Public apology needed?

I was at a reception for a museum group show where five of my original paintings were included. Someone remarked to me that my brush strokes weren’t visible. I’m not a fan of thick paint and I do a lot of “shading and fading,” in fact, I take great pains to NOT let my brushstrokes be visible–just part of my painting style. In my opinion brush strokes are over-rated, though it would never have occurred to me anyone would try to pass off a giclee as a watercolor or some similar subterfuge!

I am 100% in favour of artists being questioned as to their methods when a jury has a query about a work. However I do feel that doing such questioning in public – in front of others who are not part of the jury process – is wholly inappropriate.

Now this is a touchy subject. What about all those artists who project images onto canvases and then colour them in, or trace, or use a grid to get the proportions of their subject right, or a camera obscura, for that matter? Is that all genuine stuff, or are we already in the realms of creative reproduction? We live in a world where copying, faking etc. are possible with unbelievable accuracy thanks to modern technology. As a juror I think I’d be very suspicious of hyper-realism, but not just because of lack of impasto or conspicuous brush strokes. You can take a giclée and add a few signs of a painting having been produced “properly”. And I agree with Katherine. Questioning an artist should and can be done privately before an artwork is hung. Surely it’s in the juror’s interest not to be embarrassed by such undignified scenes. How many competitors have ordered their entries from Asian painting factories? Those paintings are often entirely “genuinely” handicrafted and available to buy ten a penny via the internet and certainly without any questions being asked. Or the Bob Ross creations I see at amateur shows where an audience can be expected not to know how the paintings originated… and maybe elsewhere with some crafty editing. Yes, art galleries fall for them, too. I don’t think there’s a complete solution to the problem. It’s a mistake to believe that all artists are ethically sound, any more than all medical doctors are! One possible solution might be to require every artist to include a catalogue of work with the provisor that any of the artworks included would be available for closer examination. That might at least reveal the way the artist works and the likelihood of a painting being genuine. Or it might act as a deterrent!

Thanks Mike for confirming my worst suspicions. One question: Is hyper-realism possible without photos or other technical aids?

As an artist who paints in a realistic style with no exaggerated brush stokes, this letter was an eye opener for me. It never occurred to me that anyone might think I was faking it simply because I love painting realistic details. Any suggestions as to how a person can avoid this suspicion without compromising their style?

I too, believe that questioning the artist should always be done in private. Artists are just that, ‘artists’ (and may be used to critiques by the time they are good enough for a show), but should not be expected to field last minute cross-examinations at gala receptions in front of friends, families, employers, and patrons like a criminal suspect. This alone could cast doubt on and devalue an artist’s work at the most damaging time possible. Perhaps all entry forms should have a space for the artist to describe style and technique; followed by a paragraph stating that the artist may be called for more detailed information, or to show examples of other work. A judges choice of wording and explanation leading up to the questions can make the world of difference as well.

Здравствуйте! Вероятно, придется вызвать нотариуса, и снимать весь процесс живописи на видео)) Куда катиться этот мир?

I say this an artist and, on occasion a juror. Art is subjective.  As an example, three different sets of jurors would choose completely different artists for the same exhibit. The first thing to learn is “Don’t take it personally.”  This is the business side of art.  Our goal is to keep it separate from the passion that drives us to make art.

I agree with Oxana….I think!

On two occasions I met up with artists faking it; the first was at a peoples choice exhibition where a local photographer took one of his images, reproduced it in photoshop with “Paint Daubs” to make it look like a realistic painting and printed it on canvas and framed it. He was upset when I put a note beside the image stating this was a photograph on canvas and ripped the note down. I asked him why he wanted to fool people into thinking it was a painting and his answer was “Win at any cost”. The second was at an art festival where a young artist was showing portraits of people that were amazing. Through questioning his process I discovered that he took photographs, blew them to a large formatted size in greyscale and then painted over them. Technically he did the work but where is the pride of mastery here? My struggle to be a better artist includes learning to draw and paint the subject to the degree we can recognize it as what it is. I guess my real pieve is that this type of trickery takes away from those that struggle for excellence by their own hand.

The line between what is ‘acceptable’ as a tool to help an artist, and what is ‘trickery’, or even worse ‘forgery’, is very fuzzy and grey. Using a grid for example is a time-honoured method of reproducing a drawing or photo. Tracing with a lightbox or a projector is also commonly done, the argument being that, as long as you are tracing your own photograph (the composition is your own), you are simply speeding up the process, since after all, you still have to paint the thing. It is a painting, not a drawing. In the case of printing a photo on a canvas and painting over it, as long as it is your own photo, and you cover every part of that photo with opaque paint, is it still not a painting? If you should cover that photo with glazes where the actual photo’s shading, etc. are still visible, then that would make it a colourized photo. So where is the line between acceptable tools and trickery? Not always easy to tell. Of course, using someone else’s work as a base is never OK. But there again, with the Internet, one does research and finds a lot of material as ‘reference’, it’s sometimes difficult to then produce ‘original’ work from such reference, and not simply copy the Internet photo. You can adjust the Internet photo and change it, but how much change does it take so it’s no longer a copy of someone else’s work. (Surely, not every person who paints elephants, or tigers, has actually stood in front of the animal to take their own photo.) Fuzzy, grey, obscure line, if you ask me.

