This article came out in the San Diego Union February 19, 1984 by Marilyn Hagberg:
Jury Still Out on Art Shows
Artists Divided on Picking Best
     "Juried art exhibits are something of a merry-go-round. The quality and significance of the shows depend on the artists and jurors they attract, which depend on the reputations of the show, the sponsoring organizations and institutions housing them, which depend on the artists and jurors. Round and round we go.
     The latest all-media exhibition of the San Diego Artists Guild, which opened last week and continues through March 25 at the San Diego Museum of Art in Balboa Park, has brought to the fore the various complexities and controversial aspects of competitive shows, which as a reviewer I have always approached with grains of salt in my pen - and the question of what the gallery goer should and should not expect from them.
     Among a number of prominent local artists and museum and gallery professionals, as Henry Hopkins… juror of the current Guild show, there seemed to be only two areas of agreement.
     They are that for the professional, or would-be professional artist, juried shows can serve a valid, but limited purpose; and the best shows are those that draw the best artists through their excellent reputations, prestigious jurors and high potential for financial and career rewards.
     To begin with, juried exhibits vary tremendously in kind and scope. They run from big national, regional and statewide annuals to small membership shows of local art clubs; from all-media exhibits to shows restricted to painting, sculpture, drawing, printmaking, photography, crafts or design.
     They can be old or new, be held in major museums or obscure rented or borrowed spaces, and for both artist and audience be meaningful or meaningless.
     In San Diego, the oldest and most respected competitions fall somewhere above middle. They are the annual members exhibits of the Artist Guild, which were begun in 1926 and of the Allied Craftsmen, started in the '40s; and the Jewish Community Center's yearly painting show, now more than 20 years old, which is open to all Southern California artists.
     These shows introduced many top artists to San Diego, in fact - Martha Alf, John Baldessari, Russell Baldwin, Arline Fisch, Russell Forester, Faiya Fredman, Ethel Greene, Fred Holle, Sheldon Kirby, Phillip Kirkland, Richard Allen Morris, Miles Parker, Joyce Shaw, Jean Swiggett, Barbara Weldon, Guy Williams. (Note: All of these artists except Phillip Kirkland, who is by his own admission to the author 'a hermit', were Guild members.)….
     Ideally, the average competitive exhibit, Henry Hopkins says, 'should serve the artist at a point in his career after he has completed his university or art school training and before he is established as a professional artist. Once he has a reputation, is handled by commercial galleries and participates in invitational shows, he should no longer compete.'
     Hugh Davies, director of the La Jolla Museum of Contemporary Art, adds that the juried show 'provides a chance for an artist to have his work seen by professionals - museum directors, critics, other artists - and this can lead to other opportunities, perhaps invitational.'
     Artist Barbara Weldon agrees that the competitive show 'can be invaluable at an early stage.
     'It lets you test yourself before respected jurors and with other artists,' she says. 'And being accepted builds confidence and helps prove that what you're doing is on the right track.'
     In short, the juried exhibit is to the visual artist what the audition is to the young performing artist - a way of getting exposure, an audience and maybe a prize to boot.
     There are exceptions, of course, to Hopkins' ideal. It is not unusual for professional artists of longstanding to belong to organizations like the Artist Guild and Allied Craftsmen and to participate in their exhibits. And well-established professionals, particularly in crafts, architecture and design, frequently enter competitions with a special purpose or point of view.
There are catches also. Not all careers progress according to plan. For one reason or another, some artists never 'graduate,' never land a good gallery. For them, juried shows remain the only means of exposure.
     Others continue to enter shows because they love to gamble or suffer from a sort of kneejerk response. Still others, mainly university art teachers saddled with the 'exhibit or perish' syndrome, do so because they need to build resumes.
     Artists' abuses of juried exhibits range from entering the same piece in several shows to the practice, all too common and ultimately self-defeating, of tailoring their work for a particular exhibit or juror…. If dubious motives and activities sometimes get artists into shows, a number of factors keep many away from competitive exhibits. Maybe they dread rejection, don't like the juror or can't cope with the expense of entry fees and, in the case of many out-of-town shows, shipping and insurance costs. Some simply don't care for juried shows.
     Lots of artists avoid shows which refuse to accept liability for the safe handling of their works. Others steer clear of those for which entries are selected via slides….
