The following is from the March 1997 newsletter's President's Message by Tamara Krupchak
     "Thank you to each and everyone of you for making this year's Annual Artists Guild Exhibit an incredible success, as well as all the energy and effort all of you put into inviting your friends, families, co-workers and collectors. We had a record breaking attendance of 1100 people at the reception of February 7. Thank you all for participating and making this such an outstanding success.
     I hope everyone got a chance to see the favorable review by Robert Pincus in the Union Tribune on Monday February 24, 1997. Also, I hope you are listening to the radio spots on KCEO 1000AM….
     KGTV - Channel 10 will also be airing a live story about the exhibit on Sunday, March 9th at approximately 10:00 am….
     There have been many positive outcomes from this exhibit. One in which we have had ten inquiries from people for sales on artist's work… We have also had numerous requests from artists for applications for membership to the Guild. Another wonderful aspect is that the follow up attendance for the show is up over the past years, along with considerable increased visibility in the community.
     To me, the essence of a guild is an association of men and women with similar interests and pursuits. I see the interest here as the art and the pursuit is to show the work. I believe this exhibit goes to the heart of what the Artists Guild is all about. I would like to congratulate all of you and wish you the best of luck. You are all winners in my eyes, for displaying such courage and commitment to the making of your art."

     The following is a review by Frank Wright of this show, printed in "The Publication", March 1997:

Wall-to wall art-chill prophesy
THIS YEARS ARTISTS GUILD EXHIBITION
     "Depending on who you are, this year's Artists Guild Exhibition can appear to be many things; four-alarm imbroglio, scam, daring statement, throwback, cutting-edge installation, chill prophesy. Here are the facts: The show was advertised as a juried exhibition to be held in the prestigious San Diego Museum of Art. Members of the San Diego Artists Guild could enter up to three artworks.
     Participants got great news: all their work had been accepted. Buoyed by proud good fortune, the artists walked into the reception only to discover that the entire museum gallery had been wallpapered floor to ceiling with art-their art, everybody's art - and that only some of the work on display had actually been selected by the juror.
     The conductor of all this was juror Lynn Schuette, who as a practicing artist and former Sushi Performance honcho, clearly knows her avant-garde. A close reading of the juror's statement reveals certain hairline deconstructive cracks: her 'unique approach' was done a decade ago at the Los Angeles Municipal Gallery (the difference there being the absence of deception); her 'celebration of all Guild artists' plays out as a diminution of each; and her assertion that 'since all Artists Guild members are screened for quality as a membership criteria, then we can all assume all are worthy of exhibition' ends up as a condemnation of the Guild because some of the work in the show is crap (a point conceded by Guild members themselves).
     What then, is Schuette up to? The answer may lie in another of her statements: 'I found this exhibition provides an intriguing look at our visual history.' This is a damning statement one that Artists Guild members should think long and hard about. If art as a whole has nothing to do but reiterate art history, then it may be a satisfying pastime, and it may be a fine reason for socializing, but it doesn't belong in a museum. Note specifically that the qualifier: 'art as a whole'. While some of the Guild artists are eminently museum-worthy (are you listening, Brother Steven?), the very idea of a group show - even a conventional juried show - is plain anachronistic.
     The static visual arts are having a hard enough time hanging on in the daily media wash. One way of surviving is by defining the one-person show as the minimal public unit of visual presentation; a collection of works by one artist, with a coherent theme, often propped up by reference to science or literature or politics. Big group shows, on the other hand, share little but color and form. They reduce the art - good art, bad art - to labor intensive wallpaper.
     In the end, Schuette's reductio ad absurdum merely makes this point clear. Jury's out."

     On March 3rd the Board came up with the 1997 Juried Exhibition Evaluation, a detailed critique of the show and the very disruptive opening along with additional questions regarding exhibition procedures and some solutions to what they considered this problem situation.

     On March 18, 1997 the minutes recorded the following:
     "There was a discussion of the results of the Member Survey regarding the recent Guild Exhibit."

