Saturday, May 02, 2009

ArtPrize competition receives criticism from critics and art dealers

I've read some buzz about the ArtPrize competition. A few art critics and NYC art dealers have called it a sign of desperation rather than an opportunity for artists-- implying that anyone who enters it is 'just desperate'. In fact, one critic of the competition-- András Szántó -- suggested that anyone who wins the competition will never be accepted in the mainstream art world.

András Szántó also suggested that the $400,000+ cash prize should have been donated to existing art programs or as grants to artists who are represented by notable galleries. He actually made the case that only a select few should dictate what is 'good' art or 'bad' art instead of the general public-- backing the idea that only certain individuals are capable of understanding or appreciating art.

Szántó stated, "we already have a system for recognizing meritorious artists", "Would we pick heart surgeons this way? Architects? Firemen?", and "Rather than creating yet another channel of art-world mobility, how about improving what we have?" The only problem with that opinion is that a lot of great artists are never recognized by the mainstream art world-- or are cast aside due to gender or age -- so one could say that the 'system' Szántó speaks of has failed.

That said, I would have to ask Szántó if that is a sign of the failure of art critics or a sign that maybe, just maybe, there should be more opportunities for artists in general. At the very least there should be more rights for artists within the 'art world'. There is always room for the 'system' to improve, right? If needed there is reason for the 'system' to be destroyed and built again with the advances of today and the idea of equality in mind, true?

The basics of ArtPrize from the ArtPrize site: "At ArtPrize, any artist—from established to emerging—has the chance to show work. Any visitor can vote. The vote will determine who wins the largest art prize in the world. We also took the unusual step to allow people in the city to open a venue and choose the artists to show in their space. There is not one official curator or jury for the competition."

The main point of criticism about the competition is the fact that the public will decide the winner. In other words, those who have spoken out against the concept of ArtPrize feel that the competition is worthless to the winners since the competition does not involve professional jurors (I guess it would be a better competition if it involved them?). True, I prefer art competitions that involve a strong panel of jurors. That said, I don't think an artist is "desperate" if he or she decides to enter an art competition that is judged by the public.

My opinion is that the critics of this competition are stuck in the past and fear change. They fear the same public that they strive to reach out to with their art criticism and exhibit reviews. They don't want the flood gates of the art world to be opened to the public-- while at the same time it is common for these same individuals to complain about how the general public is not interested in art. It is obvious that they want the 'system' to change-- on their terms. They want a segregated system that supports the faces and spaces that they praise while upholding a facade of public inclusion-- just as it has always been.

I think the words of András Szántó reveal that some key players in the mainstream art world are wary of online juried art competitions in general regardless of how they are judged. After all, there have been a number of online art competitions involving jurors from the TATE and other high profile museums and galleries (including myartspace.com competitions-- www.myartspace.com/contests) and, as far as I know, none of the ArtPrize naysayers embraced those competitions. Thus, it would seem that certain individuals are not very accepting of online art competitions in general-- or the way the internet is changing the art world for that matter. Why? Because art competitions of this nature are a thorn in their 'system'.

There is obviously a fear of public opinion coming from those circles. In fact, one comment suggested that if the chosen work does not reflect the choices of professional art critics it would mean, at least in the eyes of the public, that the opinion of high profile critics does not really matter in dictating public taste for art. I think people already know that though-- people like what they like regardless of who said what, when, and where.

It is amazing to observe the unease that the internet has caused for traditionalists within the core of the art world. These are the same type of individuals who scoffed at the importance of having a website in the 1990s. Because of that the majority of the art world is only now catching up to technological standards that other businesses have long embraced.

In closing, one could say that the internet is forcing a few key art world figures to release their grip-- or has at least forced them to think about their future relevance within the art world as a whole. Is it a sign of desperation if an artist enters ArtPrize or any other online art competition for that matter? I don't think so. It is just an opportunity-- an opportunity that some artists will enjoy participating in.

That said, I think individuals who openly scoff at online art competitions are truly desperate-- especially when they talk about their beloved 'system' and how competitions of this nature threaten said 'system'. What say you?

Links of interest:

ArtPrize
www.artprize.org

myartspace Forum debate
www.myartspace.com/forum/topic.php?id=76&replies=1

The Thorny Authoritarian Issue : Open Thread -- Winkleman Blog
http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2009/04/thorny-authoritarian-issue-open-thread.html

The Prize of Desperation
www.artworldsalon.com/blog/2009/04/the-prize-of-desperation/

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

36 comments:

kimba said...

There is something bigger than just the fear of change at play here. That would be the fear of losing one's power. Or the fear of losing one's status.

I can't say that I'm a fan of crowd source opinion. That could just be that my tastes are very different from the average crowd. But I think there is room in the universe for both kinds of art establishments. Let the artist choose which one s/he wants to run in.

Mike Darnell said...

The "professional" art evaluation world's greatest achievements are convincing the public that it doesn't understand art and convincing artists that they don't understand the public and therefore need brokers .

The democratization of art has severe ramifications for these people and those of them smart enough to realize what's happening are terrified.

The simple truth is that one need only look at what's happened to the music and film industry in the past decade to realize that they have good reason to be worried.

We artists, on the other hand, have every reason to look forward to a better future, a future that will allow us to communicate with an appreciative public without the meddling of noxious middleman...

Mike
http://DigitalArtPrintGallery.com
I tweet @pop_art

Mike Darnell said...

...oh and afterthought. It was Picasso that said "All children are artists. The problem is how to remain artists once they grows up."

By proxy all children are also art critics...

Christi Nielsen said...

A colleague of mine once said "they're trying to lock the doors to a building where walls no longer exist."

Brian Kelly said...

The "established" art world has provided only a very thin layer of access for artists to be shown...how many great artists have never seen the light of day in the current system?

ArtPrize is just one competition. It seeks to foster dialogue between art/artists and the public. It's a win/win for art in general and the public to interact in a way that's never been done before.

But ArtPrize kind of stings if you're a pretentious dealer with perimeters to defend. Especially if those perimeters serve to validate your own career in some shape or form.

Renola Red said...

Brian Kelly, hate to break it to you but a online art competition involving public voting HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE! Some of the papers are saying it is the first time but they are wrong. Saatchi does it once a month and the first myartspace.com competition, South of France, involved public voting.

