I've juried art shows-competitions (a number of different visual arts over about 20 years). I know that besides work quality, excellence of communication, and the powerful presence of a really good piece, there are always show limitations of space-size, theme, and cohesiveness, so a show holds together.
I have had to tell people who didn't make the cut that their work was absolutely excellent - but, just did not fit the show as a whole, this time - and to keep working because their work was very good, and next time it could fit a show really well. Being "rejector communicator" is a hard job. I did it because, like all of us, I've had some hard rejections - and some seriously encouraging ones. I wanted to be sure the people I dealt with were encouraged, or at least understood why their work wasn't included. "This competition is set up for artists who do their own printing. Every step is by the artist's hand. Your work is good, but your piece is commercially printed, so it doesn't fit our rules."
Sometimes it's hard to help people understand that there are usually several jurors, each of whom has opinions about how a show should look, that consensus can be hard to achieve, that work has to be compared and contrasted with other pieces, and really difficult choices have to be made.
When I enter a show I don't expect a juror to tell me why my work was accepted or rejected - but it's nice to hear what they thought. I sold my own work in booths for 30 years. It was viewed, liked, or disliked, by thousands of people. That’s boot camp. Over time it sinks in, that 1 juror, like 1 member of the public, has a personal opinion. They have preferences. They have work they respond strongly to, just like you do. There are people who love your work, and people who don't. And that's ok. Being chosen, or not, for a show, is not a reflection on you as a person, as an artist, or on all your work.
I highly recommend being a juror. It teaches you faster than anything else, how to get your work out there, and not to be crushed by a negative response at any one time. It makes you feel both humble in the face of the wonderful work you see, and empowered to do your own work, no matter what.
That said, I wish shows would be specific in what they really mean by photography. It's a total waste of time to be told that it's a "photography" competition, when the organizers really mean: no portraits or groups, only traditional darkroom practices, no animals, no digital work, no composites, no mixed media, or, in reality: We really only want surreal or abstract B/W images that aren't too big. Everything is lumped under "photography" now, so it tells us nothing. Define the show properly and specifically, so people know what you really want.
This tends towards my thoughts where "contests" are not really the goal, instead there's some cohesive expression or theme or something that ties the overall exhibition together to be appreciated by an intended audience.
Donna, what a refreshing commentary. I so agree with your observations. I have two of your comments that I'd like to expand on. First is that more people should be judges. In concept that sounds nice, but in practice I feel it sometimes/often draws people with an axe to grind, poor conceptions of photography, little experience in either photography or curation, etc. In a future Substack I think I will address the issue of what we should expect of judges.
Next is the issue of competition specificity. I fully agree with you. I do not like to judge "open competitions" that mix B&W with Color and are open to every genre. You can rightfully have multiple 1st place winners jn that circumstance, yet the judge has to decide on only one. How do B&W prints and color prints compete head-to-head? Portraits and landscapes? Nudes and wildlife?
Those sound like good topics. There are lots of different kinds of juries. Maybe different kinds of jurors suit different situations. I worked on, and was judged by, several types. One was an annual juried competition for scholarships. Some were for entry for prospective members to join arts groups. Some were juries for guest artists to sell work along with members at shows. A few were for exhibition shows. Jurors ranged from well known teachers and artists, who were paid honorariums, to group member volunteers. In all cases, people took their work seriously.
Usually there are discussions before a jury about show parameters. In my experience, I think every juror had 1 thing in common - experience in their field. They had all spent years presenting their work to the public, selling, and/or teaching, writing, working with arts organizations, applying to shows, and had plenty of first hand experience with acceptance and rejection. I don't remember anyone with an axe to grind. I do recall pressure, very rarely, from a few fellow jurors, to accept people they knew and liked. Because there were always several jurors, 3, 5, 7, 9 or so - by the time consensus was reached, those very rare requests didn't carry weight.
