I am wondering what you - a hypothetical you - might have been thinking when submitting your artwork to be juried. You may have wanted that juried show on your resume, since to prevail in a competition always adds prestige. You may have been excited about recent developments in your work and were hoping for recognition. You may not have thought much at all because you enter into all competitions you can access because that’s part of an artist’s job. You may have been hoping for feedback from a different point of view; or you know that your work is part of a contemporary conversation and figured that the juror would have to acknowledge that; or you think that your work isn’t all that developed yet but that the juror might find a likable aspect of it; or you know that your work is sound and hoped that the juror would see that. You might have feared that the juror is narrow-minded, or just has preferences that don’t include what interests you. If you knew in advance who the juror was, you might have checked the juror’s website and decided not to submit work at all, or a different selection, or exactly what you had planned anyways. Thoughts about careers, about context, about quality, about learning, about chance, about leverage and about legitimacy, collegial, calculating, naive, realistic, daring, or hopeful.
There are different ways to jury artwork. A juror may seek formal qualities: skillful handling of materials, mastery of technique, innovation that shows knowledge of tradition, all judged against a professional scale that is understood as fairly objective. This may be most appropriate when the work has a medium in common, all painting, printmaking, video or sculpture. A juror may impose or find a theme that runs through the work to be selected, to emphasize a current of conversation. This is more of a curatorial approach, and more likely to occur when a very large amount of diverse works is in the pool. A juror may ‘grade on a curve’, select what the juror deems to be the best work available. The last approach is closest to what I chose to do here. One of the reasons was that there wasn’t a large amount of work to choose from, and the works were quite different from each other. Still, a few storylines emerged as the selections came into focus. Different approaches to drawing, to politics of the day, formal relations between splatters, the pleasant meeting of pink and blue.
What does ‘best’ mean? Running rampant in the 18th century, questions of taste and quality still permeate the state of art. Immanuel Kant assumed a ‘universal subjectivity’ that all persons of good taste shared. David Hume proposed ‘delicacy’ as the goal state of the well educated art critic. Leo Tolstoi sought to assess the artist’s sincerity and originality, and the artwork’s clarity. Arthur Danto determined a formula that allows us to determine which of the many objects we encounter is an artwork (by consensus), and curator’s discussions on New Institutionalism, for example as presented by Claire Doherty, now debate who is part of consensus constituting bodies, and how that power is distributed.
It seems that I partake of all these traditions, and each raises onerous questions. Let me look at them in reverse order.
1. As the juror, I have been given power by those who selected me. I am part of a chain, but have been set free on this particular platform to do as I please. To realize that I have power raises ethical questions. How will my choices affect those I have been given power over? My best choice creates the most learning and the least unnecessary heartbreak.
2. As an artist, I understand that the objects in the gallery are art objects. They may consist of tomato juice or of graphite, of paper or of hair, of paint or of fabric.
From the realization that I have bought into Danto’s artworld concept follows the necessity to respect each individual artist’s right to claim art status for the objects that are presented, but also the right to critique it. In this context, I wish to read artist statements, to better understand idiosyncratic choices. The best work is that in which an artist’s understanding closely matches the artist’s result.
3. As a viewer, I wonder if the artist is pulling my leg or is making an effort to share an emotion or an experience in a new way, to break through my own habitual perceptions. Seeing an artwork without context, I am left to doubt my acuity of perception and am tempted to refer to my existing frame of reference. The best art references my existing context, what I know.
4. As an art professional, I have educated myself in theories and histories of art. I have seen many original works of art in collections around the world. As a teacher, I have seen many attempts at similar ideas. Each artwork I see triggers hundreds of similar instances from my memory. A new work will compare favorably if it reminds me of works that first surprised me, or if it manages to surprise me itself.
5. As in other humans, my visual cortex reacts to contrast, color, shape and motion in particular ways. If an artist has found pleasing ways to arouse my brain, many of which are imparted through traditions, I will enjoy the artwork that best manipulates my synapses. Kant meets cognitive science.
The state of the arts isn’t a simple animal. Something that intrigues me greatly is that as schools of thought follow each other, they never seem to eradicate what came before, no matter how hard they struggle against their fathers or their siblings.
One of the reasons I agreed again to jury a show in a school context was that this exercise can be such a potent tool to throw beliefs into focus. I saw it as a learning opportunity, and I’m grateful to have had it. Of course it is a teaching opportunity as well. You’ll be the judge of how well that went.
Adelheid Mers, April 2007
Sources:
Ross, Stephen David, ed.; Art and its Significance - An Anthology of Aesthetic Theory; New York, 1994
Alperson, P.A. ed; The Philosophy of the Visual Arts, New York, 1997
Danto, Arthur; “The Artworld”. The Journal of Philosophy, Volume 61, Issue 19, American Philosophical Association Eastern Division Sixty-First Annual Meeting (Oct. 15, 1964), 571 - 584 (2003 JSTOR)
Claire Doherty; 'The institution is dead! Long live the institution! Contemporary art and New Institutionalism', Art of Encounter, engage 15, pgs 6-13, 2004
http://www.engage.org/readmore/..\downloads\152E25D29_15. Claire Doherty.pdf (link verified:April 16, 2007)