Justifiable aversion to art shows

[Jim Riley]

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.

[Steven Sweeney]

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.

[Lon Haverly]

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.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

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.

[John Zeissig]

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!!!!

[Jim Riley]

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

[Michael Georges]

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.

[Mike McCarty]

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.

[Lon Haverly]

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 *+#^.

[Mary Reilly]

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