All professional decisions or judgments involve some percentage of power politics. In fact, if we follow Foucalt, all human interactions, directly or symbolically, involve power relations.
Art juries are good displays of power politics. That's not always bad because sometimes the person with the most power is also the person with the best discernment. But there's no way to be assured of that. The worst sort of juror is the one who comes to the task with an irrelevant agenda. I was once one of three jurors of an open (mostly local amateur artists). All the jurors were "professionals" and one of them, a noted sculptor of big abstract work, announced at the outset that he'd not vote for "any barn paintings or landscapes". I was outraged because it so happened that the better work being submitted fit that genre. The reason juries are often chosen from professional ranks, like curators and art teachers, even collectors, is because it's reasonable to think that such people are well practiced in examining many different kinds of art and are acquainted with a diversity of art ideas and traditions. A juror may choose something that is not to his or her taste but still represents a taste well enough. This is not really the same as objectivity because in responding to art, or even judging it, subjectivity is the valued sensibility. WC --- On Tue, 1/13/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: competent people with discerning taste and knowledge > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 1:29 PM > In a message dated 1/13/09 2:17:48 PM, > [email protected] writes: > > > > any > > given show selected by any given individual is only a > single example > > of one person's preferences from among a limited > group of works, self- > > selected by the artists who submitted slides or works. > > > > Three jurors work better than one. Even so, Brady is > right. There is usually > one big juror and two little ones. The last time i dealt > with this problem, > the big juror came, and one of the little jurors actually > took part in the > jurying actively. I won't say it was a better show, but > it was certainly a > more > interesting jurying. > KAte Sullivan > > > ************** > New year...new news. Be the first to know what is > making headlines. > (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)