So the concept of public voting for the competition is nothing ground breaking It has been done by art sites that have a longer history than ArtPrize. With enough bought press they can promote the idea that they are the first but artists who have been online know better. The huge cash prize is groundbreaking but you have to consider the source.

The guy running it is worth billions so it is kind of lame that ArtPrize involves a $50 entry fee especially since it does not involve any known jurors. Most competitions charge a fee to pay jurors. Every online art competition I know of that has involved public voting has been free to enter no matter what the prize is. That is the only criticism I have about it.

Saatchi does not charge for his public voting competitions, myartspace.com does not charge for their public voting competiions, even deviantart.com does not charge for their public voting competitions. So what gives?

Anonymous said...

Renola, I think you are a bit confused. ArtPrize is not online only, with viewing and voting just happening in a web browser. The work has to be shown in Grand Rapids so people can encounter it in person, and THEN people vote on it using mobile devices. There are greater costs associated with developing and supporting systems of a physical event versus an online-only event. Things like signs, maps, events, and on and on.

Renola Red said...

Well this art competition is worse than I originally thought! Not only does the artist have to pay a $50 entry fee for one image they also have to pay to ship the work and pick it up!!! Some people are saying they have to pay the venue for the space as well! So each artist is spending way more than $50 to be a part of this.

They should allow people to submit 20 or so images online and at least have the venues vote on the art they want to represent for the event or have public online voting to decide which art is sent to the venues for further voting! Online voting can be flawed but it does offer some balance in a scenario like this.

If the only people allowed to vote are Grand Rapids gallery goers attending the event it really limits the idea of a pure public vote. So it is is not consistent with the media hype. It is just one demographic!!! A local favorite will stand a much better chance than someone sending their work from another state!

If a person from Grand Rapids enters and has family and friends vote at the venue she could get hundreds of votes easy. I don't think they have said how much traffic these venues get so for all we know only a few thousand will show up. That still gives the local people an upper hand if they have family and friends show up to vote. That is why jurors are important!!!

The press release I read did not say anything about a fee or about additional expenses. It made it sound like voting would be open to all online. Time to write about this on my blog now I think.

richard kooyman said...

It doesn't matter to me if you feel the current professional art world is broken. But the thing you need to keep in mind is -what do you propose to replace it with.

Rick Devos is receiving a half a million dollars from the Devos Foundation to fund ArtPrize. The Devos Foundation is one of the leading ultra conservative religious charitable organizations and a major donator to Californias Prop 8. Grand Rapids, Michigan is a very conservative, religious area.

And what Rick Devos doesn't explain very well is that ArtPrize isn't "open to any artist" who wants to enter. It's open to any artists who can get a 'venue' to accept their work. Any property owner in the designated area of Grand Rapids can be a 'Venue". And each Venue decides what they want to show. Thats ok if you can get accepted in one of two currently curated spaces. Good luck getting accepted anywhere else if your work is anti religious or sexual in nature.

So do your home work and make sure your not throwing away one 'gatekeeper' for another who you may find to be much worse.

LC Neill said...

I read András Szántó from Artworld Salon's article and comments, and I went to the ArtPrize site to see what all the hub was about. I've organized a few juried shows in the past, and no matter how fair and impartial you set the guidelines to be, someone always feels at a disadvantage.

I had to laugh on several occasions at András Szántó comments.
First, who is Laura Boyle? Is he trying to make a point here? It’s SUSAN Boyle.
Second, Yes there is a system in place for meritorious artists, but ArtPrize is well...different. It seems more like a huge opportunity for the entire community of GR to interact on a large scale with global arts and artists in their own backyard. Touche'. What community wouldn’t want that? Isn’t that (more audience participation) what museums and art organizations are clamoring to do? Maybe they should take note.
Third, stating that the artists who enter will most certainly not be qualified to make it in the "art-word big leagues" is extremely presumptuous. Who knows maybe they are already established? Would this contest deter a professional artist from entering?

I agree one exceptional work of art doesn’t make an artist, but that usually doesn’t happen overnight. It takes hard work and dedication to your craft to create something exceptional.

I have mixed feelings about the voting:
Happy to see the voting take place by looking at actual work in contrast to the way Saatchi does it online viewing and voting by everyone - that is simply an online popularity contest. Twitter, email and blog, about your art and watch the votes go up.
Not happy that local artists may have connections to prime venues, and of course voting from friends and family will likely increase their odds.

I guess they’ll just have to try it out and make adjustments. The guidelines are online and clearly stated. Each artist can determine if they want to participate or not.

Balhatain said...

Richard Kooyman said, “It doesn't matter to me if you feel the current professional art world is broken. But the thing you need to keep in mind is -what do you propose to replace it with.”

There is room for improvement. The current ‘professional art world’ does suffer from some problems concerning gender and age. Anyone who denies that is either part of the problem or oblivious to what has occurred.

It is not uncommon for an older artist to be suddenly replaced by a younger artist even if the older artist has sold well through the years-- you don’t see that happen with other professions and if you do those individuals have far more rights than a gallery represented artist.

Same goes for issues related to the sex of the artist-- do check out my interview with Sylvia Sleigh and Nancy Baker for some perspective.

Richard Kooyman said, “Rick Devos is receiving a half a million dollars from the Devos Foundation to fund ArtPrize. The Devos Foundation is one of the leading ultra conservative religious charitable organizations and a major donator to Californias Prop 8. Grand Rapids, Michigan is a very conservative, religious area.”

I’m not suggesting that key figures in the art world should be replaced by people who support those causes. Not sure if that is what you are trying to imply-- but if it is you are dead wrong sir. Various art groups and non-profits do need funding-- but not at the cost of being censored. Though one could suggest that the mainstream art world already involves a great deal of political censorship.

Just so you know, I was one of the first to speak out against Maureen Mullarkey over her Prop 8 contradiction. However, I will say that we should not view the ‘art world’ as ‘only liberal’ or ‘only conservative’-- if art reflects society I would think that both sides would be acknowledged and welcomed within the art world at least for the purpose of exhibiting.

