Monday, June 26, 2006

The Jury's Still Out on Open Submission Exhibitions

An artist the other day asked me about open submissions juried exhibitions. I said what I always say about many US gallerists they're a negative on a resume, suggesting a lack of confidence in the work. I also noted that the perspective, like all free advice, was worth exactly what he paid for it, but...

I wish I had read
the following before offering that advice though:

A painting of a blonde girl in a black dress, aptly titled Blonde Girl, Black Dress, emerged yesterday as the best out of 1,305 works on display at the Royal Academy's summer exhibition in London.

Chantal Joffe, 36, a native of St. Albans, north of London, was stunned to learn that she surpassed such art world heavyweights as Sir Anthony Caro to collect the Charles Wollaston award for "most distinguished work" at the show.

"Blonde Girl, Black Dress is an incredibly strong and striking painting," the judges said. "It held its own in the gallery in which it was shown. There was no debate about the winner, the decision was reached unanimously."

Blonde Girl, Black Dress was selected from a shortlist of five works for the prize—whose past winners have included David Hockney—that is worth $45,750 (£25,000, €36,000).

"I never expected to win against such an illustrious line up," Joffe said. "I am overwhelmed."

In addition to Sir Anthony, that illustrious line up included Georg Baselitz, Sandra Blow, Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst, Ken Howard, and Richard Long.

But before you rush your piece over for next summer's exhibition (actually, I'm not sure, but I think there are residency restrictions, so...) or reconsider whether juried exhibitions are indeed a solid path to fame and glory, consider this article, published in the Times of London before the exhibition was selected (it's titled "
Amateurs queue up for £18 chance at artistic glory":

ARTISTS must suffer for their art, and not even repeated rejection from the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition could deter hopefuls from trying again yesterday — although several were angry at having to pay £18 for each work submitted.

One man, who has almost lost count of the number of times that he has been turned down since he first entered in 1970, was back again this time for another go. Theo Matoff, 75, a former architect from London, told The Times that he has probably been rejected 15 times. But he remained defiant as he handed over his latest abstract composition.

“It’s like winning the lottery,” he said of his chances. Only 10 per cent of about 10,000 works entered this year will be chosen for the final exhibition.

One artist, who declined to be named, said that the £18 handling fee for each work was far too expensive, particularly as anyone living outside London also has to pay for transport costs. “And you then have to come back and pick them up when they’re rejected,” she said. “The Academy is raking it in.” It also takes 30 per cent in commission from sales made at the exhibition.
Moreover, despite the tone of the first article above, this year's winner was not exactly the Cinderella story it seems to be. Along with Turner Prize winner Grayson Perry, Chantal Joffe (whose work I didn't know, but who, upon a bit more research I learned, exhibitions with, among others, Victoria Miro Gallery [suggesting she's no outsider]), had been invited to submit work to the exhibition. Still, congratuations to her for her prize.


Anonymous said...

I have considered entering open juried exhibitions but have never done so. Whenever I see that there is a fee for submitting an application (charge per slide) I get discouraged - to me it makes the competition seem like a money-making scheme akin to vanity galleries.

6/26/2006 10:01:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Agree with the previous mark, My rule is, if there is a fee it's not for me. That said I have from time to time submitted if an exhibit looked promising. The important thing is to get your work out there to be seen, no one will do it for you; sometime that includes a cattle call.

6/26/2006 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger Chris Rywalt said...

Ed's post just confirms for me what I sensed almost immediately when I started trying to get my art "out there": That open submission shows are not worth my time or money. I very quickly saw how much work was involved and how hard it was to tell if you were accepted for "good" reasons or "bad" -- I was thrilled to be accepted by one show, only to find that my painting was hung across from the one by the autistic kid. They had accepted everyone who entered.

6/26/2006 10:47:00 AM  
Anonymous rebel belle said...

Juried shows are very good for entry level artists outside of big city centers. It gives beginners a chance to see what rejection feels like and a feel for the public arena. Artists who are more advanced in their careers don't enter these shows, anytime one sees $25 for three slides, we know what this is about. I think it's a great learning experience, it teaches beginners that art is subjective, because it's always shocking when you see the piece of crap that won first prize! I have curated these kind of exhibits, and from this perspective, it's pretty amazing how much power the juror has.

A lot of small organizations survive by these entry fees, sometimes this can be exploitative, but c'mon! This is not exactly powerball or the friggin lottery. It's chump change. But once in a while it's really egregious, and the perpetrators of these "juried shows" are just out to make money.

