Justifiable aversion to art shows
 

I have been a professional artist for thirty years and have never entered an art show. This may explain why.

Our town has what is called a Mayor's Art Show, which is a part of the Eugene Celebration every September. It is the elite art exibit in town at our Performing Arts Center. Kyle Mulligan, as reported in the Register Guard yesterday, is a Eugene artist chagrined that his conventional work has never been chosen. He is an employee at an outdoor advertising company where large billboards are painted on canvas stretched on the large walls. They replaced the plywood, and he cut out a section 4' x 4' where the paint had been sploshed over the edge of the canvas for years. He framed it and signed it Lydia Bentfeather-Brown, and entered it. It was titled "What was wall 34" for the number 34 which had been inadvertently stenciled on it.

It was one of the 51 accepted entries out of 541!! There were reviews issued calling it "suprisingly intriguing", "soft to the eyes", and "an attractive piece". One guest signer said it was the "best of the show".

Kyle has a BA with emphasis on printmaking and drawing from San Francisco State. He said, "Generally, conceptual art is pretentious and effortless, but those who do it glorify it by giving it some deep, meaningful title, putting on airs about the importance of it. I find that so arrogant and pretentious. What I did was a statement against that."

Another entry chosen to be part of the "fabulous 51" was by a formerly refused artist who took a Polaroid close up of his old truck grill. "It took me ten minutes," he said.

The slab of wall was priced at $1750.

I am sure there are art shows somewhere in the country that are worthwhile. But there are none here in the city of Eugene.

Stories about these kinds of pranks are legion, and I always wonder where these

I plan to enter a watercolor done by my 5-year-old son at a particular art show next year. Even though my work was accepted in this show, and there were some nice pieces, one of the "winners" was a painting that looked like it was created by a five year old. I actually laughed at the entry the week before! Maybe before laughing next time, I should learn what "real" art is all about. ;)

Renee Price

(Still reeling about the defecation art in a previous post-- maybe I should enter one of my nephew's poopy diapers... hmmm....)

Problem
 

The trouble with most art shows in my experience is one of 3 things.

1. Use of non-painters to judge paintings

(I'm presently part of an exhibit that was judged by assistant curators which was so badly judged that even the sponsors are sad. It makes the artists not want to do the show next time. The Arts for the Parks is the longest-running, best example of bad judging by non-artists. I saw their "book" yesterday: an overview of 15 years of the nations' best park entries...these works were really sad. I personally know that some of the nation's best landscape painters were juried out of this show.

2. Insider trading

This happens everywhere, no answers for this

3. Too few judges

Shows should have at least 3 judges. Seven would be better (and they should all be practicing experts in the field they judge). Have you ever listened to a cello player discuss the piece he's about to play? Listen to the conductor talk about that same work and you get vague emotional, general statements, often about the composer's childhood.

Lon, I must agree with you as far as general art shows go. I don't much care for them. They can have a good impact if local exposure is your goal. But personally I would consider any thing less than awards from national organizations such as ASOPA, PSOA or local affiliates of these organizations which are judged by respected artist in the field of portraiture as meaningless.

I am sure that there are other juried shows that have respected experts (I would prefer that they be respected painters as well) that are equally prestigious but I am referring only to portraiture at the moment.

I have found that it is important that your work is seen. But it must also be seen in the light you would prefer. On the green at the local Craft/Art fair or in a show known for its Jackson Pollock wannabes is not where I want my art to be seen.

There are art shows dedicated to realist artists and you are not limited to your local area. You can be the well known out of town artist. :)

If the show gets national and even international entries and you are accepted then you are nationally renowned. :) You see it is kind of silly. The important thing is your work is seen and is received in a positive way with those who attend the show. If the show is mostly known for modern and abstract work then it is really not a show a realist painter would want to even submit to.

This does not mean that all shows are useless or a waste of time. You just need to pick the shows that match your style. And that have a jury that includes artist who's work you respect and that you would consider their approval of your work an honor.

As for your story: why would an artist care if their work was not acccepted in a show known for having mostly abstract art if they are not an abstract artist? Even if they were accepted it would mean little since they do not have much respect for those doing the selection.

I have plans to join the csopa. Although I am not in Connecticut I live very close and there is nothing that says I have to reside in Connecticut to be a member. The same is true for the NY Chapter and if I still lived in Fairfield County CT I might even have joined that chapter as well since NY city is an easy commute from there.

But my point is you are not limited to or by your location of residence when it comes to promotion of your art or in groups or art organizations you would like to be a member of. It is nice to be close to other members of organizations you join for the social aspects. But it is not necessary.

I was a member of the Society of Illustrators in NY for years (started with a student membership). I lived in CT. None of my work was ever acccepted in their annual show even though many of my colleagues and my mentor told me that my work was as good as much of what they had seen of its type.

I acccepted that compared to the hundreds if not thousands of submissions they get every year my work was simply commonplace and did not warrant acceptance in the annual show. I still attended the exhibition and I agreed that the work they did show was the best of the best. Even if I did not personally like every piece or the work of every artist, and some I even hated, I never turned bitter or displayed any resentment.