     Davies, though…. feels that 'the experienced juror learns to 'read' slides and to extrapolate from them the necessary information.'….
     The financial aspects of juried shows are of great concern to artists. Although Artists Equity has been on record for several years as opposed to entry fees, submissions for most shows must be accompanied by a check….
     Some artists object to fees, others don't mind them. 'I see them as part of my professional dues,' says Nancy Livesay, president of the 250-member Artists Guild….
     Fees, Fisch and many other artists feel, should be employed to pay for the juror and the exhibit catalog or checklist and to defray other expenses like advertising, invitations, a poster. They want prizes to come out of an organizational kitty or from a corporate angel or individual patron (the Guild's two $1,000 awards are from SDMA funds).
     Most objectionable of all, however, is the juried show as fund-raiser for an institution or a moneymaker for a private gallery. There are stories going around of commercial galleries and small museums announcing national, even international, competitions and soliciting from 1,000 to 2,000 entries at $10 per - when they might not even have space to display more than 50 or 60 works. What's more they might not even put out a catalog.
     The wise artist and the ethical juror avoid such shows like the plague.
     The practice of ranking artists via first, second and third place awards plus honorable mentions is increasingly giving way - to the relief of jurors - to two or three cash awards of excellence. Also waning is the purchase prize, the acquisition of a work by the sponsor - because the amount given is often below the artist's valuation of the work and because the institution involved, especially if it is a museum, might not want it.
     Particularly controversial is the award show. For years, artists winning the top three places in Artists Guild exhibits were given shows at the San Diego Museum of Art - 'because there wasn't money for cash prizes,' says senior curator Martin Petersen. This may have been good for the artists, but it was bad administrative precedent for the museum. Director Steve Brezzo put a stop to it two years ago. (Note: Steve Brezzo supposedly once made the comment that when the award show was first instituted instead of the cash awards, the artists became rather upset. This comment, however, has not been verified.)
     'Who has a museum show should be decided by the director and curators, not by an outside juror,' he says. 'Furthermore, exhibits should be awarded on the basis of a body of an artist's work, not one or two pieces in a show.'
     Many artists agree. 'A museum or gallery that lets somebody else pick its shows is dodging one of its professional responsibilities.' Rogers says. (Note: John Rogers from SDSU.)
     As to who the best jurors are, there is no easy answer. Knowledge, experience and objectivity are the crucial ingredients. Most often tapped to select shows are museum and gallery directors, artists and critics - singly, in teams of two or in panels of three.
     The ideal juror, according to Dennis Komac, director of SDSU's University Art Gallery, 'is familiar with all fine art forms, including crafts and photography. He is opinionated, willing to judge a show honestly and to defend his choices. He should not be pressed for time or influenced by numbers or quotas. And he should be able to understand the level of achievement he's dealing with and to adjust his standards accordingly.'
     Davies calls Hopkins, who in 30 years has juried shows in 32 states, 'the quintessential juror.' Hopkins considers himself 'relatively generous, interested in all media and styles.'
     In general, because their positions require them to be broadly knowledgeable and open-minded, museum professionals seem preferable. Often artist are wonderful jurors, but they are also more likely to approach a show with a particular bias or point of view and, say, include everything, exclude everything or select works in a narrow category. Certainly most of the horror stories one hears involve artist-jurors.
     With a solo juror there is undiluted opinion. Many jurors, Hopkins for one, prefer working alone, and many artists gravitate toward shows promising a single, strong viewpoint. With the panel jury, there is invariably compromise, the result sometimes being what Isabelle Wasserman, critic and director of the Jewish Community Center Gallery, calls 'a middle-range show.' There can on the other hand, be consensus.
     Some jurors prefer panels because they like the back-and-forth of discussion. 'It doesn't necessarily change my opinion, but I like to hear other peoples' view. I always learn something from fellow jurors,' says Grant Holcomb, associate director of the Timken Art Gallery.
     Davies adds that working with other professionals has helped him to hone his own judgments. 'Nevertheless,' he says, 'being sole juror does allow you the privilege of choosing what you want.' Most people agree that an out-of-town juror is preferable to a local one - 'I'm less likely to be beholden to anyone in another part of the state or country,' Hopkins says - but one is not always affordable. Many jurors, including Hopkins, Holcomb, and Wasserman, have tackled hometown shows without qualms or strings. Again, it's a matter of objectivity….