The type of juried show that Ed is spekaing of doesn't exist in the US, at least not to my knowledge.

Anyone know of one that I won't be entering?

6/26/2006 11:11:00 AM  
Anonymous onesock said...

I just had a great experience with a juried show at Tampa Museum of Art called "underCURRENT/overVIEW 8". It was open to artists living in Florida. Still on view till July 8th, it is an excellent show. I got some press from it and the museum went all out- even attempted to make a video document of it until the expense became prohibitive.

But after making it into 3 of these since graduating I think that is enough for now, unless the juror and or the space/theme seems exciting. I guess we should differentiate between a standard juried for prizes kinda thing and a call to artists put out by a curator or gallery (like exit art) that is using it as a curatorial method (i know they are rare).

6/26/2006 11:17:00 AM  
Blogger The Artist Extraordinaire said...

Yeah, Chantelle Joffe is not in need of a boost really.
I saw here in this hip art scene London book written by someone from Italian Vogue or something. They went around and photgraphed the artists, including Michael Craig-Martain, Peter Blake, Gilbert & George through some yBas to the younger ones. It had hip text about showing up at their studios and hanging out.

I'm pretty sure she was also part of the ever growing Saatchi Triumph of Painting.

On the open call pay to play situation. I can only thank God for being rejected as a teen to many such shows.

6/26/2006 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger Tracy said...

Oops, Rebel Belle (Hi Rebel!) just said exactly what I was going to point out-that competitions are a good way for new artists to get their feet wet. Juried shows came in handy (when I got in of course) for me as they gave me a few lines to fill out a very thin beginning resume. I don't enter them as often anymore, although I do always enter the local non profit arts orgs. in order to support their efforts. I don't enter juried shows sponsored by for profit galleries (unless there are no fees), as I have my suspicions about the financial motives there.

Personally, I kind of miss the competitive aspect of entering juried shows and wish there were more respected ones around.

6/26/2006 11:27:00 AM  
Anonymous David said...

I haven't entered juried shows in years, but when I was first starting out I did. Not sure if that was a good or bad thing. But Ed, what is it you do suggest to someone right out of school? How should they get their work seen, and what is it that a gallery wants to see on a resume? I mean, you know, something that the young artist can actually do, not Whitney Biennial, etc.

6/26/2006 11:33:00 AM  
Anonymous danonymous said...

Is it possible that the emphasis to "get one's work seen" lurches into "get one's work seen immediately" and then the whole process becomes "in the box" thinking and inherently one is trapped?

6/26/2006 12:14:00 PM  
Anonymous priit said...

I guess that in such random, chaotic, hyper-competitive situation, some works may be simply get lost because of interference from other works.
The numerous contrasts, formal and essential, that have been brought to extreme in this work may have helped it to retain its independence and secure viewers' attention - at least for a moment. It is a very strong work indeed, in several respects 8) ... I doubt that the names in the "line-up" could easily match that work..

6/26/2006 12:16:00 PM  
Anonymous David said...

whole process becomes "in the box" thinking and inherently one is trapped?

That's a good question, but does too far "out of the box" also mean "out of luck"? Should someone wait until their work has totally matured before showing it (not that one ever knows when it has)? And at that point, who's going to look at it if there's nothing on the resume?

6/26/2006 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous onesock said...

i know it has been helpful to me to see my work in relation to others' work in these group shows. And besides, one can always leave things out of a resume correct? I dont mention that twelve years ago i worked at a "D(r)eck the Walls"

6/26/2006 12:44:00 PM  
Blogger John Morris said...

I am becoming a big fan of things like juried slide files and online registries. in Philly and White Collumns come to mind.

Also places like Pierogi can act as a farm team and a practical place to get some idea in person of what people are doing.

6/26/2006 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger Susan Constanse said...

Speaking as someone who has never lived in a major art market, I am curious about some of the attitudes toward juried shows. It seems that the art market is pretty stratified for those in major markets and those of us that are choosing to live in cities that are more financially viable for artists. I know in Pittsburgh the galleries, both non-profit and commercial, are hanging on as tentatively as the artists. None of these galleries are coming anywhere near making a profit from submission fees.

6/26/2006 02:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My experience and the advice i've always given is it is a waste of money and time - UNLESS - the jury is composed of people who you'd like to see your work (i.e., gallery directors you admire, curators etc.....).