Apropos of the judging concerns raised by Michael and Tim, I wonder if there really is any "solution", or whether we're looking for some kind of standard or quantification that is difficult to impose on a range of creative expressions. Sure, it's not difficult for most people to see that anatomical proportions are off or colors garish. But what of the artist who intends out-of-the-ordinary proportions as part of the effect? Is that artist's exclusion from the "cut" unfair? Perhaps -- unless he or she is submitting to PSA or ASOPA, where certain traditional standards are understood by everyone to apply. And isn't it understandable and acceptable that art exhibitions and competitions with their own standards and expectations be able to make the same calls, even if it means having an abstract of questionable pedigree make the cut? Is it even possible to have a "level playing field" in every competition involving artistic judgment?

It pays, I think, to do some homework. A recently announced still-life competition got me pretty excited, because I have a few portfolio pieces that I think are not bad and I feel that I ought to be getting about the business of showing my work. Upon further investigation, I learned that there would be only one judge, and it was David Leffel. I happen to like much of Leffel's work, and I have his instructional videos. But I don't paint in Leffel's style and I know from his comments that he has no interest in and little respect for the highly resolved style in which I usually work, so I just saved myself the entrance fee and postage and cost of producing slides.

Had I submitted my work and lost out to entries in the preferred Leffel style, would that have been unfair? I don't see it that way. Had the judge been a classical realist and had I won, would that have been unfair to the Leffel lookalikes? No.

In a way, having the "right" judges and making the exhibition cuts and winning medals in your own ideological camp seems to me to have its limits in terms of long-term significance. Having someone from another campaign (genre or style) present his sword to you as an acknowledgment of respect -- now THERE'S a worthy prize. And even with a trophy room of medals and swords, each subsequent piece has to stand on its own merits and satisfy the requirements of that next client or editor, who isn't really going to care much, after the initial interview or negotiations, what you've done before.

A writer's magazine with which I used to be involved conducts dozens of contests every year. Winning is a big deal for the winners, though the prize money is a pittance, but the REAL reason for the contests is to get people into the mindset of putting their work out before others, confidently and in a professional manner. After that, there's a bit of a roll of the dice involved, and sometimes you come up sevens and sometimes snake eyes. Doesn't necessarily mean that the rules of the game are unfair, or ridiculous. Just choose your games wisely.

Life isn't fair
 

When I was an illustrator I was usually well represented in the Society of Illustrators Annual Exhibition. Each year there was a prize awarded for the best piece created by a SI member. The award was the Hamilton King Award and was awarded by a consensus of the past winners. One year, I was told by a member of that jury, there was a tie in the voting. The jury was torn between two paintings, mine and that of another artist, and neither faction was willing to give in. So they compromised and gave the award to a third illustrator. It still ticks me off to this day.

It is a sad thing when judges are so insecure that they are unable to recognize the merit of other points of view. A piece of art should be judged on how good it is for what it is. Degree of difficulty should be the tiebreaker. Period!

Throughout my career as an artist, I have entered many shows and have been most fortunate to be accepted numerous times and certainly blessed to have garnered more than my fair share awards. I take pride in this because most of the judges have been dogmatically indoctrinated as to the evils of rendering, which I have often been accused of perpetuating. Yet in spite of this they still voted for my work.

If I don

Quite Right...
 

Ultimately, shows are just that - shows and an opportunity to display and sell our works. That said, I have found as others here have testified, mixed justice in many shows I have entered.

Realism is nearly always the bastard step-child and prizes and money go to the most outrageous artists by judges who were trained the school of "not realism".

That said, this weekend, I took Best of Show and People's Choice at a an art show that values realism in all its forms - God Bless the Science Fiction community. Sci-Fi illustration and fine art is one of the few carriers of realism these days. This little show has been running for 34 years and does about $13,000 in sales from an attendence of less than 1,000 people. No, it's not huge, but it is respectable and it keeps artists interested and helps pay their bills so they keep painting and improving themselves.

Save the realist movement, paint an elf. :)

I entered a painting in a local art center for their atrium gallery and was turned down.

These paintings are some of the ones that made it in. They also have price tags of several thousand dollars. He also rents studio space at the gallery. Coincidence?

http://www.businessofartcenter.org/i...ill-studio.jpg

Well, there you go, Michael, a new marketing angle, a bin of bumper stickers:

Get Real, Paint Fantasy
Slay Modernism, Draw Dragons
Broomsticks and Brushstrokes
Just Say "Gnome" to Modern Art!

And so on.

Probably not, but that's kind of what I was alluding to about choosing wisely. If this art center is "about" that kind of work, then their picks for an atrium display would likely reflect that.

My initial inspiration to paint was fueled by a prize-winning abstract impressionist, for want of a better term, affiliated with an art center perhaps not unlike the one you dealt with. These years later, after my preferences in method took a different turn, I doubt that any of my submissions to the center (in Sydney, Australia, by the way) would be well received. I don't begrudge them anything. It's their hall, and their show, and I wouldn't be where I am today without the spirit and generosity of one of their instructors. (Wherever you are, Denise Sumner, good on you, and cheers.)