In group juries, with multiple arts and crafts, there was always an attempt to have at least 1 person on a jury who knew each particular field. If that wasn't possible, there was someone on call who could come in and explain details about a process - why this piece that looks simple on the surface is actually very rare and difficult to achieve. They were great learning opportunities.
In the years when groups I was in, invited a well known, single juror to judge our work for a museum or gallery show, it's true the juror had a specific point of view, and history. That's why we asked them, paid them an honorarium, and travel expenses, to come judge our work. We set up our work, and left them alone. Afterward, we all had lunch or dinner together, and got to listen to them speak about their work, and answer our questions. It was rigorous, and exhilarating - even if your work wasn't chosen.
The nuts and bolts of how to set up a jury are worth thinking about. Typically there are a lot of items to cover, and there has to be organization on how to get through them. Usually every juror views everything on the first pass, and perhaps makes a few notes. Then on a second pass, pieces that don't fit in some way, are removed. They are the wrong size, or their paperwork wasn't complete. On 3rd, 4th, 5th... viewings, jurors write down their priority choices, maybe on a scale of 1 to 5 - in order to keep everything straight in their own heads. In that way, they narrow the field, to hopefully the number of pieces for the show. Usually there is no talking during this phase. It's very private. Surprisingly often, almost everyone separately comes to similar conclusions about a number of pieces. Later, there may be discussion about some pieces towards the end, perhaps because of similarity, or because someone has a question about them, before final consensus is reached. Depending on the size, and formality of the show, organization and rules are quite strict, or relaxed.
Hooray for specificity! I don't care what kind of show people decide to have. It's all good. I just care that I don't spend time applying for a 'photography' show with my 'composited-drawn-written-digital photography accordion book forms,' only to be told that I wasted my time and money because they do not accept 'digital' work. Just say it up front!
Sep 20, 2022·edited Sep 20, 2022Liked by RWB, Paper Arts Collective
Interesting topic. I have not contributed a print to my local camera club's print competition in a long time because a. no feedback other than numerical score, and b. if it doesn't have fins, feathers, or feet it doesn't score well. Not my genre if you will.
I think a print competition should not only incorporate the normal attributes of an image, i.e. composition, conveying a message, etc., it should also incorporate the overall quality of the print too. As you know, that takes an entire set of skills beyond capture and editing.
It would be awesome if judges provided a brief summary of their rationale for scoring along with a suggestion for how to improve the outcome.
Chris, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I couldn't agree more. I feel it is a responsibility for judges to share their rationales for their decisions. How else is the artist to get feedback or judge, in turn, the validity of the judges feedback? And a print competition must-- I say MUST-- take into account the unique qualities of the print medium.
Some years ago, I was asked to join a couple of colleagues to judge the Pacific Air Force photography competition. This was before digital submission, so we had everyone's matted prints. My recollection is that they were also framed, by my memory is fuzzy regarding this one aspect. There were hundreds of photographs covering all aspects of photography including street, portrait, city scapes, traditional landscape, wildlife and various degrees of abstraction.We had to winnow the selection down to 50 or so photographs.
Our initial thought was to make a first pass and eliminate the technically and compositionally inadequate photographs. That resulted in very few rejections! We next grouped the photographs by subject matter and tried to rank them by quarters. The criteria at this point were still pretty loose. We were reacting to the photographs. It was only in the final rounds that we found ourselves having to look for minutia to identify the photographs that would go into the exhibit.
I think one important criteria that few judges discuss is their visceral/emotional reaction to the photograph. Everyone seems to feel the need to couch things in academic terms. I personally think that should be a part of the criteria, but if I don't react to the photograph, then it didn't work.
Thanks, Bruce. Well described. Judging is not easy by any means. I do agree with you; if a print does not elicit a reaction then it doesn't rise to the level of a competition winner. I also believe that judges need far more time when they inspect and assess prints during a competition in order to provide informed and thoughtful feedback to the entrants. As is, the preliminary judging is often a too-brief, chaotic scene if the competition is live.