We limit ourselves when we limit the public from being challenged by a visual messages

Richard Kooyman, “And what Rick Devos doesn't explain very well is that ArtPrize isn't "open to any artist" who wants to enter. It's open to any artists who can get a 'venue' to accept their work. Any property owner in the designated area of Grand Rapids can be a 'Venue". And each Venue decides what they want to show. Thats ok if you can get accepted in one of two currently curated spaces. Good luck getting accepted anywhere else if your work is anti religious or sexual in nature.”

I said that I prefer juried art competitions that have professional jurors. In fact, I said, “I prefer art competitions (both live and online) that involve a strong panel of jurors. That said, I don't think an artist is "desperate" if he or she decides to enter an art competition that is judged by the public.”.

My main issue here is that we have an individual calling artists “desperate” for taking part in an opportunity and the same individual basically suggests that online art competitions are worthless in general. What I don’t accept is the mindset that only a handful of people are ‘capable’ of understanding and writing about art or that only high profile gallery represented artists are valid. That is a very outdated mentality to have concerning art-- at least in my opinion.


Richard Kooyman, “So do your home work and make sure your not throwing away one 'gatekeeper' for another who you may find to be much worse”

I’ve done my homework. You appear to have missed several of my points.

As for your views-- The mainstream art world ‘gatekeeper’-- this, system-- we have now censors artists based on gender, age, and political viewpoint as it is. I’m not suggesting that we should trade one form of censorship for another-- though if that is what you are suggesting it reveals some interesting insight into your personality. Do you think in absolutes?

meika said...

The Resource Tip Shop has been running an anyone-can-enter Art From Trash exhibition with public voting for well over a decade (all run by the Resource Work Co-op in Hobart Tasmania).

Given the source materials the public tends to vote for sculptural pieces about the size of a large dog.

The "prize" is to be selected as the image for the next year's exhibition's promotional material.

Anonymous said...

If Andras Szanto wants to talk about desperation he should talk about the art galleries that spend $5,000 to $70,000 for booths at contemporary art fairs like Art Basel, SCOPE, and Pulse. That is clear desperation because they have to go where the collectors are because most of them obviously don't have a steady flow of collectors to sustain the market for the people they represent. That is desperation!

Most art dealers will tell you that the only reason to take part in art fairs is the fact that the two big auction houses have really been a thorn in their side. Christie's and Sotheby's are more of a threat to their jobs and "professionalism" than any online art competition. Talk about Andras!

Joe Force said...

Is Andros Szanto so full of himself to not realize that art is "for the people"? His elitist views are part of what keeps art away from the masses. Instead of embracing the chance for people to learn about art in an open and educational format, he turns up his nose in disgust at the thought of us regular folks enjoying art for arts sake.

Anonymous said...

Heaven forbid an unknown artist who has never been shown ends up being selected over someone the art snobs prefer. I really wish some of the big art names would enter ArtPrize so we can settle once and for all what the public really wants to view. If ArtPrize does this each year it is going to cause a power shift in art because those winners will probably use some of that cash to buy their way into the system.

richard kooyman said...

Balhatain,

I am not at all suggesting their isn't room for improvement in the professional art market. I'm suggesting one reconsider whether ArtPrize is in fact any improvement. The art world isn't always fair or democratic. Neither is life.

It's very simplistic to talk about the " public" as if everyone in that group is like minded. It is a myth that this "public" has been ostracized and kept from participating by the "gatekeepers" of art. No one keeps the public from getting involved in anything. We are free to go to shows, galleries, museums and establish our own opinions about anything and everything. The art world is filled with information to educate ourselves and pick and choose what we believe.

I am not at all saying that " only a hand full of people are capable of talking or writing about art".
But the fact remains to talk about or write about art intelligently depends on education. Not everyone in this happy group called "the public" is educated about art. Most are not even remotely concerned or interested in art.
Yet here in conservative, religious Grand Rapids ,Michigan we have one man who thinks a art competition should be solely judged by this group called "the public".
Maybe people in NYC or LA or wouldn't have a problem with that in their city. I might not even have a problem with that in those locations. But Grand Rapids is not NYC. And the public in GR bears little resemblance, on the whole, to the public in NYC. Yet here we have them picking the best art out of the bunch in what is being called the Largest art prize in the world.

That is not an improvement to the system.

Carl Wright said...

I have read both Andras' article and also read the ArtPrize prospectus. I have to take exception to Andras’ argument that all good judging comes from the anointed few that have always judged such affairs other than ArtPrize.

It must be a wonderful place in life to look down on all of your fellow human beings as being without any judgment when it comes to art and design. Your argument that the only ones to judge such affairs are ones that brought us Damian Hirst – “Shark In A Tank” and other such wonders. Somehow I think you need to be branded with the tag of elitist on your forehead and be shunned.

As to your argument that “Would we pick heart surgeons this way?” in a sense they are. Most people try to seek out the best most qualified surgeon they can. The process is a bit strained since the American College of Surgeons (which is a professional organization for Surgeons) does not tell you who is good or not. You have to find out this information through other sources and friends that have had operations before.

Next, “Second, we already have a system for recognizing meritorious artists, and it is frayed and economically challenged”. Would you propose that you and your elite companions that have run the art market off the road by sucking up to a few artists clean this up? That would have been like asking George Bush to stay for a third term and negate Obama’s election. Rick DeVos has the right and the opportunity to change the way things are done. Let him. Are you afraid that you will lose your job if he is successful? Then you would not get to tell people what to think. That would be troubling wouldn’t it?

“…it is almost certain that the artist identified through the ArtPrize will never make it into the art-world big leagues”. So what? Not make it into the big leagues so you can critique them? I am really sure that you and all the other critics would think that was a shame. Being in art – the making end not the criticizing end – is not about making it to the big time. That would be nice. The point is to make a living, pay the mortgage, and get on with your life. If the ArtPrize helps that process along so much the better. “…making into the art-world big leagues…” is only important to handicappers (think horse racing) and journalists needing a topic to write about. It is not that important to have the fame. The fortune would be great though, but not horrible if you did not win. It is important to journalists and other hangers-on to have someone with “fame” so that the journalists and other hangers-on can touch the anointed one and bask in the anointed ones fame.