     Here are examples of some of the 51 responses to that survey.

     "Reception crowded, lots of fruit little else, museum calendar notice inadequate, installation awful, checklist too lengthy, if prospectus calls it a juried show it should be so. More follow through from prospectus to final exhibition, more people involved in decision making, -- offer a chair and a glass of wine to enlist more help." Helen Doerr

     "Not an exhibition-it was a farce! I'm embarrassed for all the artists, - we've been raped!, & stripped of our dignity and integrity as professionals. I'm furious at the museum for allowing this to happen. As far as Ms. Schuette and Ms. Krupchak, did they single-handily conspire to ruin the Guild'? What imbeciles! Good luck recruiting new members - or for that matter saving the old. I think the guild should demand the immediate removal of the show." Cheryl Chriss

     "The real issue is not just the overcrowding, it is the autocratic way Lynn Schuette and Tamara Krupchak arrived at their decision. This show became their joint performance piece, their 'great idea' - but without consent from us, their actors. Even if artists wanted to be 'shown within a show' they should have been given the opportunity to do so out of free will." Ken Goldman

     "This exhibit was an ego piece for the juror and Tamara Krupchak. It was a deliberate misuse and abuse of the Artist Guild and the Artists in my opinion.
     Professional Artists who are members of the SDMA Artists Guild are not school children, they enter the marketplace willingly and with enthusiasm. They have a proven track record of public display in galleries and shows. The Artists in the Guild have been short changed in this exhibition. They can neither fully enjoy public recognition nor can they experience having formally made the effort to be public….
     When an artist has submitted artwork into a juried exhibition he is stating she is able to enter the competitive arena and take the outcome of the juror's decision whether the work is accepted or not. This exhibition has taken away the ability to experience recognition through a qualified juror in a museum setting by being exhibited alongside those artworks not selected by the juror but hung anyway, i.e., the 'show within a show' concept. Not only are the juror selections diluted by the display of all the so called not selected pieces, but those artists whose pieces were accepted are unable to be properly viewed by the public… This show exhibits how unpopular it has become to make a firm aesthetic conclusion….
     The exhibition the way it has been signed sealed and delivered to the Artists Guild and the viewing public has left more questions than forwarded any critical dialog of art and aesthetics. There would have been a far clearer dialog if the Artists Guild Board had been informed of the change in the jurying process and been able to communicate this to the entrants. Artists would then have been acting from their freedom to choose their level of participation as to whether their work would be enjoyed, disliked, unnoticed, rebuked or rewarded.
     Artists must have the right to exercise freedom of choice in deciding what forum they want their work viewed. To enter a juried exhibition and not be informed that the rules of the game have changed midstream and given no recourse to choose further participation is misleading and unprofessional." Stephanie Keeth Goldman

     "I was more than delighted by the exhibition. After more than 20 years as a member of the Artists Guild I witnessed the finest exhibit bar none ever displayed at the Museum. As Lynn Schuette wrote, that if an Artist is fine enough for membership in the Guild he should be allowed the right (not privilege) to exhibit in the museum. Since the Sales & Rental Gallery was closed this right was denied to all of the members. It is sad that it took only the decision of one brave president without board approval to allow for the first time true freedom of expression. If the board decided to make it a policy of the guild to have all shows open in this way not only I but many more members of the Guild will participate in volunteer activities and help raise money to develop a strong artistic presence in the community. The juror can retain the right as Lynn did to showcase her personal taste but should never be in a position to exclude any artist from their right to exhibit in the museum. By the way salon hanging was good enough for the impressionists it is more than good enough for us." Dennis P. Batt (Note: the author, for the first time after seeing - being inspired by - this exhibition, attended the next Guild's Winter Gala and began to socialize with the membership.)

