Dannon Rhudy on thu 12 apr 01
...>it takes a person that can see the big picture, .
>of course we have many folks out there that look for the
>judges name, rush to publications to find out what she/he
>does, then clone the pots of the judge.
>it often works for prizes.....
Not quite so often as folk might think. Most of the
jurors I've known who see work like their own just
sigh, and point out that it does NOT make them
inclined to select that piece. They already know
it is a copy, and it is seldom even a GOOD copy.
They might be inclined to select a lot of woodfired
stuff if they happen to woodfire. But because
they DO that, they really know what's good and not so.
So they're very selective in areas that encompass
their own field.
Once in a while, of course, there'll be someone who's
so vain that they think the whole world OUGHT to copy
their work. And they select very odd looking shows.
You're right: it takes a strong, clear-headed juror
to select a good exhibition. It takes more than that,
I think: the best seem to see the exhibition grow
in their mind as they make their selections. Those
shows are the strongest.
Susan Fox Hirschmann on fri 13 apr 01
I agree with Dannon: Most judges look for design, form, balance, color,
quality of the work and the slides, balance in jurying a varied show. (The
only real deviation I saw from this idea was about 2 or 3 years ago, I walked
the Smithsonian show in Wshington, DC and noticed that there were lots of
potters from the Penland area and low and behold two jurors from that area as
well (please no HATE MAIL) I am just reporting this.
There were mostly very organic forms at the show, no porcelain, and their
seemed to be an affinity for a certain LOOK if you will.
No matter who juries a show, my best advise, is to chose your very best work,
a variety of forms/colors/textures, that still shows well as a group, and is
well photographed and GO FOR IT!
Diane Echlin on fri 13 apr 01
A few days ago I went to the Ceramics 2001 exhibit at the Guilford Handcrafts
Center (CT), juried by John Glick. There was a wide variety of styles and
processes represented, which to me says that the juror was interested in covering a
broad spectrum. Well done! I did notice, however, that there was a significant
number of wood fired pieces, and I wondered if wood firing is now the trend?
Several pieces really wowed me: a life-sized sculpture of a man whose eyes seemed
to follow me around the room (I felt, as I examined him, that he might suddenly
stand up and start talking to me! Spooky!), and I also saw a piece by our own
Lowell Baker ("Tornado Cup"?) interesting use of color and balance....but my
favorite piece by far was one that was extruded. I know I can't describe it well,
but my first thought was that this artist (whose name I can't remember) really
grocked the possibilities of extruders and exploited the tool to its highest
capacity. Incredible abstract shapes that create rhythm and movement.
All in all, an excellent show. Kudos to Glick!
Diane in CT
Susan Fox Hirschmann wrote:
> I agree with Dannon: Most judges look for design, form, balance, color,
> quality of the work and the slides, balance in jurying a varied show. (The
> only real deviation I saw from this idea was about 2 or 3 years ago, I walked
> the Smithsonian show in Wshington, DC and noticed that there were lots of
> potters from the Penland area and low and behold two jurors from that area as
> well (please no HATE MAIL) I am just reporting this.
> There were mostly very organic forms at the show, no porcelain, and their
> seemed to be an affinity for a certain LOOK if you will.
> No matter who juries a show, my best advise, is to chose your very best work,
> a variety of forms/colors/textures, that still shows well as a group, and is
> well photographed and GO FOR IT!
> annandale, va
> Send postings to firstname.lastname@example.org
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at email@example.com.