 |
| Photo: Stan B. |
Meg Shiffler, the
San Francisco Arts Commission Galleries Director, was most gracious and kind to engage my wounded pride recently when my entries were rejected for an upcoming
PhotoAlliance group show.
Before presenting the enclosed correspondence let me just say that
rejection has been a long standing dance partner and drinking buddy. Many moons ago when I abandoned any thought of a professional photography career, I figured that I would nevertheless continue to pursue photography, and get published and exhibited once every couple of years or so in some minor publication or group exhibit. I mean, that's a fairly realistic goal, right? Right? Reality didn't think so.
I don't enter many competitions, I stay away from the more commercial ones (especially those that promise first class RT tickets to your own 5 star hotel suite atop your very own gallery in NYC). Your chances of winning those are the same as winning the lottery, and many will claim some kind of (if not exclusive use and) ownership of your work (
always read the small print). Forget winning, you end up
losing the contest, your entrance fee
and... ownership of your own work!
Some competitions are going to be less open to a particular style, presentation or look (research the judges, and past winners). I know I'm a dinosaur, so when someone like me, who clings to the belief that a photo or two still deserves to be seen
on occasion, gets rejected from a
local show (ie- smaller gene pool), with a very sympatico theme that can fit my particular style- it's a tad different than being rejected at twenty five. It's more like... we didn't let you in the club when you had both barrels blazing, what makes ya think we're gonna let your sagging ass in now- on any level, for any reason? Help! I've fallen and I can't get up...
So, you yung 'uns, lissen up, and...
Better luck than me!
MS-
Always
interesting to see what artists think about this process. I know it’s
crazy hard. I apply for freelance curatorial jobs and wonder what kind
of hot shit curator they hired
instead of me! However, the jury process is always more than it
appears. I’ll let you in on a couple things from our end . (Note I
reviewed all the images submitted, but was too sick to participate in
this particular jury process.) I’ve been a guest juror
for other spaces, as well as a juror for the spaces that I oversee,
literally hundreds of times. There are many opinions that have to be
managed. You don’t know if someone on the jury was fighting for your
work, and lost the argument. I’ve loved work by an
artist, but my fellow jurors have felt otherwise. That means that there
is a curator out there that has seen your work and will log it in the
old memory bank for the future. I’ve asked artists I’ve seen at
portfolio reviews or in jury processes to be in exhibitions
later. Also, building an exhibition through the jury process isn’t
always about choosing the “best” work. It’s also about making an
exhibition. There was a show that I juried once where 50 % of the works
submitted were images shot in India. The show could
only handle so many pics of India, so we had to narrow a selection of
those works, and include works on other themes that rounded out the
show. I suppose we could have created a show about India, but we decided
to go in a different direction. When you see
the final results, you need to refrain from thinking, “My work is
better than that, ” because the work that was selected was chosen for
many reasons - the theme, the skill level, the dialogue it will have
with the other works in the show, the cohesiveness
of the works submitted (are they from one series of work or are they
individual images?), the relevancy to the call, and any quirky personal
reason a juror has. In rare instances images have all of what I just
listed. More than likely the selected works hit
some of the list and adds something to the overall show that is
created.
Soooo,
for what it’s worth, that’s a little insight into what goes on behind
the scenes. I know rejection is hard, but don’t dis the jurors because
they may be your advocates in
the future.
SB-
Thanks, Meg- very kind of you to be so generous to take the time and
effort to respond (and I really do mean that)- and realize that much, if
not all, of what you say is quite true... although you did leave out
the part that artists known to judges also have
a curious way of being included more often in the final judging. I'm
not at all saying that's what happened here- just that it is also a part
that should be mentioned if we are considering the whole gamut of what
can happen during at least
some competitions.
First of, I just want to clarify that I do not overstate or overvalue my
own work. I've been going to photography galleries since the early
seventies- when 35mm Tri-X was both the norm, and the cutting edge rage.