Save your money to make some more work and be selective about what juried exhibits you apply to....I've been fortunate to be in juried shows that have traveled and received enormous attention - but those are very rare.

6/26/2006 03:31:00 PM  
Blogger That Broad said...

I have been told by a couple of friends in academia who teach outside of major metropolitan centers that juried shows considered a "peer reviewed" venue for art - much like peer reviewed journals - and thus count for quite a bit when listed on an artist's resume. I find this idea appalling given the number of scams that are going and the obvious profit-making off the backs of those not selected. Has anyone else heard this?

6/26/2006 04:15:00 PM  
Anonymous J.T. Kirkland said...

This presents a good chance to ask a question I've wondered about for a long time. that broad said, "...given the number of scams that are going and the obvious profit-making off the backs of those not selected."

Assuming something has to be charged by the organizing body, do we prefer that all artists foot the bill or only those selected? For example, say 100 artists compete for 10 spots. The options are:

A) All submitting artists pay $10/each. or...
B) The 10 selected artists pay $100/each.

Both cases result in $1000 for the gallery.


6/26/2006 04:42:00 PM  
Blogger Chris Rywalt said...

JT asks:
Assuming something has to be charged by the organizing body, do we prefer that all artists foot the bill or only those selected?

I think the assumption is the problem. It's not that I don't imagine a Call for Entries costs a gallery/exhibit space money; I can understand how they'd want to charge for their time. I mean, someone has to look at all the JPEGs/slides that come in, and eyes cost money. I understand all that.

The trouble is, once you assume any one given organizing body has to charge, then anyone can charge. And how do you vet which ones are worth submitting to and which ones are scams?

We here in the Capital of Capitalism choose to let the market vet for us. If a body is making a profit without charging entry fees, then they are serious. If not, not.

Maybe. Sort of. Sometimes. Apparently depending on whether you're in a big city or some tiny backwater.

Bottom line, you have to come up with your own standards for determining if an organizing body is worth it or not. Danonymous has, as usual, a good point: At what point does getting seen become another Ralph Kramden-style get rich quick scheme, and if you're aiming for that, is that good or right?

It seems to me that entry-fee juried shows are something of an apparent shortcut to getting into the "art world." If you want to be part of the art world, you have to join it. Move to New York or Los Angeles or Paris or London or nearby. There are plenty of affordable places to live within an easy commute of Chelsea, NYC. It's called sacrificing for your art, people.

If instead you'd rather pay someone $35 so they can pat you on the head and say "Good boy," then keep submitting. But, really, I can do that for myself at home for free.

6/26/2006 05:03:00 PM  
Blogger serena said...

Agreed with everyone above who will not submit if there is a fee. If an organization is on such shaky financial foundations that it must charge a fee, it is much less likely to have the sorts of connections that would do my career any good.

Plus, curating from slides, or god forbid, Internet JPEGs, is problematic to start with. The kind of art that moves me must be experienced in person, if its artistic merit and kinesthetic impact is to be accurately assessed.

I have recently noticed an upsurge in 'invitational, benefit' exhibitions that ALSO charge a fee to be IN the show. Hello??!! So I am 'invited' to pay you in order to 'benefit' yourself? Be still my beating heart!

Or perhaps these have always existed, and I'm just lucky enough to have popped onto the radar?

6/26/2006 05:05:00 PM  
Blogger serena said...

P.S. That painting above looks, well, kind of easy to paint, to me. Not that that's a bad thing; simplicity rocks. It just doesn't strike me as particularly original or interesting. Perhaps you have to see it in person.

6/26/2006 05:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Wow that winning painting is so LAME and BORING !!!!!!

Mom, where's Modigliani?

The brits did it again:
I feel shocked and scandaled. When is it burning down?

Gosh..What makes it so special?
Oh? Because the robe melts with the black rectangle and re-address the flat plane?

Because the blue in the corner correspond to the shadow under the right eye like the chair correspond to the arm and bla bla? Because that second eye fixes you like a third eye?
Because tonalities are painterlish and the robe is allover? (cant tell from here)

Come on, there is consensus here.
I know you all think it's great except Serena. Please debate.
Please teach me a lesson in painting.

I've participated in a couple juried shows in the past but they were free and school related (AT THE SCHOOL not a David Zwirner, thank you). I had a special mention in one, which meant that the jury thought I was too bizarre to win anything but they thought I was some kind of curiosity for the cabinet, but with others I was left in the dirt and was actually astounded by the work that won considering the art that some of the jurists were doing. It's like observing your fave director give a prize at Cannes for a totally unrelated film.

