Susan Setley on fri 13 feb 04
In a message dated 2/13/04 9:35:44 AM, kef@KFORER.COM writes:
> Hi Phil,
> Maybe, probably, I missed something when I first read it. I wondered
> whether there was a show from which people were rejected or was this an
> attempt to create an anti-show show? Probably an idea I'd have been
> keen on in my anti-Shakespeare-Essay days, but one that seems like a
> conceit now unless very well done (form and content triumphing over
> Or is the idea to create segregated exhibits, one for those juried
> acceptable, the other for those not? If that's the sense, as you seem
> to read it, well, okay. It's nice to be shown, but why keep the jury at
> all, why not get rid of it altogether? It's a compromise, I suppose. We
> all need to categorize and structure, and one of the purposes of a jury
> is to help us evaluate and understand work. They can still do that
> without having to give out pass/fail. How about organizing the work
> around other principles, then let the public judge for themselves, if
> they need to?
Someone who has been on a jury was just talking about this. They had 140
applicants and 30 openings for potters. Ten of the applicants were a slam dunk and
one would have to have been an idiot not to include them.
Thirty were not nearly as good as the rest and were easy to reject.
That left about 100 -- for 20 spots. He said that often it came down to the
quality of the slides sent in.
That's sort of what happens in publishing, too. You might have written the
most brilliant children's book in the world, but if you write it on a paper bag
in crayon and have your six year old illustrate it, the publisher won't take
it seriously (that really happened).
Don't give juries who are already making really tough calls any reason to put
your app in the reject pile.