That's not the whole story. The entering artists need to secure a sponsor who will fund the work and its installation, etc. That effectively puts the sponsor in the juror's position, and thus the only credentials for the jurors would be the money and the place for the art, usually a corporate yard or lobby. What else is new? Nothing, it's the same old tradeoff of artist's prerogatives for sullied recognition and false promise packaged by self-interested money-grubbers. wc
________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:32:33 AM Subject: Radical Democracy in the Art world. Anticipating Imago A's discussion of Ranciere, this would have to be an example of "radical democracy" in the art world: http://www.artprize.org/about-artprize *anyone can enter anything (of any size and any duration) *anyone (in Grand Rapids) can provide a venue for an entry *anyone who visits the city can vote for the winners There's a large cash prize ($250,000), and a lot of cash has been spent on some of the entries (up to $100,000) The voting has already begun, and so far, most of the top 25 entries are big jokes. So I guess that's what the people want. ____________________________________________________________ Compare Cell Phone Carriers- Click Now. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxZ9S74L0vsMS9yhe8hyRaIOL S6y7MuLQVQPudBywEtEKRaE5AkLpm/