I think winning a concours can be great, but it doesn't mean your art is great. As it was said they are open exhibitions where you don't pay a fee, the gallerist only taking its usual percentage.
I'd participate in that. Even better if they're not juried.

The bests are unsollicited prizes, when "they" come to you. I should invent my own concours. Best Exhibit + Best First Exhibit.

Someone mentioned about living in Pittsburgh and I was curious to know....Do they still tell you in Chelsea "Ok...I'll take you but you must come live in New York".


Cedric Caspesyan

6/26/2006 07:07:00 PM  
Blogger Ben.H said...

Good luck for Chantelle Joffe; not such good luck for David Hensel, who entered the same exhibition only to have the jury reject his sculpture, but accept the plinth it was supposed to be mounted on.

6/26/2006 07:12:00 PM  
Anonymous David said...

have the jury reject his sculpture, but accept the plinth it was supposed to be mounted on.

Ha, that's a riot! Sounds like the show was juried by Monty Python.

6/26/2006 07:29:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Here's another picture of the painting by Chantal Joffe, "Blond girl in Black dress" next to Anselm Kiefer.

6/26/2006 07:34:00 PM  
Anonymous eleventh hour said...

you have to love those pants.

6/26/2006 08:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What pants? That's the plinth.

6/26/2006 09:05:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Wow, the painting is much more dramatic seeing it in the gallery space.

6/26/2006 09:36:00 PM  
Blogger Chris Rywalt said...

Cedric pleads:
I know you all think it's great except Serena. Please debate.

I don't think it's great. I think it looks pretty pointless and dumb. But, of course, there are the usual caveats about judging a painting by its JPEG. Even Van Gogh looks pretty crappy in JPEG format.

Also keep in mind that there are days I wish the entire 20th century in art hadn't happened, so, you know, I'm not the best judge of this kind of thing.

6/26/2006 09:36:00 PM  
Anonymous pansy said...

I have been out of undergrad for 3 years and I want to be an artist but I have no idea what to do besides make work obsessively. What do people do to get their work seen? How do I not know this?

6/26/2006 09:44:00 PM  
Anonymous danonymous said...

Cedric said....I know you all think it's great except Serena. Please debate.
Please teach me a lesson in painting.

OK Cedric...I generally do sculpture but if you need an explanation of this painting and a paintring goes like this....
The Head bone connected to the ...jaw bone.
The jaw bone connected to the ..neg space
The elbow connected to the..neg space
the other elbow reaching out of the neg space
the hand covering years of neg space sexuality..
And that's what it's all about.

Give me that old time religion, give me that old time religion...
hmmm. Sorry.....I digress.

6/26/2006 09:54:00 PM  
Anonymous one tired sock said...

Rereading Ed's post, I find this statement interesting...
"to many US gallerists (juried shows) are a negative on a resume, suggesting a lack of confidence in the work."

I would have never thaought that it suggested a lack of confidence (on the part of the artist?) I mean, when you get the 25th rejection letter and you immediately send out another submission that is pretty confident aint it? Stupid and gullible maybe but confident.

That Broad's comment about acedemia considering it a peer review item on a resume is also interesting to me. I am pursuing such a career- I know that I need to have an extensive exhibition record, but I would imagine representation would weigh more. no?

The painting reminds me of Marsden Hartley whom I have an affection for. Thats all I can say really.. its elegant and unified. The scale is nice and a bit surprising. I am not flipping a lid over it obviously.

6/26/2006 11:10:00 PM  
Anonymous eleventh hour said...

art in the age of post-mechanical reproduction notwithstanding- i like the painting. the pallette is great, the composition traditional, central. she makes use of a loose grid, but destabilizes it by skewing the lines. it is dominated by a flat, black void that is really very dramatic, and reminiscent of Milton Avery. the curved line at the right edge is awesome. it echoes the shape of the eyes, the shoulders, the hair, etc. i like the fact that Chantal surpassed such masculine artists as Hirst, and Baselitz. the girls gaze is so powerful. that confidence is reflected in the scale of the work- it holds its own next to the Keifer, that is no small feat. it is a great statement about doing only what is necessary, and nothing more. it really almost becomes shocking.

6/26/2006 11:44:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Scale is one factor, its roughly 7 feet high.
There's a lot you cant tell from a tiny jpeg, there are some things you can

6/27/2006 02:10:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Photo credit on the installation shot I linked previously goes to Nelly van Nieuwenhuijzen.

