Kurt Wild on sun 16 may 04
I just got my three slide submissions to the Lark Books upcoming
publication 500 Cups back, all " Declined". What is interesting to me is
that one of the slides was one that got me into the "The Clay Cup VI, SIU,
Carbondale, IL"; and the mug was also awarded a "Sponsor Purchase". The
letter from Lark Books stated that: "If your entires were declined, it was
most likely due to poor image quality." So, that's what they had to say
about my slides based on my years of high quality potting and shooting
slides of my work. How about that???
The same day my slides were returned I received a check for a $1,000
purchase (one $700 pot and two tiles at $150 each. That purchase was made
a well know Arts & Crafts period pottery collector/antique dealer and was
based on his viewing digital photos I posted on my web site. How about
that????
Kurt
*******************************************************************
Kurt Wild
1000 E. Cascade Ave.
River Falls, WI 54022
phone: 715-425-5715
email: kurtwild@sbcglobal.net
web site: www.uwrf.edu/~W1044055
most current work: www.uwrf.edu/~W1044055/Current.html
Lois Ruben Aronow on sun 16 may 04
Each competition has different entrants, different jurors, and a different
perspective. The rejection letter you'll receive is most likely generic,
trying to be polite and giving an all-encompassing reason for rejection.
I'm not a juror, but as I said before, I collect and save my rejection
letters in a notebook. For laughs. And to keep me humble about my work.
By the way, the exact same set of slides that got me rejected from a local
craft show was the VERY SAME set of slides that got me accepted in to the
Philadelphia Museum of Art show. I took the slides out of the rejection
envelope and stuck them in the Philly application. And also, by the way, I
still have trouble getting into local shows, but not the bigger high-end
ones.
And I do you already know this, Kurt. Just sharing this info for others
who are just starting out and may be feeling crappy.
* * * * * * *
Lois Ruben Aronow
Modern Porcelain & Tableware-Updated for Spring 2004!
www.loisaronow.com
> I just got my three slide submissions to the Lark Books
> upcoming publication 500 Cups back, all " Declined". What is
> interesting to me is that one of the slides was one that got
> me into the "The Clay Cup VI, SIU, Carbondale, IL"; and the
> mug was also awarded a "Sponsor Purchase". The letter from
> Lark Books stated that: "If your entires were declined, it
> was most likely due to poor image quality." So, that's what
> they had to say about my slides based on my years of high
> quality potting and shooting slides of my work. How about that???
>
> The same day my slides were returned I received a check for a
> $1,000 purchase (one $700 pot and two tiles at $150 each.
> That purchase was made a well know Arts & Crafts period
> pottery collector/antique dealer and was based on his viewing
> digital photos I posted on my web site. How about that????
>
> Kurt
>
Snail Scott on sun 16 may 04
At 08:49 AM 5/16/04 -0500, you wrote:
>...one of the slides was one that got me into the "The Clay Cup VI...The
>letter from Lark Books stated that: "If your entires were declined, it was
>most likely due to poor image quality."...
I don't know the circumstances of your entry,
of course, but maybe it's worth noting (for
other folks at least), that although shows
are known for expecting high-quality slides,
the purpose of that quality is mainly to convey
a proper impression of the piece, and perhaps
secondarily to convey a sense that the maker is
a competent professional with an understanding
of their trade's expectations. So, the slides
need to be clear and workmanlike and formatted
to conventional standards, but they are solely
a means to another end entirely.
For publication, the image IS the end product,
not merely a vehicle. When viewing slides in
order to see the object depicted, we are in
some senses seeing past the image and looking
at the object. We also expect that inspection
of the actual object might involve higher
standards, since we'll be able to hold to
account all the things that aren't evident
in a picture. When the picture itself is the
object, though, that closer scrutiny is aimed
mainly at the picture itself. The content of
that picture is inportant, but it's not the
thing that matters most after the initial 'cut'
of nice objects is made. Really good slides
by the standards of show-jurying may still
fall short of photo publication standards.
Lark Books isn't showing pots; they're showing
pictures of pots. Though their readership may
in fact be 'looking through the picture' at the
pot it depicts, as a publisher, their attention
is focused (not unreasonably) on their product:
the images themselves.
-Snail Scott
Reno, Nevada, USA, Earth
Fredrick Paget on sun 16 may 04
>I just got my three slide submissions to the Lark Books upcoming
>publication 500 Cups back, all " Declined".
>
>Kurt
That's another book i won't buy,
Fred
--
From Fred Paget, Marin County, California, USA
fredrick@well.com
claybair on sun 16 may 04
Kurt,
Welcome to the club.
I was recently declined from several "prestigious" shows.
Now, note that my slides and work are light years
behind the quality of yours & I cannot compare your work to mine.
You are at the top of the game where my work there
is vast room for improvement.
However whatever the level of expertise we all experience
the disappointment of rejection.
I found I was most annoyed because I knew someone accepted
who uses commercial bisque and design work is best described
as primary colored cartoon like images. The booth literally looks like a
circus.
For me this type of situation drives me albeit kicking and screaming to
improve.
It doesn't happen right away... I'll be angry for a while,
criticize the offending agency, justify my work, then at long last
I grow up and address things I know should be improved.
Now in your case this is not the case as your work is
stellar & your slides primo. As far as I see it
those sweet checks coming in should help get over the irritation!!
What is that saying..... something like....Success being the best revenge!
Gayle Bair - waiting for my Lark "declined" slides and
BTW did you get the application for the Lark "Tiles" book?:-)
Bainbridge Island, WA
http://claybair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Wild
I just got my three slide submissions to the Lark Books upcoming
publication 500 Cups back, all " Declined". What is interesting to me is
that one of the slides was one that got me into the "The Clay Cup VI, SIU,
Carbondale, IL"; and the mug was also awarded a "Sponsor Purchase". The
letter from Lark Books stated that: "If your entires were declined, it was
most likely due to poor image quality." So, that's what they had to say
about my slides based on my years of high quality potting and shooting
slides of my work. How about that???