Obviously, since those are the tools I use to
this day- I'm not exactly in the current vanguard, say since... '76
with the advent of color. But I do know what's out there, great and
small- and I realize it's a very small niche where my work has the
slightest chance. So when there's a "local" show, showing
"local" artists, that fits a particular theme for which your work is
particularly suited- yeah, what's chosen better be well above and
beyond anything you can imagine... or you're bound to be a tad flustered
when rejected.
I was in one of their shows back in 2007, the quality quite high, some
of it quite excellent to superb. Which is why I doubt the quality this
time around will be significantly different- perhaps, as you suggest, my
particular work didn't fit into the overall
character of their finalists. But as you also no doubt know,
many group shows tend to exhibit the various range of spectrum
within a given theme (as the one in '07). And since I haven't entered any of their exhibits in the intervening years, I don't think
it's a question of my trying to hog their exhibition
space.
To this day, there's nothing that I "enjoy" more than going to an
exhibit where I am truly humbled and even embarrassed to be seen with a
camera. Most exhibits fall into three basic categories: those that are
clearly above your league, those somewhat above
or on a parallel level (perhaps using more current "vernacular"), and
those that are the au currant flavor of the day. Clearly, my exhibition
possibilities are limited, so on the few occasions I do venture forth, I
guess at my age it comes off more a slap in
the face, than a "learning experience."
That said, there is also much to be said concerning the judging process
itself in most competitions, how it can be improved, and actually
become- a true learning experience---
and this is the way to do it.*
MS-
I think you make some valid points. Sometimes judges do sometimes
sway a bit to artists or works that are familiar. They have a broader
depth of understanding when the work flashes before them during the jury
process. When reviewing work by over 160 artists,
familiarity can play in an artists favor, however I've never been on a
jury that bypassed integrity to make that choice. Back to my previous
email - one way to become more familiar to curators in the community is
to come to portfolio reviews and enter juried
shows. There are four people who know your work better now!
There's no way that I can change the personal and emotional aspects
of the jury process for submitting artists. It may seem like a small
thing, but I personally contact every artist who is both selected and
not selected (which is not a standard institutional
practice). With 160 plus artists, this takes a good amount of time, but
I want the artists to know that I/we truly appreciate the effort (and
emotional vulnerability) it takes to enter into a process like this. I
also want artists to know that even though
it stings a bit, this is only one opportunity, and that there will be
others. There was extraordinary work that was entered - truly remarkable
- that didn't make it in for one reason or another and I would love to
consider it again.
You have a lot of years and experience under your belt, however you
can always ask a jury why your work wasn't chosen and you just might
learn something. Again, I wasn't on this jury, but I see that they
mostly chose works that are part of a cohesive series/essay,
rather than individual works. I find that it is always stronger to
submit works in a series. (Sorry, you can choose to view this rejection
as a "slap in the face" but I entered into this dialogue for two reasons
- to force a learning experience, and to give
a voice to any jury that an artist tells to fuck off, which is a slap
in the face.) You cared enough to enter, curators know your work better,
and you and your work are appreciated.
*Funny– The
only time I’ve ever participated in a jury that was open to the public
we were screamed at by an artist, two other artists stormed out in
tears, and the
rest left demoralized by listening to the jury critique their art (in a
very professional, but honest manner) without the ability to converse.
I’m not sure it’s a good thing, but I think they’re brave to open the
process.
SB-
Well, I just want to thank Meg Shiffler again for taking the time to share some very valuable insights with this angry young grumpy old geezer. I've certainly learned that one's never too old to get, or feel, rejected (sorry, couldn't help it). And not that anyone asked, but there is one piece of advice that I can give- don't go into any competition expecting to win. It's not anywhere near the same thing as believing in oneself, and one's work. I allowed myself to think that I was going to get into that show; my work was good enough, the theme right down my alley- this one had to go down, karma owed me (big time)! I set myself up.
And sometimes, sometimes it just takes someone to remind you what you already know...
