This is sort of a rant. No, scratch that. It is most definitely a rant, but I believe it is a constructive one. And it goes out to every gallery and organization that ever puts on an art show or contest. Listen up, because there is a rule/stipulation/criterion/whatever that you need to permanently strike from your eligibility requirements for shows. It is unquestionably one of the, if not THE, stupidest rule of any art show.
This is a gripe I have had for a long time. The reason this particular rule is so stupid and pointless is because it is arbitrary and completely irrelevant to the eligibility of an artwork for a competitive show, and I have yet to hear a good reason for its existence. Here it is:
"Eligible artwork must be current, and is to have been completed within the last 3 years."
First of all, unless an artist signs his work with the year of completion included (which I will admit I do), how on earth is such a rule enforced when going through the jurying process? Do these shows and galleries actually have someone on the jury designated for checking artist websites and social media to see when they completed each work, based on when it was posted online? No, the answer is they do not. Because what a colossal waste of time that would be. And what if they do have such a check in place, but can't determine based on anything what year the artwork was completed? What then, is the artwork disqualified because they can't determine a date of completion? Do they contact the artist to ask them, "Hey, if you wouldn't mind, could you tell us what year you painted this piece?"
NO! They don't do any of that! So why have such a dumb, unenforcible stipulation in place?
But secondly, why is this a rule to begin with? The present year is 2022 a.d., so what exactly is it about a painting that was completed in 2018 that is ineligible for a show this year, when it was eligible last year? What makes it "not current"? And why does it even matter anyway? Does a painting lose its relevance after just 3 years? These aren't iphones! Why do art shows equate timeless works of painting or sculpture that will last for generations like they're a PC that only has Windows 7, and not Windows 10? By the way, is Windows 10 even "current" right now, or is there a newer version yet? I frankly don't know and I don't care, because my laptop was brand new in 2016 and still runs perfectly. So why, then, is any painting that I did in 2018 or earlier ineligible at this point for any competitive show that I want to enter? There is no reason, is there? Not a good one, anyway.
Third, and the most arbitrary part of all... Who decided that 3 years is the difference between what is current or not current? And whoever it was, what authority does this person have to declare such a thing? Again, we're talking about artwork here. Art is timeless. At least, it should be. If Leonardo da Vinci came back to life and wanted to enter the Mona Lisa into an art competition, are the so-called "judges" going to deny him that entry? It sounds like a petty argument, but is it?
Let's try something. Below are two paintings that I completed within a year of each other, but one of them is ineligible for any art competition that includes the stupid 3-year rule. I've blocked out my signature since, as I mentioned, I typically include the year of completion with it. Take a guess as to which of these two paintings is no longer eligible for any art competitions at this point:
Now answer these questions: Should it matter at all which of these two paintings was completed in 2018, and which one was completed in 2019? If you were on a jury, would you be judging either one of these two paintings based on the year? Would you seriously look at either one of these paintings and say to yourself, "Wow this is really nice. Too bad it's more than 3 years old."
My guess is, no. It does not. And you would not.
So to all fine art organizations/galleries/shows, drop this dumb rule. We're worth more than that, and so is our work.
End of rant.
No comments:
Post a Comment