“It relies on the kind of desperation that drives someone to audition for America’s Top Model, or to buy a lottery ticket.” Yes Andras, it is called a dream – something to hope for. I feel sorry for you that you do not have a dream and feel the need to tear down others who might like this opportunity.

On to the only downfall that I see with the ArtPrize – the $50 submission fee. I would think that to be totally fair, the fee should be a nominal $10 or so. Particularly since the burden of moving the artwork is on the artist, as is the insurance necessary to make sure that if the artwork is damaged that the artist is can be compensated.

Other than my one ArtPrize caveat, let Rick DeVos bring it on. See what he can do. And Andras, find something else to write about. Your article sounds a little whiney and paranid

Liz Afif said...

I agree with you completely Brian. It's the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" thing. Anyone in the established art world that feels threatened by alternative venues and opportunities must feel themselves a sham. None of these online competitions offer themselves in competition with the establishment, but as an alternative.
---
I also posted the following on facebook in response to Brian's post.
"It drives me crazy how people cling to art as an elitist thing. The current system is too small to accomodate the number of existing artists. Artists shouldn't have to get permission from the "art world" to be considered legitimate or to make a living as artists. We need to realize the power we have as individual artists. The emperor is naked damn it!"

Anonymous said...

To define Grand Rapids as a very conservative, religious area is to not know it very well. There are many outspoken religious conservatives in the community, but there are just as many, if not more, people who are liberal, open-minded and either atheist, agnostic or 'spiritual'. There is an area that is designated for the ArtPrize, which I believe is a 3 square mile area. Within that area are many progressive thinking establishments, especially in the Heartside area. All these venues need to do is apply to be part of ArtPrize and they can then exhibit anything they please and be included in the event. When the subject of censorship-before-the-fact comes up, I have to ask "Who is being censored". So far, no one has claimed they are being censored. When/if that happens, then discuss it, but to assume censorship will take place seems silly, at best.

richard kooyman said...

Balhatain,

I did not mean to imply that you needed to do your homework. If you took it that way I was not clear enough and apologize. I was suggesting to everyone to do their homework about ArtPrize, who is behind it and the type of city it is being held at. Because it is not the radically new and fresh approach to art marketing than your led to believe.

On a bit of a side note to Joe and some of you that seem to be so upset by anything that you deem as being 'elite'. Elite is a good thing. It is a word used to describe the talented, the best in a field. It is not something to make your enemy.

It is peoples natural tendency, it seems, to become offended when they feel left out of a loop or less than a part of something. Even more so when it comes to art, because people have been led to believe this little mythology that beauty resides in the mind of the beholder, that anyones opinion about art is just as good as the next since art is subjective. That simply isn't true. The truth is that anyone has the ability to access what is beautiful but not everyones minds are equal in knowledge, sensitivity or awareness. Some people are better at somethings than others. We accept that in almost every aspect of our society except art. And it gets us into trouble.
Art professionals are not your 'gatekeeper' to art. They are one of many different sources of information for your mind to use. Don't be afraid to enjoy them.

Balhatain said...

Richard Kooyman said, “I'm suggesting one reconsider whether ArtPrize is in fact any improvement. The art world isn't always fair or democratic. Neither is life.”

We have not seen the results yet. You never know, the public may surprise you. “The art world isn't always fair or democratic. Neither is life”-- yes, and the same can be said to the individuals who have been trashing ArtPrize from the get-go.

Seems to me that most of them are upset that such a huge amount of money is being spent in a way that they do not agree with.

Richard Kooyman said, “It's very simplistic to talk about the " public" as if everyone in that group is like minded. It is a myth that this "public" has been ostracized and kept from participating by the "gatekeepers" of art. No one keeps the public from getting involved in anything. We are free to go to shows, galleries, museums and establish our own opinions about anything and everything. The art world is filled with information to educate ourselves and pick and choose what we believe.”

Your view is a romantic view of art critics, art writers, curators, and artists at best. You will find that the mainstream art world is very political and that some individuals-- art writers, curators, and so on-- do indeed cater to public opinion-- or at least takes side with one shared public political view or the other.

Most of the art exhibits in New York City feature a very one-sided political agenda and the same can be said for almost every other major art hub throughout the world. I personally know of one Chelsea gallery owner who will not represent an artist if that artist has a different political view than he has regardless if that opinion is reflected in the artwork or not. Is that your idea of being professional? Is that an example of a "gatekeeper"? Maybe.

So yes, in that sense one could say that there are ‘gatekeepers’-- of specific ideas and attitudes. Since there is no balance of power-- even in public funded art venues-- you can end up with a very one-sided perspective. That said, since one can say that art is a reflection of the society it is created in-- well, you could say that those ‘gatekeepers’ have long halted a huge portion of the population from finding their visual voice at art exhibits.

Very few artists will reveal their political or religious views due to that-- unless their views happen to be embraced at that given time. You can say the same thing of the music and film industry. Thus, to suggest that political motives are not present in the mainstream art world is either a sign of ignorance or sign that one is not aware of his or her surroundings. There are ‘gatekeepers’ if you think about it.


Richard Kooyman said, “I am not at all saying that " only a hand full of people are capable of talking or writing about art". But the fact remains to talk about or write about art intelligently depends on education. Not everyone in this happy group called "the public" is educated about art. Most are not even remotely concerned or interested in art.”

If that is so what makes you think that they will rush out to vote on art in the first place? Has it crossed your mind that perhaps people who are knowledgeable of art will show up for the event?

The key point to remember is that people are people-- art critics are people as well. They have their tastes-- though informed by art history-- and the public has an opinion as well, each individual that is. A professional art critic has an educated opinion, but it still boils down to opinions that are personal to them as well as the influence of their peers-- or which gallery is buying ad space in the publication at any given time.

I think we need to get over the myth of the ‘Art Critic’-- the idea that they set their personal thoughts aside when writing about art. Art critics are not robots. Again, art criticism boils down to the opinion-- and influences-- of the individual no matter how educated he or she is.

Richard Kooyman said, “Yet here in conservative, religious Grand Rapids ,Michigan we have one man who thinks a art competition should be solely judged by this group called "the public". Maybe people in NYC or LA or wouldn't have a problem with that in their city. I might not even have a problem with that in those locations. But Grand Rapids is not NYC. And the public in GR bears little resemblance, on the whole, to the public in NYC. Yet here we have them picking the best art out of the bunch in what is being called the Largest art prize in the world.”

