Competitions and fine print
 

I'm sure we all have lots of stories about art competitions. Some are done very well per the details of the prespectus.Many are not and others remain mysterious. Something I've wondered about is when a competition says, "the board of directors" or "board of trustees" or "advisory panel" will judge the competition, do they mean that? Some shows get so many slides that they pre-judge the show for the busy and famous group of judges. Some juried exhibitions will tell you that's what they do. Some of the art magazines still do this. They get 4,000 slides and send 200 to the advertised "judge".

This always seems to me at best unwise and rather undermines the entire validity of the competition. I'd like to hear others stories about how shows are done.

I don't know about the pre-screening you mentioned, but I do know of other judging improprieties in some of these big-name competitions.

I was accepted into a high-profile juried show in New York a while back but I noticed that the (to remain nameless) prestigious national painting society always seemed to give the top prizes to officers and former officers of the group. What a co-incidence!

I'll be specific
 

With all the readers this forum has I know there are several people that can answer this question. I asked ASOPA and got no answer, so now I ask you all. Did Richard Schmid, Howard Sanden, Elaine and Peter Adams, John Asaro, Allan Banks, Steven Levin and the other "board of advisors all fly down to Montgomery 2 or 3 weeks before the New Show to sit around a conference table together to "judge the entries"?

Secondly if they did not who actually made those decided?

How does the PSA do their show?

That strikes a nerve for me as well Tim, wish they would answer.

My other beef is that I think names should be covered during judging. Work should be judged on its own merit, NOT on who it belongs to.

That's a great point Stanka. I wonder what reason they would give for leaving the names visible. I can't think of a valid one (though I'm not in danger of winning a competition any time soon).

I remember being told one year by one of the organizations that they didn't know the names of the entrants when they judged...whoever "they" is. I can only vouch for that one year and that organization's communication.

I rather tend to think the who and how of the judging is done isn't for public knowledge since no one I know seems to know...and I know a lot of people. However, no one has ever specifically told me that. And, I suspect if I knew, I wouldn't be free to say.

There are some valid reasons for the judges not being known. For example, if a close friend of a judge wins, then people could think that the win is because of the friendship, when, in fact, maybe the painting actually deserved to win. On the other hand, friendships can be stressed if the friend of the judge doesn't win.

It's a tough situation in any event because there are so many sensitive artist egos involved in these competitions.

Truth in Advertising
 

Many shows actually make a profit from the artists that show up or from the entries fees paid in order to get into the show. The Arts for the Parks gives away a $50,000. first place. This carrot provokes over 2,000 artists each year to send in entry fee of $50.00 each.

We artists fund these things and the events are advertised money making ventures. The shows could at least behave according to their prospectus. To have 2 or 3 people prescreen hundreds of our entries and send only a dozen or so to the advertised judge or jury is clearly a flawed way to conduct a competition.

By the way the Arts in the Parks has always looked at the work w/o signatures, assigned numbers and sent the paintings (all the paintings) to the actual people listed on the prospectus to judge the work.

Judging is a strange animal...
 

:) When I WIN a competition I think that the judges are totally fair and that only the "best" paintings are chosen.

:( When I LOSE, I think:

• The judges only pick their friends and I am not their friend - in fact, they personally don't like me at all.
  
  I know the judges and they cannot choose me because it would look bad for them.
  
  The judges don't like me because I don't paint like they do.
  
  They are afraid of me because I paint better than they do.
  
  There is the little league mentality that says "everybody has to play and Karin has already won too many comptitions."
  
  The judges are obviously blind because they can't see how good my painting really is...
  
  The judges have poor taste.
  
  The judges are only impressed by flashy brushwork and not by the "substance" of my work.
  
  They look for the "trendy..."
  
  The judges participate in promotional schemes for certain specific "preselected artists."
  
  They only let me enter this competition because they want my entry fee.

:? Seriously though, when "BEST PORTFOLIO" is awarded, does that mean it is the "best body of work by an artist." Or does it mean that the appearance of the presentation materials is the best?

Dear Karin,

Thank you for your humorous and uplifting post! (personally, I like the "Pearls before swine!" rationale.)

I think there are a multitude of issues that must go into these competitions, and I try to keep in mind that it is only one (or many, or the front office secretary--yes, I know of some competitions where this has happened) judge on one day, and about one painting. I have received awards at a national level on paintings that couldn't even get juried into small local shows here. (See any of your delineated criteria). I think organizations can utilize any process they so choose; I agree with Tim, though, they should just be straightforward about what it is.

On the other hand, after some time and experience, I think it just doesn't make sense to beat one's head against the wall. (Or,as eloquently stated in Art & Fear, "When the horse dies, get off.") It all, though, goes back to the reason one seeks credentials..and there are many reasons, depending upon an individual's career goals and activities. There are so many different venues out there, find those that recognize where you are going, rather than where someone else is headed.

Chris

My point is this. We artists that do the "competitions" underwrite them and most make profits from our entry fees etc. If we as a group would expose poorly ran ones for what they are pressure would be exerted on them to run them better. I have sat around with artists while we laughed about the idea of starting our own competition. We'd take turns letting each other win the title of, "world's greatest artists"...silly huh? Well it's been going on for years.

Check out www.greenhousegallery.com and see the Salon 2002, Hundreds of entries from around the world and one of Greenhouse gallery's artists won with a 10x13" painting. In the 2001 OPA national show, the judge gave her husband one of the major awards. This happens because artists let it, ignore it and continue to fund it. Art Talk is the only art pulication that will even mention such things in print.

As a group we could change things. We lack unity as a profession. It was not always so.

I think it would be nice and is extremely rare when attending a show for the best works to win across the boards...not some good works and many weak pieces...all the awarded works to be solid.

Doesn't it seem that once in a while the "peoples choice" and "artists' choice" could be the same as the judges choices...this rarely ever happens and it's not because the judge has better taste.