On Jurying an Exhibit - Part II - Winners

I recently had the honor of jurying and judging two simultaneous art exhibits.  The previous post explains the beginning of that process.  This is Part II - Selecting a Winner. 

Once the work has been chosen for a show, the next task is for the judge to select those pieces that to him or her, are worthy of accolade.  Every judge has their own criteria, based on their background. My parameters are broad because my experience is in teaching, which requires that I be proficient, although not necessarily excel, in most media, plus have some art history background. In my case, that includes photography, sculpture, painting, crafts, jewelry, clay and fiber arts.  My criteria for choosing winning selections included technical skill, formal elements and reaction.  

I admit it was a daunting task to see so many paintings, so much art and try to narrow it all down, then select those deserving of an honor.  What was I thinking, taking this on?  So many artists tell me they hate judging shows, or they wouldn’t even consider it.   

I judged the show “Reigning Cats and Dogs” first.  I made a quick sweep of the show the day before judging, since I have a studio in the back of the gallery.  My first thought was, “wow, this is going to be a nice show.”  I returned the next day to begin the process.  So many more pieces had been entered and the size of the show nearly doubled in that short time.  One in particular caught my eye, from the beginning.  Several caught my heart, since I’m a dog painter.  But judging art is a different thing from loving art.  I immediately saw references to Marc Chagall, a Russian painter, then a little Paul Klee and Joan Miro in this compositionally strong work. I had to get close to see what was happening.  Titled “Hound,” I kept wondering “where IS the hound?”  While looking at this painting, I noticed the marks, the application of color, the subtle suggestions of other animals. Done in pastel and mixed media, the work is clean, engaging, and a self-contained bundle of energy.  Even though I found so many other works in this show as well done and lovely, or curious and engaging, this one not only kept calling me back, it had it all.  First place went to this painting, titled “Hound,” by Jeanne Minnix.  

copyright Jeanne Minnix - used with permission

The rest of the choices were harder still.  Now I had only 2 more awards, plus honorable mentions to give.  This was a strong show to judge, with excellent work by accomplished artists.  To be sure I chose based on what, not whom, as I did not look at any  names on the entries until after my selections.  Of course, there were styles I recognized and two of my students entered, but overall, I had no idea who did what.  Again, I had to narrow down by what spoke to me, once all other things were considered.  I decided to sleep on it and make final choices when I returned the following day. The rest of the exhibit and winners can be seen at Crossroads Art Center 

The next day, I returned to judge the larger all-media show.  This is the one where everything imaginable can be entered, and was.  Again, once the show was selected I had to choose a winner.  

This one came a little differently.  I remember as we were eliminating pieces (I would decide and Jenni Kirby, gallery owner, would remove them) at some point I turned and saw this piece.  I mentioned it in my gallery talk, the reaction was so visceral.  I gasped.  This tiny bird, reduced to skeletal fragments, rested or floated somehow in the hands of a human reaching to scoop it up.  As if the soul was rising from the deterioration into hope.  I told Jenni, “I just want to weep.”                                                                       

First place was awarded to "Life Force" by Mel Talley.

copyright Mel Talley - used with permission

Granted, all of this is my interpretation.  But the artist did with photography what any good artist does - manipulated his materials and made color and compositional choices to convey a message...a message vague enough for interpretation, strong enough to  evoke a response.  Wow.  Just wow.   Had this piece been tiny, or colorful, or the size of the subjects been changed, or framed differently,  it would read as an entirely different work.  I think (my opinion) that often those who judge art don’t take the time to look and really see what is going on.  I understand the limitations of time and space dictate how one may decide on a winner, but each artist typically makes thoughtful and critical decisions about their work all along the way, and those artists deserve more than a passing glance.  

My last thoughts in this Part II post concerns “winning” in art.  I don’t consider art to be a competitive sport.  Yet, this is how juried art shows are set up - as competitions.  With judges and winners.  Which somehow suggests losers on the flip side.  Those of us in this “game” (another sports reference) have become accustomed to being selected or rejected from exhibits, and know often it has nothing to do with the merits of our work.  It can be as simple as not having enough space.  Yet, when we receive those awards, we feel validated.  If the show is prestigious enough, we can boast that we’ve been acknowledged, that we have arrived!  I like a juried show - from an artist’s point of view, it means there is some stability or certain quality, depending on the venue and juror, that I can rely on.  It’s a great way to see what another thinks of my art.  It’s a good way to find a fit for my art and draw in the kind of customer more inclined to purchase my art.  

I suppose, until a better way is found, juried shows with awards is the best way for new and seasoned artists to continue to exhibit their work on a regular basis.   

Part III coming soon.  Conversations with two of the artists following the awards presentation.