BTW Jeremiah, of the pieces you posted, three are walk-bys, one might have slowed me down, and the fifth intrigues me quite a bit, as reminiscent of some favourite Australian landscapes (a Heidelberg [Victoria, Down Under, not Germany] blue and gold palette) by a nationally revered realistic impressionist of whose life and art I have written professionally. Another viewer would have brought other experience and intention to this exhibition.

Money and Brain Power...
 

Gallery owners and show runners have learned a very interesting fact:

If you have to explain a painting, or if the subject requires any real "thought" on the part of the viewer, it is harder to sell.

Thereby, it is easier to display works that defy explanation and require no actual thought from the prospective buyer except perhaps "does it go with my cat and my couch?"

Realism requires visual comparison and evaluation as there is a representation of a person, or a scene, and hopefully a narrative or story to the subject that draws the viewer into the work and gets their brain working.

The gradual dumbing down of the art buying public was completed in the late 70s and the establishment responsible is now backing worthless Thomas Kinkade prints sold to unsuspecting buyers for thousands - their next evil plot.

I think the line may be rewritten to: "First, we kill all the artists."


Just Say "Gnome" to Modern Art!

Michael,

With, as you know, all respect, I'm finally at a loss here. I imagined that I had the campaigns scoped out. I thought it was the modern artists that defiantly, or at least with disinterest, rejected scrutiny and analysis. I thought the realists (hey, I'm one) invited it. Here it sounds as if you're saying that traditional art is difficult to understand. Isn't it the "modern art" pieces that require explanation? Surely I'm misunderstanding your point. Everything I see in the SOG Artists' galleries speaks beautifully for itself. I'm not understanding your post. Please, if you would, elaborate.

And gosh, Kinkade as "evil"? (He's actually a devoutly religious person, openly grateful for and generous with his blessings and earnings.) Evil? You can't have meant it. How disappointing and discouraging it would be to hear that you did.

Yikes -- I've just realized (d'uh) that you might have taken my "bumper sticker" post as offensive. I meant it as a tribute, a congratulations.

Maybe I've gotta get into another business. Plastics, or machinery, or something. I'm not getting the job done in communication or relationships.

Maybe I should paint instead of post. (Whistles and confetti are in the store room, parade permits pending.)

Steve maybe we all should be painting instead of posting.

I for one am not in the best of moods right now since in the past year my income has gone from a substantial amount to almost nothing in comparison. And, from day to day I am very cantankerous. It was my own decision to move away from commercial digital art to painting that has led me to this financial predicament.

Lately things are much slower then usual. So right now I am trying not to say anything negative about anyone. I even say kudos to the guy who sold his "artistic vision" in a can. I don't want to do anything to upset my karma. Positive attitude brings positive results. :)

Steven:

No Worries. No offense taken - I liked the Gnome quote, so I used it.

Sorry if my post caused confusion, let me clarify my points.

Realist works require objective evaluation - "Is the piece any good?" It is easier for a person to see if they like it or not as the works represent reality - something which most of us see all the time. Realist works often contain a narrative or story requiring the viewer to think their way into the piece. So, there are more reasons for an objective buyer to reject the work - and you typically need a better and more qualified sales staff.

Abstract works require no real objective evaluation beyond - "do I like the colors/shapes/paper cups/dung." This makes it easier for sales staff to prattle on about a piece and say just about anything they want. Also, it is much harder for the viewer to evaluate the work as "good" or "not so good", so they can take in any old thing on canvas or board and call it "art" and make you wonder what the "artist" was "thinking" when he/she created it - the public takes their word for it and pulls out their check book. "After all, they should know...right?"

As to Kinkade, I was referring to those in control of Madison Avenue, not the gentleman himself. His work is easy, serene, and quite popular - they saw a "market" and "money" - he is just the product. Again the public, now dumbed down from decades of abstract and modern art, pulls out their checkbooks to pay thousands of dollars for a mass produced print with a bit of paint on it that they are assured will be worth thousands more in the future. When this great marketing scheme crumbles or fades, and they are left with a bunch of prints that are in reality worth very little - who will they blame? Themselves?

"First, we kill all the artists."

Arbitrariness of art shows
 

About ten years ago I served on the exhibition committee of a large arts organization in the San Francisco Bay area. Based on that experience, I know how arbitrary both the selection of jurors, and the choices of jurors on what to include in the shows, are in juried competitions. I have many stories, some heartbreaking, some hilarious, from that period. I eventually quit because the influence of identity politics in selecting jurors became so outrageous that the shows ceased to be about art anymore.

Be that as it may, these events are one of the few available venues for starting artists, who are without connections or credentials, to exhibit their work. I learned to view entering these competitions as a total crap shoot. You never know what's going to happen. They rarely result in sales for the participants, and the only money to be made is the honorarium paid to the juror(s). So you should look on them as resume builders. I'm excluding the professional society competitions, of which I have no experience.