The Northern California Council of Camera Clubs conducts an annual "Portfolio Competition", probably better described as a "Photo Project Competition". I'm teaching a class for potential "assessors" (AKA judges). The competion happens to use electronic images, not prints, but many of the principles are the same. A key point I make is that their critique should start with what works followed by what could work better. But most importantly, always give the "why" behind your critique. The assessor may completely miss the photographers intent, or the photographer may simply disagree with the assessors suggestions, but if they understand why the assessor came to their conclusion the comments can still be useful. Of course, this is because we view contests as primarily a learning experience, not just a chance to earn a ribbon.
Douglas, well stated. I do wish more competitions approached the "assessors" in the manner you choose to do. I very much agree that contests should primarily be a learning experience for both winners and those not chosen for a top prize.
My camera club used to have print contests. COVID-19 put an end to meeting in person and print contests. So, we have been making do with digital contests. Tomorrow night we will have our first print contest in two years. Cross your fingers on good participation. I fear that print contest may fade away just like our 35mm slide contest did. Digital is easy and cheap compared to print. However, printing requires additional skills, and you require better image quality than some get away with in digital. One of the disagreements we often have is over matting and if presentation should be judged as well as the print. Some club members argue the matting should not be included in what is judged. I argue bad presentation can ruin an otherwise great image.
Mike, in regard to presentation; as an experienced judge, fine art printer and creator of innovative display options, I come down strongly in favor of prints only for print competitions. Yes, presentation makes all the difference when prints are eventually hung for display. But, that's not the intent of a print competition, is it? I see a print competition as an opportunity for the artist to showcase how s/he is able to leverage the strengths and weaknesses of the medium to create a beautiful/dramatic/emotional story on the appropriate paper for the story s/he is telling. IMHO, matting and framing is irrelevant at that stage.
Having said that, I have no problem with a contest requiring matting, so long as it is standardized for all entrants. That includes width of mat borders (depending on size of print), maximum blank paper reveal allowed, etc.
I've juried art shows-competitions (a number of different visual arts over about 20 years). I know that besides work quality, excellence of communication, and the powerful presence of a really good piece, there are always show limitations of space-size, theme, and cohesiveness, so a show holds together.
I have had to tell people who didn't make the cut that their work was absolutely excellent - but, just did not fit the show as a whole, this time - and to keep working because their work was very good, and next time it could fit a show really well. Being "rejector communicator" is a hard job. I did it because, like all of us, I've had some hard rejections - and some seriously encouraging ones. I wanted to be sure the people I dealt with were encouraged, or at least understood why their work wasn't included. "This competition is set up for artists who do their own printing. Every step is by the artist's hand. Your work is good, but your piece is commercially printed, so it doesn't fit our rules."
Sometimes it's hard to help people understand that there are usually several jurors, each of whom has opinions about how a show should look, that consensus can be hard to achieve, that work has to be compared and contrasted with other pieces, and really difficult choices have to be made.
When I enter a show I don't expect a juror to tell me why my work was accepted or rejected - but it's nice to hear what they thought. I sold my own work in booths for 30 years. It was viewed, liked, or disliked, by thousands of people. That’s boot camp. Over time it sinks in, that 1 juror, like 1 member of the public, has a personal opinion. They have preferences. They have work they respond strongly to, just like you do. There are people who love your work, and people who don't. And that's ok. Being chosen, or not, for a show, is not a reflection on you as a person, as an artist, or on all your work.
I highly recommend being a juror. It teaches you faster than anything else, how to get your work out there, and not to be crushed by a negative response at any one time. It makes you feel both humble in the face of the wonderful work you see, and empowered to do your own work, no matter what.
That said, I wish shows would be specific in what they really mean by photography. It's a total waste of time to be told that it's a "photography" competition, when the organizers really mean: no portraits or groups, only traditional darkroom practices, no animals, no digital work, no composites, no mixed media, or, in reality: We really only want surreal or abstract B/W images that aren't too big. Everything is lumped under "photography" now, so it tells us nothing. Define the show properly and specifically, so people know what you really want.