Richard, with all due respect it appears that you feel art is only for people who side with your political and social views. You are basically saying that the general public in NYC or LA would do a better job at judging art because chances are they are liberal rather than conservative-- atheist rather than Christian.

Yet on the ArtPrize blog you boldy claimed that “Art is not politics. Museums, critics, art writers, curators and most importantly, artists, do not exist to poll, placate and cater to public opinion.”. It appears to me that for you art is very much about politics.

Honestly, after reading your complaints and the complaints of others it would seem that people are mostly upset because the founder of ArtPrize is a conservative as well as a Christian-- lions, and tigers, and bear, O’ MY! Who cares? Why are you so concerned about that?

Speaking of myths-- can we drop the myth that dictates that all Christians and all conservatives are anti-art?

richard kooyman said...

Brian,
If you read closely, I said “ Art is not politics.” I never said nor implied that the art world isn’t political. I never said the art world isn’t at times a cruel, hard and even unfair business world. What is?

I also never said art critics are not people, like you and me. I never said art critics and writers don’t have personalities, egos, biases, and opinions. What I did say was that art critics, art writers, and curators have opinions that at the very least have some knowledge of art history, art trends, art fads, and the art market in general. Their opinions differ vastly from the person on the street who may never go to an art museum, read art history or bother to include art to enrich their lives. And their opinions differ even that more vastly from the person on the streets of GR compared to NYC. Not because of religious reason, (holy cow where did you grab that idea) but because of a exposure to a wider range of art that exists in cities like NYC and LA.

The issue, in my mind, isn’t who has opinions. The issue is who has INFORMED opinions.

And finally, since you brought up the subject, the issue of ArtPrize being funded by the Devos Foundation is a serious and real concern for all artists. This Foundation that is sponsoring ArtPrize was a major donator in fighting the rights of gay and lesbian people by Sponsoring Proposition 8, as well as donating to ultra conservative causes around the country.
This is a serious issue. And all artists will have to personally ask themselves whether to accept prize money from a organization that clearly works against the true spirit of art, which is, freedom of ideas.

Balhatain said...

Richard said, “If you read closely, I said “ Art is not politics.” I never said nor implied that the art world isn’t political.”

No, you said, “Art is not politics. Museums, critics, art writers, curators and most importantly, artists, do not exist to poll, placate and cater to public opinion.”. Which implies that museums, critics, art writers, curators, and yes, even artists-- are not political or do not focus on one set of viewpoints that are in favor within the art world itself.

That said, if you have been to NYC at all you will know that galleries do tend to cater to public opinion-- or at least one perspective of public opinion. It is rare to find a different point of view in that respect. The same goes for many museums throughout the country.

Richard said, “I also never said art critics are not people, like you and me. I never said art critics and writers don’t have personalities, egos, biases, and opinions. What I did say was that art critics, art writers, and curators have opinions that at the very least have some knowledge of art history, art trends, art fads, and the art market in general.”

No, you fed into the myth that art critics place their personal opinions aside. My point is that art criticism-- be it from a person on the street or a mainstream art critic-- boils down to personal opinion.

True, the art critic is more informed, I made that clear, but it still boils down to his or her influences, personal viewpoint, and blunt opinion regardless of what he or she has studied.

Richard said, “And their opinions differ even that more vastly from the person on the streets of GR compared to NYC. Not because of religious reason, (holy cow where did you grab that idea) but because of a exposure to a wider range of art that exists in cities like NYC and LA.”

No, you implied that the people of GR are less capable of understanding art because they are “conservative” and “religious” compared to NYC or LA. I’m simply pointing out that you are making wide generalizations about people based on where they live, their choice of faith, and where they stand on social issues.

Richard said, “The issue, in my mind, isn’t who has opinions. The issue is who has INFORMED opinions.”

As I’ve said, I prefer art competitions that involve jurors from prestigious museums and galleries. That said, I don’t know why so many people are so upset that the public is judging the ArtPrize competition.

That is what puzzles me-- why should it matter? It is an opportunity for artists. I don’t think ArtPrize is claiming to find the next Warhol. They have made it clear that they are not trying to replace art critics. They are just offering another opportunity for artists. More power to the winners as far as I’m concerned.

Richard said, “And finally, since you brought up the subject, the issue of ArtPrize being funded by the Devos Foundation is a serious and real concern for all artists. This Foundation that is sponsoring ArtPrize was a major donator in fighting the rights of gay and lesbian people by Sponsoring Proposition 8, as well as donating to ultra conservative causes around the country.”

Actually you were quick to point that out on the ArtPrize blog. That is why I suggest that the only reason you, András Szántó, and others are against ArtPrize is due to that fact alone. Would you be so vocal if ArtPrize had been founded by an Obama supporter?

That is exactly why I say the art world is full of one-sided politics. Key figures in the art world get upset when a conservative enters their walled garden. What is so wrong with a conservative Republican showing interest in the arts? The key point to remember is that the winners will no doubt have time to focus on their art more after winning that prize. It is not like they are going to change their personal views after winning it.

You are making generalizations again about artists, art critics, art writers, curators, and gallery owners. Do you honestly believe that they all embrace every idea supported by the Democrat party? One could say that a large portion does based on the themes we see time and time again in art exhibits throughout the country-- but there is also a silent minority within the art world who tip toe around the issues they would like to explore with their work simply because if they did they know they would never land a major exhibit. There is no balance. No equal ground for opinions. There is extreme censorship if you think about it.

Richard said, “This is a serious issue. And all artists will have to personally ask themselves whether to accept prize money from a organization that clearly works against the true spirit of art, which is, freedom of ideas.”

Funny that you would say “freedom of ideas”-- as I’ve pointed out, many ideas are censored in the mainstream art world. They are not given the chance to be explored. How many pro-life themed exhibits have you seen in NYC, LA, or major museums throughout the country? How many politically themed art exhibits have you seen that point out the flaws of Democrat politicians? How many exhibits have you seen that are honestly supportive of service men and women who make our freedom of expression possible in the first place? Where are those ideas?