But, as I said, you never know what's going to happen. Back in the mid 90's I did the one and only entry of a painting of mine into one of these competitions. The show was called Regional Canvas, and was strictly for painting. My entry was a strange little painting, "It's My Cherry", in a "realist" style. As it happens, it's still on the internet at:
http://www.proartsgallery.org/ebos1996/artists/093.html

The show drew over 1000 entries, and was juried by two artists whom I had no reason to think would be sympathetic to my style. Only 50 entries were selected and mine was among them. The only other painting in a "realist" style was an elegant little nude about the same size as my painting.

Both my painting and the little nude won jurors' commendations, of which there were about half-a-dozen. The best of show went to a large abstract painting, to the best I can recall. So go figure!

Re: Money and Brain Power...
 

I completely agree with this. Thomas Kinkade has nice stuff, nothing spectacular in my opinion, but nice. However it is the establishment that backs the prints and the industry of Thomas Kinkade that I find to be evil. I have no beef with Kinkade himself though. In fact the art that he's less known for is actually really good.

This industry exploits the fact that the artist is Christian to sell his paintings. He, in turn, puts small "secret" messages and symbols in his paintings to prove that he does have Christian themes in his paintings. Then of course they label him as "the painter of light." Only a small portion of his paintings actually have a strong Christian subject matter in them. Most are his fancy gnome cottages with secret crosses and messages embedded in them.

Exploiting the fact that he's Christian to sell his paintings bothers me. Kind of reminds me of when Jesus went into the temple and overturned the vendors tables.

I'm Christian and I find that using these types of sales tactics is in fact evil.

Art Show Experience
 

I have volunteered to help at a local art show some years ago and one of my tasks was to know where each painting was located at, so I could assist the judges (two well known artists of our area) in locating a particular work.

As I was making my rounds with Mr. X, a very strong personality type of character, he joined Mr. Y who was more subdued and quiet in persona right in front of a painting the latter was making notations on.

Mr. X asked Mr. Y what he thought of the work, to which Mr. Y replied he is marking it for 1st place in the Oil category. Upon hearing this X said he agreed it was very well executed and a beautifully done painting, BUT he hates the frame. A lengthy argument arose about the importance of the frame, the artist's financial situation, what message to convey to others, etc.. Needless to say Mr. X convinced Mr. Y, who tried to object every now and then and that particular painting got 2nd place.

A humiliating, but eye opening experience for yours truly!

By the way, a similar situation arose in front of a montage! It was a sculpted handbag, car keys and opera glasses. The argument was: "It is excellent, but is it really crafted by the artisan or dipped in something? They could not decide and the work was demoted. Go figure - I think you know what I think about judging art.

What's In A Name?
 

Sometimes what happens to a painting in a competition is a result of its title.

I entered a fairly representational landscape in a number of local shows years ago. It was titled after the location in California where I took the reference photos. The painting was not accepted into any of these shows.

The next time I prepared to enter it in a show (I'm a diehard) my husband, more cynical than I am about the art world, suggested I re-title it "Left New York at 5:03."

You can guess what happened. It was accepted and won an Honorable Mention award. Go figure!

Art Shows

Even art shows that cater to the themes, styles, and subject matter that we prefer will still have those inherent problems that come with subjective judging. Otherwise it sounds as though some artists will only be happy if the judge favors their work/philosophy of art.

I have heard all the anecdotes and have a few of my own but wonder why failure to succeed continues to be blamed on some kind of large conspiracy. Once again it's suggested that a self-serving art community has been able to "dumb down" the rest of the world. Just who is the "establishment"? After "dumbing down" the public they somehow are now pushing Kinkade? Is there anything substantive about this "evil plot"?

Somebody help me. I thought Kinkade was running his own show and even states that he does not hire sales people with art backgrounds to avoid art talk in his stores. I have been in more than a few galleries in my day and while I am often greeted it is my experience that the customer is allowed to browse and let the art do the selling.

I like Marvin's comment that he tries to make his paintings so beautiful that the judges have to vote for it. In my past life as product designer I wanted our customer to say about our product "that's so wonderful, I have to have it, what does it do"? It's a little like buying a tool you can't resist buying and then finding reasons to need it (and explain to your wife.)

Art Shows and competitions are a chance to evaluate our place in the world and way to gauge our effectiveness. If denied an acceptance it can influence a commitment to find a better way to surpass the current bias. On those nice occasions when you get recognition you can say, "If you thought that work was good wait 'til you see my next one".

Lon, you didn't say whether or not the billboard was better than Mr. Mulligan's earlier effort. I also suspect that he did not overcome the likely urge to be selective in the section used for the "What was wall 34" entry.

I am also having some trouble, Steve, with Harley Brown's claim. Most shows require that your piece be ready to hang. If one follows the typical guides for securing the wire it is extremely difficult to hang a painting upside down. Try it.

