In a message dated 1/13/09 4:33:37 PM, [email protected] writes:
> 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. > Absolutely. The show runner's worst nightmare. > > 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. > They do this by looking at whatever the sterling example of what is not to their taste happens to be, and saying"It is what it is," accepting it, and passing on. No sensibility involved at all,only resignation to the inevitable. Kate Sullivan > > ************** New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)