     "I am a long time member/supporter and, for a number of years, board member of the San Diego Museum Artists Guild. I care about what happens to the guild and to the San Diego Museum of Art. I also support Lynn Schuette and her right as juror to create her own kind of show. I understand her reasons for doing what she did with the jurying. However, this year's show is a shock! Salon type hanging doesn't work. I expected to see a museum hung show with plenty of breathing space around each piece. I was disappointed! It is only fair to make participants aware of these changes in jurying and hanging before they submit work to the competition. Tamara was put on the spot-and so was the museum. Let's not do this again. This year's show was an experiment. I do not feel it worked. Let's count it a learning and move on." Ellen Phillips

     "This show to me, was an extreme departure from the traditional format of a juried show. So it was a real surprise at the reception. I think that if a show is planned to be this much different, it should be made known to all members after the board review the new concept. And then, perhaps, put to a vote. I know that if the membership is that interested they will vote. I know how hectic an event like this can be to those involved in coordinating it, and quick decisions have to be made. Perhaps with real advanced planning we can avoid any kind of controversial decisions. I don't think a good or bad decision is at issue in this case. As that is a subjective matter. I am certain many saw this as a good move as others saw it as not so good. But I feel that the format of the planned show should be made known to the artists if the concept will differ that much from what artists consider a juried show." Raul Trejo

     "Nice professional speech from Tamara Krupchak! I liked the 'salon' style hanging for a change. I wouldn't like to see it every time, but applaud the juror and guild for daring to do such an unconventional show. Especially at the San Diego Museum of Art where so few San Diego artists are given the opportunity to exhibit their work! It was clear to me which work had been selected, and which had not. I understand that communication between the President and board members is extremely important. But suggest maybe this is a separate problem. I still support the idea of a show within a show and support the juror and Artists Guild for creating a respected venue where so many local artists/Artists Guild member's work could be viewed." Elizabeth Woolrych

     "I would like to see jurors chosen from outside of San Diego and with experience in curation. It's my opinion that a show gains merit by the qualifications of the juror and also through the strength of instructions given that juror by the Board of Directors. These instructions would include any parameters that the Museum might consider appropriate. The guidelines should be agreed upon by the guild and museum, and then upheld, with due consideration for the juror's decision." Cecilia Stanford

     Lois Stecker wrote the following letter on February 12, 1997, addressed to the Guild Board. I include it here as a summation of the written reaction to this exhibit.
     "It is with reluctance that I write to criticize any policies of the Museum or the Artists Guild, but I think it is justified this time. I have been a long-time member of the Artists Guild (since 1972 - having served on the board and worked with jurors on the Calif.-Hawaii and our own closed exhibitions). The criteria for selection has always been high and the integrity of the exhibition maintained. This year, I feel that a lot has been sacrificed in accepting the work of all entrants who paid a fee for a Juried Exhibition. In my opinion to have what amounts to a Judged Exhibition in a respected institution is not what the members are entitled to. There may be faults with the jurying process, but artists work hard and feel a certain sense of achievement when their work is recognized and included in a Museum exhibition. Also, they expect the presentation of their work measure up to the standards of other exhibitions in the Museum. This year, I was stunned to walk into the gallery and to be bombarded by so much visual stimulation, with no clear focus on the exhibition as a whole.
     Lynn Schuette is a highly respected artist, in my opinion. I have known her since the early days of my membership in SUSHI. As juror, I feel her opinions should be respected and feel she had the right to her method of choosing an exhibition. However, in my opinion, this was not in the best interests of the Museum or the membership of the Artists Guild, since members were not aware of this change in the procedure. I feel certain, few members would have responded at $5 entry fee if they had been given the facts. 'Competition' is what drives artists to stretch themselves and perhaps achieve what they may not have thought possible. Therefore, I feel the only way a Guild member can have integrity and recognition is by a qualified juror's selection in a truly Juried Exhibition. Rejection is never pleasant, but it still allows the choices to be viewed with an open mind in a proper gallery environment….
     Let's hope the Guild will survive and prosper after a therapeutic evaluation of our guidelines for future exhibitions."

back to top