Jim, the "upside downing" story may be apocryphal, or the sort of urban myth that is behind many such anti-modernist accounts. As I said, I couldn't make a definite attribution, and a pearl dive through the materials I happen to have here in Taiwan hasn't been fruitful, so I shouldn't have added Harley's name to the account based merely on my dodgy memory. But the story's out there, I did read it, and now I'll be obsessed with finding it. As for the practicality of hanging a painting upside down, that's the sort of detail conveniently glossed over in most urban legends.

This site is really an education for me, and I thank all of you for your excellent comments. I have never been one to enter shows, especially the county fair. Most of my work is sketching, which does not really fit into any category at an art show. Nonetheless, I take pride in my work, and never needed the mention of a juror or the pride of a blue ribbon. Perhaps my success is limited by my tunnel vision and the limited nature of my work.

I have no qualms with the success of Thomas Kinkade. I am happy for him. He is a true capitalist, a rare quality in an artist. Christians can be capitalists, too. As for the quality of his work, I would paint that stuff if I had a market like he does, but I don't think anyone can jump on that bandwagon. It is a freak of public trends, and as some have said, of the "dumbing down" of the American public with regard to art.

An artist should paint and draw his best, as some have said. You have to eat, though. You can't always be thinking about posterity when it comes to making a living in art. Portrait drawing is my bread and butter. I would like a little filet mignon once in a while, too, but I know what sells, and in some small way I am like T.K. I just want to make a little money doing what I love. But I hate art shows, and don't even go to any, for all the reasons above.

Participation in art shows can be costly, time consuming and tiring to say the least, but if you have a thick hide and can ignore the remarks, putdowns and outright favoritism that sometimes goes on just because so and so knows so and so, there are also numerous benefits. To mention a few, the occasional pat on the back by your peers, favorite comments by strangers who linger in front of your work and come back to it and the occasional red ribbon, and dare I say, prize money?!

I personally like to interact with others and observe what goes on around me. It teaches me new things related to the art industry, makes me aware of consumer trends, increases my new customer contacts and above all acts as a way for people to know who the heck Enzie Shahmiri is. After all, I don't have oodles of relatives here to spread the word that I paint for a living and I have to rely on referrals in any which form they come.

Upside-down, etc.
 

Almost all the juried competitions I've ever entered or helped administer have been judged on the basis of slides. Invariably, the labeling format for the slides requires that the submitting artist indicate the front/top, either by a dot or in writing. This is intended to circumvent the potential upside-down error at the time of judging. Nevertheless, I've witnessed more than one occasion when the artist him/herself got the slide labeled incorrectly, as it later developed. It is also not unheard of for the work to be received as a plain stretched canvas, contrary to "ready to hang" instructions. I have no doubt that things have been judged/hung in the wrong orientation from time to time.

I concur with Jim that there is no "conspiracy" in judging art competitions/shows (except for limiting who is eligible to compete, a different issue). Actually, things might be a little easier to figure out if there were. The real problem is that the process is usually totally opaque to the artist. Whether a work is accepted or rejected, it would be highly unusual for a submitting artist to get any further explanation whatsoever about why either happened. You would certainly never get anything like the kind of feedback you can get on a forum like this.

I can't resist another anecdote because Enzie's story really cracked me up. I once entered two works in a large competition. The prospectus called for the usual submission by slides only. I was entering two complex art "machines", if you will, that involved light, sound, mechanical motion, electronics etc.; all done to an extreme degree of craftsmanship. I contacted the sponsoring organization and asked if it would be possible to submit video documentation rather than slides, as the latter couldn't really convey the nature of the work. They assured me that it would be no problem and encouraged me to enter.

Neither work was accepted. I thought, "oh well", and forgot about it. Like I said, these things are a crapshoot. But in this case the Executive Director of the sponsoring organization happened to know me because of contacts formed when I was curating shows. Some time after the show we ran into each other and he said he just had to tell me about why neither of my pieces was accepted. I said that wasn't necessary, but he insisted that I ought to know.

He was present during the judging. Although the names of the contestants were hidden from the jury, he knew my work as soon as he saw it. The three artists composing the jury, despite being told earlier that the video was documentation, and despite on-screen text labeling it as such, proceeded to take the video as the work itself. I mean, they thought I was submitting video art. When the director saw what was happening, he intervened to explain that the video was just the documentation, like the slides for the other entries. This was greeted by a puzzled silence. He went on to try to explain further, feeling more and more like a comedian whose joke has bombed, but unable to restrain himself from trying to explain why it was funny. The net result was embarrassment all around and, needless to say, the pieces were rejected. But he felt bad because he was pretty sure that if he'd just kept his mouth shut they were going to accept the documentation as video art! I asked him how much the jurors had received as an honorarium and he told me $750 each.

BABOONS!!!!

Enzie,

You are relatively new to the forum and will find that artists, museums, galleries, art shows, judges, critics, patrons, and anyone else regardless of race, creed or religion who does not subscribe to the narrow range of portrait realism favored in this forum might be labeled evil, incompetent, publicity seeking, tasteless, and have subsequently and systematically been dumbed down by schools, museums, Madison Avenue and all others involved in the effort to make life difficult for classic realists.