The same day my slides were returned I received a check for a $1,000
purchase (one $700 pot and two tiles at $150 each. That purchase was made
a well know Arts & Crafts period pottery collector/antique dealer and was
based on his viewing digital photos I posted on my web site. How about
that????
Kurt
snip>
Earl Brunner on sun 16 may 04
Kurt, your submissions should have made it in on name alone, (unless you
were using Mel's Mother-in-law blue.....)
Earl Brunner
Las Vegas, NV
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Kurt Wild
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 6:50 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Jurying, sales, slides, digital
I just got my three slide submissions to the Lark Books upcoming
publication 500 Cups back, all " Declined". What is interesting to me is
that one of the slides was one that got me into the "The Clay Cup VI, SIU,
Carbondale, IL"; and the mug was also awarded a "Sponsor Purchase". The
letter from Lark Books stated that: "If your entires were declined, it was
most likely due to poor image quality." So, that's what they had to say
about my slides based on my years of high quality potting and shooting
slides of my work. How about that???
The same day my slides were returned I received a check for a $1,000
purchase (one $700 pot and two tiles at $150 each. That purchase was made
a well know Arts & Crafts period pottery collector/antique dealer and was
based on his viewing digital photos I posted on my web site. How about
that????
Kurt
*******************************************************************
Kurt Wild
1000 E. Cascade Ave.
River Falls, WI 54022
phone: 715-425-5715
email: kurtwild@sbcglobal.net
web site: www.uwrf.edu/~W1044055
most current work: www.uwrf.edu/~W1044055/Current.html
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
Paul Lewing on sun 16 may 04
on 5/16/04 8:38 AM, claybair at gayle@CLAYBAIR.COM wrote:
> However whatever the level of expertise we all experience
> the disappointment of rejection.
No kidding. My response is usually, "---- you! I've been rejected from WAY
better shows than yours!"
I once entered a local fair with three pieces, and was rejected. Later, one
of the pieces won a top prize in another local show, another was sold to a
well known collector, and the third was used as an illustration in a book.
Go figure.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
Kathi LeSueur on sun 16 may 04
gayle@CLAYBAIR.COM wrote:
>Kurt,
>
>Welcome to the club.
>
>I was recently declined from several "prestigious" shows.
>Now, note that my slides and work are light years
>behind the quality of yours & I cannot compare your work to mine.
>You are at the top of the game where my work there
>is vast room for improvement.
>
>However whatever the level of expertise we all experience
>the disappointment of rejection.
>I found I was most annoyed because I knew someone accepted
>who uses commercial bisque and design work is best described
>as primary colored cartoon like images. The booth literally looks like a
>circus.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
As one who has juried a major show here, I can tell you that jurying is
a crap shoot. There is little time to really evaluate the work. And
anyone can come up with three good slides (sometimes not even of their
own work). That is why, for me as a juror, the booth slide is critical.
That is where the juror is likely to see what is really being sold by
the applicant. Yet, it is often the slide that gets the least attention.
Several years ago, I juried an event where a photographer had three
beautiful work slides. Complex subjects, difficult lighting. Very
impressive. But, I suggested that my fellow jurors look closely at the
booth slide (we were allowed to make comments). In the booth were those
three beautiful photos, but the rest of it was filled with what could
only be described as snapshots from the local zoo. I don't know how
anyone else scored the applicant, but I gave a very low score.
Kathi
>
>
Bobbruch1@AOL.COM on mon 17 may 04
Snail Scott writes:
For publication, the image IS the end product,
not merely a vehicle. When viewing slides in
order to see the object depicted, we are in
some senses seeing past the image and looking
at the object. We also expect that inspection
of the actual object might involve higher
standards, since we'll be able to hold to
account all the things that aren't evident
in a picture. When the picture itself is the
object, though, that closer scrutiny is aimed
mainly at the picture itself. The content of
that picture is inportant, but it's not the
thing that matters most after the initial 'cut'
of nice objects is made. Really good slides
by the standards of show-jurying may still
fall short of photo publication standards.
I think that depth of field can be an issue
for publication - so that an absolutely
wonderful slide for jurying purposes may be
too "flat" for Lark Books. There probably are
other factors as well that differ between
publishing and jurying needs.
Bob Bruch
Ivor and Olive Lewis on mon 17 may 04
Dear Kurt Wild,
The kernel here is in the meaning of "....it was most likely due to
poor image quality...."
If your images did not meet the standard of perfection required for
the printing and reproduction processes then they would not have had
the sharpness, clarity, contrast and tonal values to give reproduced
images of a quality expected by their ultimate clients.
I had 35 mm slides which were to accompany an article rejected by a
publisher. The publisher hired a photographer who used large format
camera with slow emulsion negative film for the assignment, though he
did use a polaroid back for his camera to get an instant appreciation
of his compositions.
Another point, his tripod was as sturdy as a shipyard crane !
I suppose in terms of "digital" he was using well over 30 million
pixels, perhaps even more if the film was exceptionally fine grain.
The publisher used his images for a double page spread.
Congratulations on your other successes. You do have talent with your
camera.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
Kathy Forer on mon 17 may 04
A friend's project was rejected from this year's SIGGRAPH,
International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive
Techniques. In the letter they wrote, it said the project submitted was
too similar to his prior one accepted at the last conference (not
really so) and also that the photos lacked appropriate detail (definite
fault).
How interesting it would be if similar responses could be sent out from
art and pottery juries!
Kathy Forer
http://kforer.com
| |
|