This tends towards my thoughts where "contests" are not really the goal, instead there's some cohesive expression or theme or something that ties the overall exhibition together to be appreciated by an intended audience.
Donna, what a refreshing commentary. I so agree with your observations. I have two of your comments that I'd like to expand on. First is that more people should be judges. In concept that sounds nice, but in practice I feel it sometimes/often draws people with an axe to grind, poor conceptions of photography, little experience in either photography or curation, etc. In a future Substack I think I will address the issue of what we should expect of judges.
Next is the issue of competition specificity. I fully agree with you. I do not like to judge "open competitions" that mix B&W with Color and are open to every genre. You can rightfully have multiple 1st place winners jn that circumstance, yet the judge has to decide on only one. How do B&W prints and color prints compete head-to-head? Portraits and landscapes? Nudes and wildlife?
Those sound like good topics. There are lots of different kinds of juries. Maybe different kinds of jurors suit different situations. I worked on, and was judged by, several types. One was an annual juried competition for scholarships. Some were for entry for prospective members to join arts groups. Some were juries for guest artists to sell work along with members at shows. A few were for exhibition shows. Jurors ranged from well known teachers and artists, who were paid honorariums, to group member volunteers. In all cases, people took their work seriously.
Usually there are discussions before a jury about show parameters. In my experience, I think every juror had 1 thing in common - experience in their field. They had all spent years presenting their work to the public, selling, and/or teaching, writing, working with arts organizations, applying to shows, and had plenty of first hand experience with acceptance and rejection. I don't remember anyone with an axe to grind. I do recall pressure, very rarely, from a few fellow jurors, to accept people they knew and liked. Because there were always several jurors, 3, 5, 7, 9 or so - by the time consensus was reached, those very rare requests didn't carry weight.
In group juries, with multiple arts and crafts, there was always an attempt to have at least 1 person on a jury who knew each particular field. If that wasn't possible, there was someone on call who could come in and explain details about a process - why this piece that looks simple on the surface is actually very rare and difficult to achieve. They were great learning opportunities.
In the years when groups I was in, invited a well known, single juror to judge our work for a museum or gallery show, it's true the juror had a specific point of view, and history. That's why we asked them, paid them an honorarium, and travel expenses, to come judge our work. We set up our work, and left them alone. Afterward, we all had lunch or dinner together, and got to listen to them speak about their work, and answer our questions. It was rigorous, and exhilarating - even if your work wasn't chosen.
The nuts and bolts of how to set up a jury are worth thinking about. Typically there are a lot of items to cover, and there has to be organization on how to get through them. Usually every juror views everything on the first pass, and perhaps makes a few notes. Then on a second pass, pieces that don't fit in some way, are removed. They are the wrong size, or their paperwork wasn't complete. On 3rd, 4th, 5th... viewings, jurors write down their priority choices, maybe on a scale of 1 to 5 - in order to keep everything straight in their own heads. In that way, they narrow the field, to hopefully the number of pieces for the show. Usually there is no talking during this phase. It's very private. Surprisingly often, almost everyone separately comes to similar conclusions about a number of pieces. Later, there may be discussion about some pieces towards the end, perhaps because of similarity, or because someone has a question about them, before final consensus is reached. Depending on the size, and formality of the show, organization and rules are quite strict, or relaxed.
Hooray for specificity! I don't care what kind of show people decide to have. It's all good. I just care that I don't spend time applying for a 'photography' show with my 'composited-drawn-written-digital photography accordion book forms,' only to be told that I wasted my time and money because they do not accept 'digital' work. Just say it up front!
Interesting topic. I have not contributed a print to my local camera club's print competition in a long time because a. no feedback other than numerical score, and b. if it doesn't have fins, feathers, or feet it doesn't score well. Not my genre if you will.