I also fear that these characterizations are only cleaned up descriptions of how these same critics really feel. Fundamentalism is scary. But hang in. You will find a lot of value within the forum.

Judging,

I agree that multiple judges might be better than a single point of view but nevertheless question the value of having judging to begin with. Obviously a juried show with limited space must have some means to reduce pieces to be hung. But most shows would have entirely different recognition/awards with different judges. The outcome is mostly the opinion of one judge at one moment in time.

Who should care? It's his (her) opinion/statement and is very singular. At best judging stirs argument and discussion but in the end the only happy person is the winner (and some family and friends, maybe).

As much as I harbor no great respect or need for judging I also don't think that it serves any good purpose to demean and unfairly second guess those same judges. What reason do we have to believe that any judge paid any attention to the title of a painting? I have only judged a few shows and in each case was not given the name of the artist or the title and would not have found reason to weigh the title in my judgment.

For the life of me I don

Evil is as Evil does...
 

Jim:

Ok, so maybe I was a little over the top with my definition of "evil", but it is still a shame that realism has been given such a short shrift to other forms of "art" over the past 100 or so years. While I appreciate Impressionism, and even some forms of modernism, I just cannot get on the bandwagon for a museum paying $35,000 for an artist's feces, or an exhibit of an empty room where the lights go on and off, or someone who cuts themselves and then lets people watch - that, IMO, is not art. When the artist overtakes the art, then there is a problem. Artists have become akin to morning shock radio hosts - the more outrageous they are, the more popular they become. Why? Because the public no longer knows better. Why? Because they have been fed almost 100 years of "art without skill" - again, my opinion.

We have lost their attention and they have lost their knowledge of art.

A few years ago I took first in portrait, second in still life, and third in landscape at the Tulsa state fair. I got $3.00 for the first, $2.00 for the second and $1.00 for the third. I was so proud. I still have my $6.00 uncashed check.

If there is a monetary benefit in art shows, I am not sure it is worth it to me. I have such a disdain for the snob factor. The winners are so arbitrary, you might as well be in a blind drawing. And just because you are a winner does not make you a better artist.

My career in art has never been at the mercy of judges, as perhaps many artists might be. My only judges are my customers. Perhaps that is the difference in my experience and most other artists. I have no complaints against the gallery shows because I have never participated in any. I have a lot of respect for those who have the moxy to enter shows, travel, and pay the price, even though there may never be a return on the investment. I guess that is the way some artists have to do it. That is not for me. I don't even like going to see art exhibits, not to mention entering them!

I guess that is why I enjoy this forum so much. I can learn from other artists, see their work, without all the other *+#^.:)

After reading all of the comments, some of which I agree with and some not, I couldn't help but add my own 2 cents.

I haven't entered any competitions in years, but I do think they can have a positive impact in different ways.

1. They bring an "art awareness" to the public. I'm not, of course, referring to the infamous "feces or empty room" type art. Other than the "gimmic art", there is a lot of interesting art for the public to view. I personally prefer realism, but if the judge prefers abstract then oh well. There is some very good abstract just as there is some very poor realism. My point is that the more the public is exposed to art the better. In this day of schools dropping art courses, it is no wonder students become adults with little art knowledge.

Art exhibits get people thinking about art and that is good. If I go to see an exhibit and the art is not very good, I often hear the public whispering their disdain. That means they are thinking and reflecting on the art. Whether the art is good or bad almost doesn't matter. The important thing is that the public is being exposed to art, and I truly believe that the more they are exposed, the more likely they will begin to desire going to art museums etc. and hopefully they will start to desire to own quality original art.

2. Another positive about art competitions is what it can do for an artist, if the artist has the right attitude. When I was first starting out, I entered art shows and competitions mostly for exposure and the challenge. Initially I seldom was chosen for juried shows and often did not win when I was in a show. It spurred me on to do better. I was determined that I was going to improve my paintings.

I started really paying attention to what the judges were and were not choosing. Sometimes it was obvious that the choices were ridiculous, but sometimes I could learn something from the choices. One memorable learning experience was when I was juried into a show that had some good pieces and some awful pieces. They had a special critique night for the judge to share the reasons for his choices. One of the top award winners was this awful piece that had bright yellow bananas on a blue table - rendered in a childish style. The judge said that the painting grabbed him as soon as he entered the room and that it demanded his attention. Well, I still think that was a stupid reason to give a top award, however I still remember this painting.

I learned a valuable lesson, and after that night I desired to create paintings that are not only "good" but that also grab people when they enter a room and are memorable. At another show I learned some important things about composition. Each show has something we can learn from it if we look for it.

I can't resist on commenting on one more thing that came up on this thread - Thomas Kincaid. I know there is another thread on him also, but since it was brought up here, I'll go ahead and make my comment here. There seems to be a concern both on this forum and with other artists that I've met, that the public is being duped. I agree the public is being foolish if they spend large sums of money on art destined to be worthless, but I can hardly feel they are being duped.