6/27/2006 02:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Ok I didn't know that it added gigantism to Modigliani. It seemed small on jpeg.

The arm paralleling the robe like a ramp leading to the black void behind evokes Munch.

I still find it academic.

Cedric Caspesyan

6/27/2006 05:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or maybe it's a giant Matisse stripped bare without the fla-fla.

Cedric Caspesyan

6/27/2006 06:02:00 AM  
Anonymous eleventh hour said...

hey george, the picture with the overlay of lines is extremely confusing. i'm not sure i know what all of that ultimately means. can you get into it at all?

obviously, from a jpeg you can learn something about the composition and, to an extent, the color, if you believe it to be reliable.

despite the deficits though, it's good to have the ability to share images. i won't be going to london this summer.

6/27/2006 08:15:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

elevnth hour,

I my two comments because a number of things aren't obvious from the jpeg. With the assumption that the "judges" of the Royal Academy made some kind of reasonably intelligent decision, I tried to find out the size of the painting. I couldn't but I found the installation shot which gives a fair indication of its size. I estimate it's about 6-7 feet high, so the head is roughly 2 feet high.

It was also apparent to me from the jpeg that the painting was laid out with a degree of care. The second jpeg I linked, I made just to see how. The colored lines are mine, not hers and are only colored for reference as follows.
Red lined bisect the canvas, vert, horiz and diagonally.
The Yellow lines are the golden section (.618) divisions of the width and height plus two diagonals paralleling the left arm and the dress.
The cyan line at the eyes is .146x height which is a forth power harmonic of the golden section (1-.618^4)
The light blue is a square equal to the width.
Then I connected some points

The way the painting is laid out is a giveaway that she is not an amateur who just walked in off the street, besides the painting is too big to do that easily. Among others, she is also in the Saatchicollection, so any initial assumption that she was just a lucky artist who was picked out as a winner of a "juried" exhibition is spurious at best. Finally after digging a bit into her career details, her "gosh, oh gee" response to being awarded the prize sounded a bit contrived.

I neither like nor dislike the painting, I haven't seen it and a jpeg is no substitute, especially when the issues of scale come into play.

6/27/2006 09:10:00 AM  
Anonymous David said...

George, I like her painting a lot better with the lines you've added.

6/27/2006 11:25:00 AM  
Anonymous eleventh hour said...

thanks for the follow up george, good information.

6/27/2006 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Wow, I hadnt seen the pythagoresque version of George.

Thanks !!!

Is there a software that does that?

Frankly I find the dissection more interesting than the painting but it does reveal how it's technically adressed. I love how the heart is at the centre.

Ceedric Caspesyan

6/27/2006 12:58:00 PM  
Blogger John Morris said...

Ok, here I am again to beat on this same group of dead horses that I always do.

The painting looks, quite good to me. I think the post is revealing in a much more interesting way. What's implied is that dealers are on the top of the food chain and that artist's have to wonder if thier bios appeal to them. That let's a sort of large cat out of the bag. I guess it's not about the work.

What really got me was-- Chris's "sacrifice for your work" comment. What this comes down to is that an artist has to locate themselves so that they can be in a convenient place for thier dealers and collectors even if that sacrifice harms ones ability to do ones work.

At some point, the whole thing became ass backwards. It seems like years ago, a city like NY had a some ideal vertical integration. Dealers could be near auction houses and collectors and artists could live the "rough life" three or four subway stops away.

This is not what it's like today. It seems like the dealers and collectors are in world's that are now so far apart from the lives of artist's. You would think that someone who was interested in the work and it's "supply" would care.

6/27/2006 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Good grief, John, those horses are nearly glue now, but, alas...

What's implied is that dealers are on the top of the food chain and that artist's have to wonder if thier bios appeal to them. That let's a sort of large cat out of the bag. I guess it's not about the work.

As a dealer, I can only speak for myself. When asked about such exhibitions I offered my honest opinion, thinking that might be more helpful to the artist interested in how galleries work than some b.s. line full of false modesty. Do I assume galleries are a better context than juried exhibitions? You're damn right I do. That's why I'm a gallerist.

To suggest that means it's not about the work, though, is unfair and inaccurate in this context. Dealers must also make judgements about an artist's commitment to their work before investing in them heavily (some have been known to decide they really wanted to be a rock star or actor after a turn at visual artist). As in any professional arena, bios give dealers some small indication of their commitment.