At any given time it is safe to say that 40% to 50% of the population is interested in those ideas-- but they are rarely represented. With that in mind, think about how many of those exhibits benefit from tax payers even though they tend to only acknowledge one set of viewpoints instead of presenting the public with a balanced visual experience that establishes dialogue on key issues.

True, there is censorship coming from both sides of the aisle and our liberty is in the balance. Both sides have done wrong-- both have made huge mistakes-- does that mean we should question someone when they try to do something that is good?

richard said...

I think you need to change your blog description to include the words ' the premier venue for ultra conservative Christian contemporary art".

Balhatain said...

Richard, (I assume this is the same Richard?) myartspace.com is open to a wide range of opinions that are represented visually. Artists choose what to upload and are able to have their visual message seen.

Unlike you, some of us are able to set our social viewpoints and political opinions aside in order to see art as a form of communication that is vital to our collective cultural dialogue. I may not agree with the viewpoints of some of the artists on the site, but that does not stop me from investigating their work further.

We have featured art that was critical of George Bush during his presidency and we have featured art that explores different religions, including Christianity. For the interview series I have interviewed Sylvia Sleigh, Vito Acconci, D*Face, Cleon Peterson, Craig Hawkins, Susan Crile, Sarah Maple, Wafaa Bilal among many others-- hundreds of artists-- a wide range of viewpoints are open to debate.

When political and religious viewpoints are restricted it is one step closer to all of us being silenced. I’m simply pointing out that you are obviously, based on your words, content with certain artists being censored if they don’t accept the viewpoints that you have. You are defining artists by which side of the political aisle they happen to be on-- you are making assumptions about how all artists should think and what they should believe. That happened once in Germany.

You are more far-right than you realize my friend. Based on your words-- your mass generalizations of people based on where they live and what they believe-- I would say that you are a bigot. Excuse me for shooting holes in your facade. I can't help it if you opened yourself to contradictions.

Jackdaw said...

Since politics came up I do have to speak up for the most recent chairman of the NEA, the Republican Dana Gioia, who in the past eight years managed to distribute NEA dollars to programs in every single congressional district. Before Gioia, about a quarter of them didn't receive funding.

Lets not forget that the damage to art funding happened under a Democrat controlled Congress. They could have stopped it. People forget that. If you do some research you will find that more Democrat governors have cut art funding in recent years than Republican governors. The idea that all Republicans are anti-art is bigotry and I'm so glad you pointed that out!

Anonymous said...

I'm shocked that this is so much fuss over this competition. People in the United States have the right to spend their money however they please as long as it is legal. If Rick DeVos wants to use his resources in this way so be it. The people saying that he should have donated the money to existing programs is frankly stupid. They should be glad that someone as wealthy as DeVos is giving something back to the art community. I've read the Andras rant and I'm surprised that he would speak out against an opportunity like this. Andras comes off as a spoiled elitist who thinks only of himself and his position. Why does he think that this online art competition will turn the art world upside down unless he is worried that the internet is changing the landscape of the art world. If that happens so be it. It won't be the first industry to change because of the internet. The music industry changed and the film industry is quickly changing because of the net. It is futile to think that the art industry, market, or whatever you want to call it, can ward off the power of the internet forever. For the guy ranting about art critics I hope you know that many of the people who paved the way for art criticism did not have a degree. They studied art on their own time. You should also know that most of the artists who paved the way for art as we know it today were religious in their own right. Kandinsky, Picasso, Kollwitz, Pollock. Andy Warhol was an Orthodox Christian. The idea that artists are all anti-religion is a direct result of Serrano's Piss Christ and the controversy it caused. Serrano is a former Catholic who still considers himself a Christian. Christianity has influenced contemporary art more than any other religion. Put that in your pipe.

Richard Kooyman said...

It has been said that Art is some kind of search for the truth. We talk abut Art in an attempt to uncover what that search is about.

It is possible that there are ultra conservative right- wing artists in the world. I have a very hard time getting my head around that notion but it's possible. And I suppose it is possible there are ultra right wing Foundations in this country, like The Devos Foundation, that simply want to support the arts. It's possible. But then it is also possible that those people have other motives behind them. In the search for truth, In a true dialogue, one should be willing to be open to considering that possibility.

If someone could digest this now rather lengthy discussion down to the one basic difference between Balhatain and I, it would be this..... When talking about the search for truth=ART, I see and value the difference between an informed personal opinion and a uninformed personal opinion.
Balhatain doesn't seem to agree when he says....

"My point is that art criticism-- be it from a person on the street or a mainstream art critic-- boils down to personal opinion."

To Balhatian it doesn't matter whether the person making a comment or a judgement about ART is a critic, a enthusiastic art patron or Joe the Plumber. He believes it's just all personal opinions equal in value. That is a big difference in how one visions their world.

And do we really want that kind of world? Do we, in fact, really have that kind of world?

What other field of knowledge exists that a laymen's point of view holds just as much weight as someone who is educated in the profession? Do we say that about science, medicine, finance? We don't even do that with the most subjective belief system in the world-religion. We look to experts, knowledgeable persons, trained workers, Rabi's, for guidance. Why then do we not insist on doing that with ART?
Well, thankfully, we do. Or we do everywhere in the professional art world other than in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

If you really do believe that Art is or should simply boil down to personal opinion and be a popularity contest, as ArtPrize suggests it should be, then all of a sudden, presto- magic Dan Brown becomes a better writer than John Updike and Vin Diesel is a more skilled actor than Michael Cain. And if Balhatain can just get his 40%-50% of the America people who he says have been under served by the current art world system- if he can just get that percentage up to over 51% then he'll have the majority vote and finally the people can speak out and they can clean out MOMA of all that crap and get some sports figure portraits and NASCAR memorabilia in a big fancy NYC Museum where it belongs.

In the search for truth no one would want a world like that.

Balhatain said...

Richard said, “It's possible. But then it is also possible that those people have other motives behind them”

Richard my point is that you can say the same thing about the ultra liberal left-wing side of the art world. It is tit for tat my friend. As far as that goes it is obvious that one side has long censored the other.