First of all if they like the art and have the money then more power to them. If they are buying for investment purposes then they need to do their homework. If I have a few thousand dollars to invest, I'm going to do research on businesses if I choose to invest in the stock market. If I choose to invest in real estate, then I'm going to investigate where the property is located and learn about the area. In either of these examples, I should know better than to let my financial investment be based strictly on the statements of the real estate person or stockbroker.

If I'm not independently wealthy and this is my one time investment, then all the more reason to be diligent in checking things out. I wouldn't even buy a car unless I first did my homework. So if someone is "investing" in Kincaid's art then they should be doing their "homework" first and if they get burned then they've only themselves to blame.

Of course, if they like his art and that is how they want to spend their money then, why not? At least they are thinking about art (good or bad) and that is a step in the right direction.

Mary

Agreed, Mary, the public needs art shows to water its desert. My life is nothing but art, and an art show is like black forest cake which, if you eat the whole piece, leaves you wishing you had not eaten the first bite.

I think taste or the lack of it, is very personal and varies in degrees from one person to another. Looking at the positive side of things prevents us from turning into bitter prunes!

I agree with Mary on a lot of points she has made. We as artists need to set high standards for ourselves and our work and by showing it to the public we can, to a degree, influence what the perception of real art could be. Show the public mastery of the craft and if they can afford it I am sure they will buy it and appreciate it.

I would like to see the following change in the way juried shows are handled:

• 1. Do not disclose artist's name.
  2. The work should be judged without any consideration to title.
  3. The frame/matting should only be taken in consideration if it is part of the work. (Some artists incorporate the frame as part of the painting.)
  4. Jurors should not be allowed to confer with other jurors. I like to see them partitioned off, so they can't even see the mannerisms and expression of the person next to them.

I would like the creation of an environment were judging can be truly objective and done by people who master their art. If a work wins that I happen to find inferior, well then so be it. I will congratulate the winner and go on with my career.

Hope
 

All that most artists want is a fair shake. It actually does sometimes happen that an art show is judged by 3 or 5 skilled and experienced artists (judging separately by number value voting) and one ends up with a show in which the "dumb ole public" and the artists in the show, as well as artists looking at the show, all generally say, "Well, this show was well judged".

It's that most shows are put together by non-artists and they think non-artists are somehow smarter than the people who actually make art. So assistant curators and "organizer-types" judge the contests and the results are as one might expect.

As for Kinkade, what skilled and knowledgeable artist could hawk his work w/o embarrassment? Better that someone that was selling cars last week sell them. It's ok to say it's crap. Say it loudly! It's crap. I used to like the puppies with the big tears in their eyes but I was 7 years old when it was all the rage. Crap happens. Honest art comes from honest artists. Let's be honest here. It's really OK.

Mary,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. You are guilty of being part of something and learning/gaining from actual experience. It's to my great dismay that so many artists wish to ascribe and describe the success of others as owing only to some unwholesome agenda.

You also reminded me of an experience that I had many years ago and have been guilty of retelling many times over the years to fellow artists and students alike. In the early 60's I visited the Carnegie International Show in Pittsburgh with a group of gifted artists skilled in "traditional" and "modern" art. (I still continue these high risk behaviors)

The show strongly favored the "modern" art movements of the time and in the previous week Time magazine had displayed several paintings from the show. Among those was a square painting that for the most part was a mass of cobalt blue paint that stopped just short of the edges of the canvas. A broad cadmium yellow line ran through the lower third of the painting. Looking at the magazine did not prepare me for the viewing experience since the painting was very much larger than I had expected and had a strong impact that commanded your attention. (It could have been an abstract banana on a blue table)

Nearby was a painting much smaller in size by Andrew Wyeth. It may have been "Brown Swiss" or another of the paintings of the Kuerner house that featured the house on the hill and its reflection in the pond below. As powerful as the first painting was, the Wyeth held its own and more. Anything else would have been blown away.

The overall impact and ability to command your attention was inspiring. As an abstract composition it was second to none and has had a lasting effect on my ability to appreciate and encourage the overwhelming need for students to develop paintings which demand your attention through concept and design. It's my reminder to strive for the same

It would be worth many fruitless trips to other galleries to have an experience like this one.

Not to jinx myself, but I don't know where all these "snobs" are found. Do they hang out with the "dumbed down"?

Here is an interesting thought to throw forth. Perhaps some of these committees don't know who to ask or where to find a judge. (Obviously, I am referring to the local shows. The national shows are a whole other story.)

I happen to share a studio with another artist in a public location. As a result, we've been asked to judge shows at the local schools, and recently we were contacted to judge the local art guild show. Various times the committee asking us have mentioned that they really appreciated us being willing to judge since they had trouble knowing who to ask. Sometimes they had asked people who turned them down.

When I used to be active in the local art guild, there were times that I had to help find a judge and believe me it was not easy. We always tried to find artists as our first choice, but that was not always possible. Most often there is only so much money to offer a judge. In addition, there is still a major limitation in that you have to find someone close enough that travel expense will not have to be factored in.