I'm not sure if the rest of your comment is directed at me personally, so I'll refrain from responding.

6/27/2006 02:59:00 PM  
Anonymous rock star actor said...

You would think that someone who was interested in the work and it's "supply" would care.

Problem is that the supply is much higher than the demand, which puts the suppliers at the mercy of the retailers' whims. This isn't about EW, he's trying to be helpful. As for the other galleries, better make that bio look good...

6/27/2006 03:09:00 PM  
Blogger John Morris said...

I guess I do have to admit to lot of free floating anger. The post was not directed at you. You are just handing out the "inside dope" on how the game is played which is more than I think most galleries will do. But, is the art world looking for the best artists or the artist's who are good at playing the game?

They are only sometimes the same. Sorry I am off meds right now.

6/27/2006 03:21:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

But, is the art world looking for the best artists or the artist's who are good at playing the game?

Some mix of both comprises most of the artists in the gallery system.

To get technical about it, but in doing so highlight the problem here, there's only one "best" artist.

6/27/2006 03:33:00 PM  
Blogger fisher6000 said...

Ummm, does anyone mind if I ask a question?

What is a "good bio"? Seriously. Or maybe it would be more helpful of me to ask what makes a bio bad?

6/27/2006 04:46:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

What is a "good bio"? Seriously. Or maybe it would be more helpful of me to ask what makes a bio bad?

I think that's a great topic for Thursday's open thread, F6.


6/27/2006 04:55:00 PM  
Blogger fisher6000 said...


6/27/2006 05:12:00 PM  
Anonymous bio hazard said...

Thursday's open thread,

Definitely looking forward to that one!

Many of us are probably doing things we think are helping our careers that are actually hurting them. You know, like the juried show thing. Who knew? And I also wonder if some things on a bio start out good, but turn bad over time. You mention wanting to see an artist's commitment, but many artists, myself included, have taken things off our bios that show our commitment, because we're afraid galleries will think our commitment has lasted too long. You know, the age thing. So what are the galleries are looking for (not the work but the other stuff), and what are the big DON'Ts that artists should be aware of?

Not that I'm asking you to answer that now. Thursday it is. Be ready for LOTS of questions from your readers :)

6/27/2006 05:33:00 PM  
Blogger John Morris said...

Does anyone have any opinion of things like curated slide files and flat file galleries. To me the art world has to have some kind of farm system. Some way that artist's can sort of be out there in some way.

To me the issue in a city like NY is less about who get's in and more about who is edited out. There is a lot of work out there that falls into the, "this is worth seeing" category ".

6/27/2006 06:01:00 PM  
Blogger John Morris said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6/27/2006 06:18:00 PM  
Blogger Susan Constanse said...

Chris Ryalt said:
It seems to me that entry-fee juried shows are something of an apparent shortcut to getting into the "art world." If you want to be part of the art world, you have to join it. Move to New York or Los Angeles or Paris or London or nearby. There are plenty of affordable places to live within an easy commute of Chelsea, NYC. It's called sacrificing for your art, people.

Excuse me? Does art begin and end in Chelsea?
Do you want to compare scars from sacricing? I'm sure I can match you. As was pointed out in A Delicate Arrangement you have to sometimes make your own opportunities. There are as many paths are there individuals. It seems to me that someone who is playing a game is taking the shortcut. And who is to say what is actually good for the art? Is it good to live in perpetual stress about the most basic neccessities of life? Or is it good for art and artists to be so concentrated that all you hear is the whine of self-referential feedback?

6/27/2006 06:21:00 PM  
Blogger Chris Rywalt said...

Susan, I was wondering when someone would call me on that post, but most people seem to have ignored it, for which I'm somewhat thankful. I'll admit that it was a little harsher than I'd meant it to be, and I certainly don't want to imply that's I've sacrificed, because so far I haven't, really. In fact, my day job turned out to be more of a sacrifice than anything I'd ever do for my art.

Still, when people complain about being forgotten because they live in the hinterlands, as if living in New York or L.A. or London is such a hardship, it annoys me. I mentioned being an easy commute to Chelsea because I happen to live here and I know how much it costs (or doesn't), not because the world begins and ends in Chelsea. I can't say for sure you can live affordably within easy commute to London because I've never even been there. (I bet you can, though.)

What's good for the art? I have no idea. All I'm saying is, if the one thing you think is holding back your art career is the fact that you live too far from NY/LA/Paris/Snothankistan/wherever you think is important, you should rethink your position.

6/27/2006 10:50:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home