     What jurors like Hopkins as well as many critics, tend to find common to shows like the Artist Guild's is on the one hand a great deal of technical skill, even brilliance, and on the other a lot of mimicry, often first-class.
     Too often missing is that special dynamic, or magic, which goes beyond technique and creates an outstanding exhibit or announces an exciting new artist. But it can happen, and that, finally, is why they continue to interest us."

     On March 4, 1984, the San Diego Union published this review by David Lewinson:
Guild art show handsome, but lacking punch
     "The San Diego Artists Guild All-Media Membership Exhibition would be a better show if it were what many people think it is: the major survey of the best art made here during the previous year or so. In truth, the Guild's exhibition is nothing more than an annual event of an organization of artists - one of the museum's founding groups - whose main purpose these days is to put on this show. In the exhibition, Guild members compete only among themselves to have their works exhibited in the prestigious setting of the San Diego Museum of Art….
     The mistaken perception that the Guild show is representative of local artmaking is undoubtedly the result of its location, which implies that the museum has participated in and blessed the show. This is only marginally the case, however. The museum does little more than provide gallery space, the services of its staff and the cash prizes for the artists honored by the show's juror. The museum exercises no curatorial control whatsoever.
     In recent years, museum director Steve Brezzo wisely has begun to distance the museum from the Guild show. The museum, quite properly, has better things to do with its galleries than dedicate them to presentations by artists' organizations, whether the Guild, Artists Equity or the San Diego Institute of Art. Exhibitions of this sort belong in a municipal art center like Los Angeles' Barnsdall Park. (Sadly, no such center is yet planned to serve San Diego's visual arts community.) For the next couple of years, however, the Guild show is likely to remain an annual event at the San Diego Museum of Art….
     On the whole, the exhibition is handsome but disappointing. With mournfully few exceptions, the works on view are vapid. There are no bold statements, challenges to artmaking conventions or personal, social, political, or spiritual mores….
     In fact, there's nothing in the show truly emotional, gutsy and intense….
     Thus it would be wrong to mistake the Guild show for a survey of San Diego's strongest artistic effort. Indeed, better painting, drawing and video are being produced by local artists who are not Guild members than those who are members.
     Such a survey, of course, is way overdue but not on the horizon. Given its field of interest and expertise, the La Jolla Museum of Contemporary Art would seem the logical institution to make such an effort. The Guild, perhaps in concert with other artists' organizations, might want to consider rallying its resources to support what would be a very complex undertaking. A thoughtful and thorough exhibition of contemporary artmaking in San Diego should go a long way to correct the commonly held view that this city is a wasteland of and for artistic creativity."

     A videotape of the Membership Exhibit was created in 1984. It featured Guild President Nancy Livesay and Museum Director Steve Brezzo, giving a tour of the exhibition and commenting on the artist's work.
     Recorded in the minutes of the July 16, 1984 meeting was a discussion of re-establishing the All California show and installing a light table and electrical outlet in the library for viewing the Guild members slides. Also Marty Petersen paid a visit to the meeting and spoke of his working on a written history of the Museum.
     General Louis Metzger, President of the SDMA Board of Trustees, appointed a committee to evaluate the entire volunteer program if the museum. In October 1984 a letter was sent out to the Guild asking them to answer a questionnaire to be brought to the November meeting. Two members of the museum's committee attended. Question 2 was: "Why are you a volunteer at the San Diego Museum of Art, or why are you a member of a chapter or committee of the SDMA?" An anonymous artist answered: "Have been a member 25 years -- just keep renewing mainly because of chance to exhibit in the Annual Show at the museum." Kay Whitcomb answered the same question with: "Exhibitions at the Museum." Question 3 was: "For you, what are the benefits of membership in a committee/chapter/council at SDMA?" Kay Whitcomb answered: "none". Question 7 asked: How do you feel that you can improve the value of the committee/chapter/council to the Museum? The anonymous artist answered: "Philosophical change would be necessary -- we need more support of local artists, rental gallery, etc." Kay Whitcomb answered: "I don't believe the Museum wants any suggestions." Question 10 was: "Does the Museum recognize your efforts?" Question 13 was: "Is your input sought by the staff on matters on which you are particularly well-informed?"      Both artists put in an "X" for no to both questions.

back to top