I think a print competition should not only incorporate the normal attributes of an image, i.e. composition, conveying a message, etc., it should also incorporate the overall quality of the print too. As you know, that takes an entire set of skills beyond capture and editing.
It would be awesome if judges provided a brief summary of their rationale for scoring along with a suggestion for how to improve the outcome.
Agree to the extent I can even agree with anything that combines art and contest in the same breath ;-)...
Chris, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I couldn't agree more. I feel it is a responsibility for judges to share their rationales for their decisions. How else is the artist to get feedback or judge, in turn, the validity of the judges feedback? And a print competition must-- I say MUST-- take into account the unique qualities of the print medium.
Some years ago, I was asked to join a couple of colleagues to judge the Pacific Air Force photography competition. This was before digital submission, so we had everyone's matted prints. My recollection is that they were also framed, by my memory is fuzzy regarding this one aspect. There were hundreds of photographs covering all aspects of photography including street, portrait, city scapes, traditional landscape, wildlife and various degrees of abstraction.We had to winnow the selection down to 50 or so photographs.
Our initial thought was to make a first pass and eliminate the technically and compositionally inadequate photographs. That resulted in very few rejections! We next grouped the photographs by subject matter and tried to rank them by quarters. The criteria at this point were still pretty loose. We were reacting to the photographs. It was only in the final rounds that we found ourselves having to look for minutia to identify the photographs that would go into the exhibit.
I think one important criteria that few judges discuss is their visceral/emotional reaction to the photograph. Everyone seems to feel the need to couch things in academic terms. I personally think that should be a part of the criteria, but if I don't react to the photograph, then it didn't work.
Thanks, Bruce. Well described. Judging is not easy by any means. I do agree with you; if a print does not elicit a reaction then it doesn't rise to the level of a competition winner. I also believe that judges need far more time when they inspect and assess prints during a competition in order to provide informed and thoughtful feedback to the entrants. As is, the preliminary judging is often a too-brief, chaotic scene if the competition is live.
The Northern California Council of Camera Clubs conducts an annual "Portfolio Competition", probably better described as a "Photo Project Competition". I'm teaching a class for potential "assessors" (AKA judges). The competion happens to use electronic images, not prints, but many of the principles are the same. A key point I make is that their critique should start with what works followed by what could work better. But most importantly, always give the "why" behind your critique. The assessor may completely miss the photographers intent, or the photographer may simply disagree with the assessors suggestions, but if they understand why the assessor came to their conclusion the comments can still be useful. Of course, this is because we view contests as primarily a learning experience, not just a chance to earn a ribbon.
Douglas, well stated. I do wish more competitions approached the "assessors" in the manner you choose to do. I very much agree that contests should primarily be a learning experience for both winners and those not chosen for a top prize.
My camera club used to have print contests. COVID-19 put an end to meeting in person and print contests. So, we have been making do with digital contests. Tomorrow night we will have our first print contest in two years. Cross your fingers on good participation. I fear that print contest may fade away just like our 35mm slide contest did. Digital is easy and cheap compared to print. However, printing requires additional skills, and you require better image quality than some get away with in digital. One of the disagreements we often have is over matting and if presentation should be judged as well as the print. Some club members argue the matting should not be included in what is judged. I argue bad presentation can ruin an otherwise great image.
Mike, in regard to presentation; as an experienced judge, fine art printer and creator of innovative display options, I come down strongly in favor of prints only for print competitions. Yes, presentation makes all the difference when prints are eventually hung for display. But, that's not the intent of a print competition, is it? I see a print competition as an opportunity for the artist to showcase how s/he is able to leverage the strengths and weaknesses of the medium to create a beautiful/dramatic/emotional story on the appropriate paper for the story s/he is telling. IMHO, matting and framing is irrelevant at that stage.
Having said that, I have no problem with a contest requiring matting, so long as it is standardized for all entrants. That includes width of mat borders (depending on size of print), maximum blank paper reveal allowed, etc.
Thanks for your thoughts. The very essence of the debate.