pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on fri 13 feb 04
Hi Kathy, all...
My point of view on this is not that of an artist ( I have
never submitted anything for a juried Show as was rejected,
and the few things I ever had submitted, were accepted) but,
instead, from my small experience of being on the Board of
an Art organization as organized juried Shows once or twice
No one thought of the 'Salon de Refuse' when I was involved,
but if someone had, I feel the idea would have been the
basis of some excellent potential.
We had the room close by for the rejected pieces to be
shown, and, I believe, say in instances where we had two
hundred submissions and sixty were accepted by the Jurer,
that the remainder would have made an interesting contrast
and a valid show in their own right.
Certainly the sensitivies involved in hanging and arrangeing
the pieces in a Show are important variously to the effect,
and, might be more challenging when needing to accomadate
truely ill concieved or terrible examples, but
none-the-less, in retrospect, I feel it could have been done
and done well.
The Show attendees (who would also have included the
Artists as had submitted works,) would have benifited in
their option to see the Works as did not get into the main
Juried Show, and I think, at least everyone would have
potentially benifited, from seeing the wider gamut, as
well as that the discipline had been respected to clearly
segregate the 'Juried' Show contents from those submissions
as were not elected, which have their own room, and own
As well, the attendees might 'see' something of 'why' those
Works as were accepted, were accepted, and, something of why
those Works as were not, were not...not all of 'why', but,
usually, something of why...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy Forer"
> Hi Phil,
> Maybe, probably, I missed something when I first read it.
> 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
> keen on in my anti-Shakespeare-Essay days, but one that
seems like a
> conceit now unless very well done (form and content
> Or is the idea to create segregated exhibits, one for
> 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
> without having to give out pass/fail. How about organizing
> around other principles, then let the public judge for
> they need to?