Call me naïve but I always thought that if you are an up and coming artist and decide enter your work in an open art competitions or art prizes you will be judged by the quality of that work. Of course the result will always depend on the taste and interests of whoever is selecting. Many of these opportunities are indeed ''open to all'' and are a great way to get your work seen and purchased. The selection is often made by interesting artists, curators, art critics who use their knowledge and experience to great effects.
But I have come to realise that in some cases it is not that simple. Time and time again I am seeing artists and gallerists acting as judges selecting the work of people who just ''happen'' to be their mate/close collaborator, no matter how poor the artwork. Another trend seems to be that if you are an artist and are a judge of a particular prize one year, expect your work to miraculously appear in the final selection for the same prize in the following years. Equally some artists seem to be selected again and again for the same exhibition year after year, why? how predictable can you get?
Surely the pool of artists to choose from cannot be that small? Where do the ''coincidences'' stop and you start smelling a rat?
Nepotism and insular thinking helps no one as it result in unimaginative exhibitions and does not follow the reason why most of these prizes were created: to give a wide-range of artist bigger exposure and allow audiences to find new talents. Also as many of these prizes/exhibitions have a charitable organisation behind them they need to remember that they have some standards to maintain.
How about the following:
-If you are a judge for a particular competition/open exhibition you should not submit your work in the future to that exhibition/prize. Many open prizes/competitions are in my view aimed at artists who are not already established or well-known (i.e. we are not talking Turner Prize here). If you act as a judge for such a competition I would expect you to have achieved some level of notoriety and be already established. Leave the opportunity to others
-If you are a judge for a particular competition/open exhibition you should not submit your work in the future to that exhibition/prize. Many open prizes/competitions are in my view aimed at artists who are not already established or well-known (i.e. we are not talking Turner Prize here). If you act as a judge for such a competition I would expect you to have achieved some level of notoriety and be already established. Leave the opportunity to others
-Have the decency of not judging your best mates/close collaborators’ work. If someone you have close link with happen to submit and you are judging ask for another judge to consider the work
-If an artist is selected for an open exhibition/prize one year, they should not be able to submit for the same prize/exhibition for a certain period. No one wants to see the same thing over and over again.
Maybe then we will have more exciting exhibitions that do not feature the same people whose main ability seem to be that they are well connected rather than talented.
I'm very tempted to call you naive (your suggestion!).
ReplyDeleteIt's also not the case that all prizes are aimed at emerging artists. On the contrary, most are aimed at seeing the breadth of work on offer - and that includes the more established artist.
I also think you exaggerate somewhat about some of the dubious practices which undoubtedly occur.
If a exhibition is "open to all" then that's what it is. You seem to be suggesting it should only be open to everybody but the really good artists who've already made it. I think the public who visit the exhibitions would have something to say about that - as would the sponsors!
Some exhibitions like the RA Summer exhibition are also primarily an exhibition of a society of artists. Of course (1) there are going to be significant entries by members and (2) members are going to judge the entries. That's just the way art societies work
Some exhibitions already prevent people who win from entering again - the BP Portrait Artist is the best known.
I do agree there are some examples of behaviour which should not happen. Gallery judges selecting their own gallery artists to win prizes being the most obvious abuse which I've seen happen. However I don't think it's quite as bad as you suggest. But maybe you'd like to be more specific?
The viewing public just want to see the best. If judges don't select the best but rather do favours for others, then they ultimately don't do themselves any favours.
For example, there's one particular gallery in London which I now hold in very low regard having seen the way one of its Directors behaves when judging work.