|
Problem
The trouble with most art shows in my experience is one of 3 things.
1. Use of non-painters to judge paintings
(I'm presently part of an exhibit that was judged by assistant curators which was so badly judged that even the sponsors are sad. It makes the artists not want to do the show next time. The Arts for the Parks is the longest-running, best example of bad judging by non-artists. I saw their "book" yesterday: an overview of 15 years of the nations' best park entries...these works were really sad. I personally know that some of the nation's best landscape painters were juried out of this show.
2. Insider trading
This happens everywhere, no answers for this
3. Too few judges
Shows should have at least 3 judges. Seven would be better (and they should all be practicing experts in the field they judge). Have you ever listened to a cello player discuss the piece he's about to play? Listen to the conductor talk about that same work and you get vague emotional, general statements, often about the composer's childhood.
|