Next problem is how to find an artist. Quite often many of the local artists are IN the show so that eliminates them. Also most artists have their studios in their home, so unless you know about them, if they only advertise out of the local area then they are not known and that eliminates most of them. Then there are these "art experts" (ha, ha) that make themselves known to all and tell everyone that they are the best judges of art. So there you have it. The committee now "knows the best" and that is who they hire.

Perhaps we as artists need to let the local schools and guilds and other organizations that have shows know that we are willing to judge art shows and exhibits. We might be doing everyone a favor.

Of course, having said all of that, we need to be ready to be the person that will be blamed when someone is not happy with our choices.

Mary

I am at least as cynical as any of you. What I have to share though, is the one truly unbiased experience I have had, which was being considered as an author for the book I ultimately wrote for North Light Books.

The acquisition editor for North Light Books, Rachel Wolf, wrote a clear RFP (Request for Proposal) to which I responded. I can assure you she had never heard my name nor seen my work.

She was unbiased by "names" (I certainly didn't have one) and focused on the task at hand, which was getting the book accomplished. I am grateful for her objectivity, and what I most certainly presume is NLB's philosophy. In fact, here's an excerpt from my thanks section: If any of you have the chance to work with this company, go for it.

P.S. I often get my work rejected from my local art group. Sometimes it's the same piece that wins a national award. You just can't take this stuff to heart, either way.

Jim, with all due respect for your excellent work and training, it is hard to believe that you have never seen the politics in art shows. Perhaps, and I say this respectfully, you are too close to the forest to see the trees. I also cannot believe that a man of your education cannot see that most of our schools are lacking in solid art education.

You can read in the October 2001 edition of the American Artist Magazine where Steven Doherty, editor in chief of the magazine, writes of the "lack of solid academic education in most universities, colleges and art schools, and of reports of students frustrated by programs that don't adequately teach drawing, anatomy, composition, color theory and painting techniques." And that is just the higher education. Our secondary schools have never taught fundamentals to children other than crayola moments. THAT is where the fundamentals should be introduced.

Our country has a very very weak understanding of art for the most part. IMO, dumbing down is not even applicable to our society - it was never art-smart to begin with! There are so very few people in this country who know what you know about art. You are a part of a very, very small and fortunate minority. I agree that it is valuable to learn from galleries. I wish there were some in my community worth attending.

Lon,

I have no idea how you were led to believe that I've never suspected politics in art shows. Who or how was this implied? Most dissatisfaction with art show judging seems to focus on the "modern" versus "traditional" but I wonder if members think portrait society shows are any less vulnerable to the politics of judging? As unfortunate as this may be, the public usually doesn't care that much and the results don't ordinarily launch or stifle careers.

I also don't know what I may have said to suggest that art education programs broadly are all that they should be. Most of my responses on this Forum have simply questioned a lot of assumptions that, in my mind, reflect the frustration of artists who don't believe their school and style of art is as appreciated as much as they would wish. This often leads to comments suggesting that overt and covert efforts are employed by some vague "establishments" to diminish an art form so very dear to them. Apparently the belief is that the same devious efforts are employed to mislead schools, teachers, museums, galleries, and the public. This often results in "dumbing down" comments.

With due respect for Steven Doherty I would like to see something weightier than his opinion and the grumbling of frustrated students as the basis for making any substantive evaluation of art education/training at college/art school level. I for one am in no position to judge and remain surprised that others on the Forum are so confident in their judgment of academic demise. Are we talking about the quality of art education in its broadest sense or the training of specific and specialized skills? Are we talking about education? Or how to render? Again, as I have mentioned in an earlier thread, I have had the experience regionally to see elementary students work, play, study, experiment with materials and subjects that will give them, in my opinion, a good grounding in the visual arts. And, again, I suspect this will not satisfy those that are convinced that the only "good" course of study is that which will prepare them to be a classical realist painter. How narrow. There is a difference between teaching and indoctrination. I'm happy enough that they have been stimulated and trust they will find their role as artist, designer, or patron and will find one of the many professional schools available for artist today whatever interest.

I previously recommended Robert Henri's book "The Art Spirit" and one Forum response was "Why read his book if I don't like the author's paintings?" He and John Dewey (writer of "Art as Experience") were two important authors offering practical and philosophical insight into the arts. Of Mr. Dewey, the book jacket said: "Art As Experience has grown to be considered internationally as the most distinguished work ever written by an American on the formal structures and characteristic effects of all of the arts: architecture, sculpture, painting, music, and literature".

If these two writers were here today they might be the ones asking just who is too close the forest to see the trees?

What other countries have better programs and how is this evidenced?

Seems to me, American Artist could feature more artists that are "skilled and trained" and less of the photo slaves that have been the mainstay of that magazine for as long as I can remember. I can't remember an issue that did not have some article featuring naked bodies painted with bad color drawn from photos.

This magazine could walk the walk and lead the way (by example).

An art publication as part of the dumbing-down conspiracy. Now there's a new one. Here I thought it was Cosmopolitan and Guns & Ammo.

All the pieces are falling into place. Why haven't we received an eRumor chain-letter petition about this?