Roger Korn on thu 10 jul 03
Dear Richard and all,
Thanks for your thoughts on the jurying process, or should I say
What we are talking about are at least three differing procedures:
1. The individual juror's reaction to the work, removed from the social
context of the rest of the jury.
2. The individual juror's reaction to the work, within the social
context of comments shared by the jury.
3. The jury's group reaction to the work.
Considering art as public communication, all three procedures are of
interest and thus valid. Considering art
as revelation and reflection of the artist, the person-to-person aspect
of 1. is private, personal, and considered
within the juror's value-set, what the juror "brung to the party".
Considered as one-to-many communication, 3.
is perhaps most valid, but introduces peer influence as a factor, which
may be valued as positive, or may give undue weight
to the opinion or unstated agenda of the more articulate jurors.
To tie this discussion to the medium (slides vs. digital images) is not
that relevant, because slides can be privately
viewed in a viewer, and digital images may be viewed on the "big screen"
offered by one of the many digital
projectors available today. The first time I saw a digital projector
used in the same context as a slide projector
was in a presentation by Yixing artists, Liu Xiao Ping and Shao Junya at
Northern Arizona University, to an audience of students, faculty,
and interested workshop participants. For a few minutes, the novelty of
the medium (digital images shown on a
large screen) was a bit of a distraction, but the novelty quickly wore
off, allowing the audience to focus on the content
being presented, and the communication style became indistinguishable
from the familiar context of looking at slides.
Requirements for quality reproduction also becomes an issue, because the
inherent finer grain of slides is more easily
and more familiarly suited to the printed page. Even this consideration
becomes moot, however, when you consider the
extremely high resolution of the better digital cameras and the fact
that most printed media is now prepared by digitally
scanning the "pasted up" layout of the page.
So the issue of how the presentation medium influences jurying is still
complex, and revolves around preference for seeing
images printed, projected, or presented on a monitor screen and whether
the social context is private or group.
It seems difficult, and almost irrelevant to say that one jurying medium
or social context is "better" or "worse" or "more valid"
or "less valid" than another: it all depends on intent, which is
something that should enter the process in an open, explicitly
stated manner, rather than being implicitly subsumed by standardization.
For purely pragmatic reasons, a choice of required medium for submission
and selection must be made. My point is simply
that the choice should be made conciously, with intent in mind, rather
than blindly choosing based on tradition or
questionable assumptions about quality of images.
Got me thinkin', now time to make pots.
Richard Aerni wrote:
>This year they decided to "go ditigal" with their applications.
>You could still submit slides, but they would be digitalized for an
>additional cost. It would cost you $45 dollars to submit digital images,
>and $55 dollars for slides. The images would be put on a CD (if I remember
>correctly) and sent to the individual judges so they could view them at
>their own place, in their own time. No more sitting in a dark room,
>watching slides flash quickly in front of you.
>Of course, there is also no more helpful comments given as to who is
>imitating who in the slides (it does go on, I've been on juries), no more
>interaction of any kind among jurors. And I suppose (although I don't
>know) it makes it just that much easier to alter an image of one's artwork,
>or enhance it. So, you say, that's not much reason to be agin
>progress...what's your beef, you old fart? And I must say, it's a kind of
>elemental, inchoate, feeling, not yet a rational expression of firm
>conviction. I just don't like it! To me, the essence of pottery is the
>struggle of the independent potter with a material, an idea, a box full of
>fire. Basic, timeless, rather primitive work, if truth be told. Except,
>at the Smithsonian, it's gone modern, glitzy, convenient. Perhaps it's
>just me, but it doesn't seem to be what it's all about. I've already got a
>burr under my saddle about people who spend more time on the computer than
>at their wheel, or in their studio. And who spend more time and money on
>their cameras and equipment getting images instead of pots. This just
>seems another step in that direction.
>But bottom line is...it doesn't feel like me...doesn't feel like something
>I want to be part of.
>So there. I don't have to be, and I guess I won't. (And, I suppose, I may
>change my mind over time.) I'm not against progress (I've got an oxyprobe,
>have my clay mixed for me, even own a nice digital camera.). It just
>doesn't feel right.
>And it will continue to happen unless people speak out against it. I'd be
>curious to hear others' thoughts on the matter. Is it just me, or is this
>a harbinger of other things to come?
>Bloomfield, NY...killing an hour in clean clothes for an appointment before
>getting on the glazing togs for a last go before Ann Arbor...(timed out
>again...damn! I'm glad I saved this rant before hitting send!)
>On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:21:05 -0700, claybair wrote:
>>I'll be happy when the slide becomes a relic and is
>>replaced by digital images. The Smithsonian
>>Show in a quite innovative move used them.
>>The judges praised their use. It apparently cut down
>>on the time spent judging. Each judge could go at
>>his/her own pace etc.
>>I read about it in Crafts Report magazine....
>>sorry don't remember which issue.
>>Bainbridge Island, WA
>>At 07:28 AM 7/9/03 -0700, you wrote:
>>>What is the name of the organization that has established a
>>>standardization for labeling entry slides?
>Send postings to email@example.com
>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 firstname.lastname@example.org.