year old illustrate it, the
publisher won't take
> it seriously (that really happened).
>
> Don't give juries who are already making really tough
calls any reason to put
> your app in the reject pile.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
__________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your
subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached
at melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