Richard said, “When talking about the search for truth=ART, I see and value the difference between an informed personal opinion and a uninformed personal opinion.
Balhatain doesn't seem to agree when he says.… "My point is that art criticism-- be it from a person on the street or a mainstream art critic-- boils down to personal opinion."


First off, my name is Brian Sherwin. I’ve been called an art critic among other things. Yes, it does boil down to personal opinion even if it is an informed opinion. Art critic David Lee or any of the other art critics I’ve interviewed will tell you that.

Put your myths about art critics aside. Art critics have their likes and dislikes-- for example, if an art critic does not accept conceptual art it is doubtful that he or she will write anything positive about Damien Hirst even if he or she knows that Hirst’s work is backed by certain aspects of art history.

Richard said, “To Balhatian it doesn't matter whether the person making a comment or a judgement about ART is a critic, a enthusiastic art patron or Joe the Plumber. He believes it's just all personal opinions equal in value. That is a big difference in how one visions their world.”

Did I not say that I prefer competitions that involve professional jurors? My point in all of this is that YOU and others should not be so worked up over an opportunity for artists that involves public voting. It is just an opportunity-- it is not going to turn the art world upside down as you seem to think.

Richard said, “What other field of knowledge exists that a laymen's point of view holds just as much weight as someone who is educated in the profession? Do we say that about science, medicine, finance”

I’ve already stressed the point that I prefer art competitions that involve professional jurors. However, I hope that you realize that the public does have a say in science and medicine based on elected politicians and other ways that allow them to voice their opinions. Also, when it comes to medical issues, finance, and business in general the general public can report their concerns easily. We don't necessarily have that with art.

So if you want to go that route I will play Devil's advocate. One could say that art needs to catch up-- perhaps the public should have a way to voice their opinions about specific exhibits in spaces that receive funding from tax payers? Perhaps they should be able to demand specific exhibits as well in those spaces so that there is more balance?

Richard said, "And if Balhatain can just get his 40%-50% of the America people who he says have been under served by the current art world system- if he can just get that percentage up to over 51% then he'll have the majority vote and finally the people can speak out and they can clean out MOMA of all that crap and get some sports figure portraits and NASCAR memorabilia in a big fancy NYC Museum where it belongs."

There you go with your generalizations again. That raises your bigot score to rank 3 my friend. :) I'm not the one with the extreme angle-- I'm simply pointing out the need for balance.

When tax payers are obligated to fund exhibits that trash one political party or one way of life it is only fair to provide exhibits that explore the flaws of each party and every way of life. True? Or maybe the public should be able to have more of say on how their specific contribution is used to support art?

How can the truth be found if specific views are constantly censored within the mainstream art world and by public funded museum curators? Something to think about.

Balhatain said...

Also, if you think the current art world 'system' is so perfect, as Andras pointed out, than I guess you are OK with the fact that artists who happen to be female are often treated differently than artists who happen to be male? I guess you are OK with the fact that artists who happen to be male tend to be exhibited more often in museums and galleries?

Furthermore, I guess you are OK with the fact that artists who are not white find it hard to exhibit unless the exhibit focuses on their ethnic background? I guess you are OK with the fact that older artists are often cast aside for younger artists who have no where near the same level of professional experience? Does that happen in other 'professions' without justice knocking on the door? I guess you would be OK being chosen for an exhibit over Melanie Parke simply because you are a strapping white lad? Wait though... how old are you?

To get back to the main debate-- there is room for change in the art world. You are using ArtPrize as a distraction from the real topics at hand-- just as Andras has done. ArtPrize should be the least of your worries concerning the art world. Unless you happen to be a bigot.

Whole Lotta CheeK said...

Charles Saatchi is a big voice in contemporary art as well as a longtime conservative Tory. There are rumors that Tracey Emin has switched to the Tory party. Just because someone is conservative does not mean that they are against art nor does it mean they support every idea presented by conservative political parties.

Kooyman's conspiracy theory about DeVos having a hidden agenda is utter rubbish and libel. Zsanto reads like a moron to boot. What would the art market be without capitalism? There would be no galleries in Chelsea if it were not for capitalism.

Richard Kooyman said...

I don’t believe any open dialogue about art needs to break down into name calling.

I think it would help the discussion if you could focus your attention a little more on the facts of what I actually do say and a little less on your personal explanation of what you think I am implying.

It is better to ask a question about a point that you may not fully understand, rather than run the risk of interpreting it incorrectly.

Balhatain said...

Richard, do you mean my comment about how you are walking a fine line of bigotry? Would it be better if I said that you are? The prejudice you have against conservatives and Christians is obvious-- so are the contradictions.

You imply that every conservative and Christian thinks the same-- as in the way you think that they think or should think. Take a look at some of the statements you have made on the Myartspace Blog followed by my thoughts on your statements.

“Rick Devos is receiving a half a million dollars from the Devos Foundation to fund ArtPrize. The Devos Foundation is one of the leading ultra conservative religious charitable organizations and a major donator to Californias Prop 8. Grand Rapids, Michigan is a very conservative, religious area.”

(So Christians and conservatives are not capable of supporting or understanding contemporary art?)

“So do your home work and make sure your not throwing away one 'gatekeeper' for another who you may find to be much worse.”

(I thought you said there were no “gatekeepers”).

“It's very simplistic to talk about the " public" as if everyone in that group is like minded. It is a myth that this "public" has been ostracized and kept from participating by the "gatekeepers" of art. No one keeps the public from getting involved in anything.”

(But I thought you were concerned that one “gatekeeper” is being replaced by another?)

“Yet here in conservative, religious Grand Rapids ,Michigan we have one man who thinks a art competition should be solely judged by this group called "the public". Maybe people in NYC or LA or wouldn't have a problem with that in their city. I might not even have a problem with that in those locations. But Grand Rapids is not NYC. And the public in GR bears little resemblance, on the whole, to the public in NYC. Yet here we have them picking the best art out of the bunch in what is being called the Largest art prize in the world.”

(I guess conservatives, religious people, and people from Grand Rapids are not capable of understanding art, eh? You were born in Grand Rapids, correct? :) )

“And their opinions differ even that more vastly from the person on the streets of GR compared to NYC. Not because of religious reason, (holy cow where did you grab that idea) but because of a exposure to a wider range of art that exists in cities like NYC and LA.”

