Excellent, timely article. And, applies to many areas in the art realm. I was on a panel to select faculty at a well known art school, when, much to my surprise the chair announced that the applicants we were considering had been 'pre-screened' by herself. Illegal! but, probably common practice. The process was skewed to deliver insiders. I say this is timely because in the past few years, there was rebellion in NYC - an attempt to break away from the insular world of Manhattan museums and galleries, and even from curating. We got Dumbo, Bushwick, mass, salon style pop-ups. Then came covid, and juried online shows proliferated. In part, okay, we were shut in - yet juried shows still proliferate, with those fees I've always wondered about. As you point out, time for imagination, and strength, time, again, to question certain practices and 'opportunities', and create meaningful ways to show work, and be an artist.
What you say about juried exhibitions here applies to grants as well. Most of us in the arts believe that the Artworld is a meritocracy in which the “best” artists rise to the top, purely on the basis of the the “quality” of their work. Alas, your picture of the conflicting agendas of presenters, curators, artists, etc. results in a kind of randomness as to who does and who does not succeed. I have sat on many panels, and have repeatedly felt that the group process skewed in ways that I personally didn’t like, feeling like I was fighting against the tide. I’ve also had bureaucrats undercut or over-rule even the most even-handed jury deliberations. Years ago, a friend had been asked to speak to people at the NEA, who explained to him the process and varying agendas involved in granting. He tuned to them and said, “From what you’ve said, this process is completely random. You should take the applications to the top of a big staircase, and drop them. Those that land closest to the top of the stairs get funded.” I’ve come to think that’s a pretty accurate description of all of it.
Excellent, timely article. And, applies to many areas in the art realm. I was on a panel to select faculty at a well known art school, when, much to my surprise the chair announced that the applicants we were considering had been 'pre-screened' by herself. Illegal! but, probably common practice. The process was skewed to deliver insiders. I say this is timely because in the past few years, there was rebellion in NYC - an attempt to break away from the insular world of Manhattan museums and galleries, and even from curating. We got Dumbo, Bushwick, mass, salon style pop-ups. Then came covid, and juried online shows proliferated. In part, okay, we were shut in - yet juried shows still proliferate, with those fees I've always wondered about. As you point out, time for imagination, and strength, time, again, to question certain practices and 'opportunities', and create meaningful ways to show work, and be an artist.
What you say about juried exhibitions here applies to grants as well. Most of us in the arts believe that the Artworld is a meritocracy in which the “best” artists rise to the top, purely on the basis of the the “quality” of their work. Alas, your picture of the conflicting agendas of presenters, curators, artists, etc. results in a kind of randomness as to who does and who does not succeed. I have sat on many panels, and have repeatedly felt that the group process skewed in ways that I personally didn’t like, feeling like I was fighting against the tide. I’ve also had bureaucrats undercut or over-rule even the most even-handed jury deliberations. Years ago, a friend had been asked to speak to people at the NEA, who explained to him the process and varying agendas involved in granting. He tuned to them and said, “From what you’ve said, this process is completely random. You should take the applications to the top of a big staircase, and drop them. Those that land closest to the top of the stairs get funded.” I’ve come to think that’s a pretty accurate description of all of it.