(Where did I get that crazy idea? Hmmmm.)

“I think you need to change your blog description to include the words ' the premier venue for ultra conservative Christian contemporary art".”

(Holy cow where did you grab that idea? How much time have you spent on this blog?)

“It is possible that there are ultra conservative right- wing artists in the world. I have a very hard time getting my head around that notion but it's possible. And I suppose it is possible there are ultra right wing Foundations in this country, like The Devos Foundation, that simply want to support the arts. It's possible. But then it is also possible that those people have other motives behind them.”

(Time to wear tin foil hats.)

“And all artists will have to personally ask themselves whether to accept prize money from a organization that clearly works against the true spirit of art, which is, freedom of ideas.”

(Freedom of ideas… hmmm… I would say that the contributions the DeVos family provides for causes they support happens to be a perfect expression of the concept of freedom. It is their choice. Welcome to America.)

This debate has been fun, but you can't flip-flop after making statements like this. If I have insulted you I am sorry, but you have insulted millions of people with just a few words. There is a middle ground in everything my friend.

I'm not suggesting that I agree with every opinion DeVos has from a political standpoint. I was one of the first to call out artist Maureen Mullarkey over her Prop 8 support and the contradictions of her work due to that. However, his personal views should not hold people back from the opportunity he has made possible for artists.

As the comment mentions above, Charles Saatchi is a conservative-- does that mean the art of Damien Hirst is no longer valid? Is his work ultra conservative Christian contemporary art? Should the museums that were opened due to Republican contributions-- many were-- be closed? Was Warhol a right-winger? He must have been because he considered himself a Christian, right? How extreme do you want to be?

I think you have good intentions. However, you can't generalize about people based on their faith, where they live, or who they vote for. Life is not so simple.

Christi Nielsen said...

Richard - yawn
That's my personal opinion. And it's informed.

Shelley Esaak said...

Brian, I think your original post had to do with outside tsk-tsk-ing of ArtPrize because the unwashed, under informed teeming masses will be granted powers of art criticism. To which concept I say, "Great!"

What is so dangerous about letting every Tom, Dick and Harry voice their opinions about art? It's art, not nuclear fission. We who truly care about the visual arts should make every effort to involve people who've been intimidated by The Art World. I notice no one ever has any qualms about holding their hands out for arts funding or membership drives--or expensive subscriptions to a few periodicals--but, God forbid we should have to listen to "ignorant" opinions!

Wouldn't it be more...congenial...and, possibly, less petty...for critics to let ArtPrize play out its inaugural round and see where it goes, rather than jump on it with both feet preemptively?

In regards to Grand Rapids, I take issue with its being tarred with a broad political/religious brush in previous comments. I lived there for 25 years; it is not a universally right-wing, conservative city, and we don't always have to politicize *every* issue. Why not take the far view, where the State of Michigan just slashed nearly all arts funding, Michigan is struggling overall, and "any publicity is good publicity?"

Finally, I don't give a damn what the De Vos Foundation chooses to support. Yes, they are an ultra-conservative family, but it's their money. Key phrase: their money. No one bitched when the De Vos family built hospital wings, funded scholarships or helped build the new art museum, so no one is entitled to bitch now as a third-generation De Vos sponsors a visual art competition.

bronwen hyde said...

I just read through all the comments and it's an interesting debate.

Personally, not being from the US, the political aspect of something like ArtPrize doesn't come into this for me.

Prior to reading the comments here, I think I may have heard the name DeVos before but his name didn't mean anything specifically to me.

As an artist, if I'd heard about the prize and read the entry conditions, prize details, etc., and decided it was something I was interested in entering, I'd have done so without really looking closely into who was behind it.

As an artist seeing many opportunities at different levels both through local and international galleries and through online avenues, my decision on participating in these opportunities mainly come down to whether it's practical, affordable, what the incentives are (prizes / exposure) and whether I have suitable work if the competition / award is themed.

However, despite not being in the US, the Proposition 8 situation is something I was made aware of when it happened and is something that saddened me greatly.

So, on the one hand, on principal I might take issue with the DeVos involvement in all that and waver about my decision to enter; but in the end if the opportunity, the prize money and the exposure would outweigh my concerns, and given that I don't imagine that winning the prize would force me to change my political, social, sexual or religious beliefs, then I would go ahead and enter.

Case in point: I've been a Nikon user since I got my first SLR, but I have entered competitions run by Canon. For me there would be a certain satisfaction in winning a prize from a manufacturer I don't use and selling the prize off to buy Nikon equipment ;o)

Belittling artists because they take an opportunity, irrespective of who is offering it, seems very much a power play on the part of art critics. Putting us artists back in our place: "You just create the art, we decide whether it's good or not".

Online art competitions, juried or not, are great tools for self-promotion for those emerging artists like myself who do not have gallery representation and who live far from the cultural hubs of NYC, London, etc., etc.

I personally prefer juried prizes, etc., as aside from anything else, gaining exposure of my work to those working in the galleries, magazines and publishers I would like to have my work showcased in is more important to me.

And for the most part, I dislike competitions or awards that rely heavily on public voting outside of a sideline "people's choice award". Many corporate sponsors simply run online art / photo competitions purely as a way of building a mailing list and garnering free images for advertising purposes; and to avoid any effort and additional expense on their part, they decide the winner purely on public voting. To me that's lazy and cheap and doesn't warrant the time and effort of an artist to enter.

That's not to say that I have an issue with the general public's opinion vs an art critic or art industry opinion, but a) if I'm going to take the time (and spend the money) to enter something, I want it to be to my advantage in terms of exposure to those who may wish to represent me, publish me or buy my work; and b) most of the voters in this type of situation are voting out of allegiance to a friend or family member who has entered, irrespective of whether their work is the best, or in fact, even good. Too many times I have seen cliched and amateur work, or even snapshots of a child or pet, win these sorts of things, just purely because that entrant knows 400 people who have the time and energy to vote.

On a side note: in regard to Brian's comments about discrimination against artists in respect to gender, age and colour, there is also a decided discrimination against photographers in most of the art world. Whether it be in terms of gallery representation, awarding of prizes, or what have you.