To whomever this artist (female) was… boo hoo boo hoo… I hate to break it to you all- but every single artist on the planet should- even has to- be able to stand up in public under any and all sets of circumstances and defend/explain their own work. Period. End of discussion. If you can’t stand the heat- get out of the kitchen. Sooner or later, especially where you are entering juried exhibits, somebody somewhere is going to question you and/or even challenge you on something. You can’t handle that? boo hoo boo hoo Nobody will like all of your work all of the time, and somebody is going to want to know how you did it. If that hurts your feelings- you need to ask yourself why you are doing what you are doing.

I would welcome a juror’s questions-I would know they are truly interested in my work and how it was rendered. There are a lot of “tricks” to do art now and one must be 100% ethical if entering shows.

I’d seen the work of one local painter often. Sizes varied, but it was generally ink and watercolor, or watercolor. One thing perplexed me– well, two actually: Why, when the coloration was adequate and the drawing was good, was his signature (of block printing) so raggedly from work to work. Then someone told me she’d attended a local vo-tech drawing course to learn projection techniques, and he was in the class. Over the years his adequate coloration has become decent. The drawing is about the same, but as my eye improves I see the signs of projection. I don’t have any problem with drawing aids per se, but I wish he’d learn how to make a decent signature, or copy his best efforts.

I totally agree, that is why we have judges!

Use of tracing, projection, and painting copies derived from photographs should be stated in the artists entry. Provide checkboxes on the entry for the categories. Include: Completely freehand, basic grid, trace, paint-by-number… Categories can be judged with similar methods. What bully made a rule that every artist must endure inappropriate timing for scrutiny. Every person has the right to be treated professionally, and with dignity. If contenders are expected to make a statement, then all should be asked ahead of time, and shouldn’t be singled out at the last minute. An ego-driven pontificator or insecure competitor could use a public opportunity like that to devalue legitimate quality.

I know only too well the hazards of some jurying. I was chairman of awards for AWS and was fooled with an entry labeled original watermedia, when in fact it was an ink jet print of two separate photographers work combined. The technology of today’s e-world certainly has hazards to striving artists today. As jurors, we are now forced to question works submitted for authenticity of source and process. A sad comment of our times.

What about being asked those questions? Photographing your work as you progress through the different stages of your painting. Having witnesses to the actual painting process of painting. Painting and doing demonstrations. And people who see the completed work both in person or viewing jpegs refuse to believe that they are real paintings painted manually, by hand. What do you do or say? What can you do?

I wasn’t there, but if insinuations were made in public after the fact I think the jury was remiss in not questioning before they made their decision. We’re not talking about what “is normal” in the profession we are talking about kindness to fellow human beings.

The creation of paintings should never be a contest.

Inquiries are best made in private. We had a painter copy a National Geographic picture and submit to a show — when questioned (privately) he said “yes, I copied it from a magazine”. I asked if he could replace it with an original, and he said: “I have a painting of an African prince”… Were you in Africa? Did you take the picture? “Well, er, no.” End of discussion. I wish jurors would make a quick comment if they reject a picture, such as “confusing light source” — just so you have a clue as to why your entry was rejected.

You are correct in your answer to this lady. I have been in shows and have walked away with everything and then not a thing. Who am I anyway to think to be above.

I just watched the judge (a nationally known artist and instructor) in a local pastel society competition award “Best of Show” to a painting which was rejected from another local pastel club’s juryied show. Which just goes to prove how different juror opinions can be.

Competitions are best entered in an effort to measure your progress as an artist in relation to others. Judges always have a personal bias, as they should, so never take judgment as a criticism of your passion. Your passion is what drives your art, not the evaluation of its success. Never let a judge touch that passion. Take the words with a grain of salt and move forward!

You’ve given a very good response. The super-realistic artist should have looked at the questioning as opportunity — a forum to have people understand her work and methods better. If the artist teaches classes or gives demos, this can mentioned, too. If an artist’s work is photographic-looking, they should expect to be questioned. If it were me, I would post a YouTube video of me just to be more transparent.

I understand the thought process of the jury and certainly agree that it is the jury’s responsibility to question any technique for its authenticity. I do want to bring you to task for not assuring that your inquiry remained private. This speaks to the lack of integrity of the jury and its process. Your investigation should have never been allowed to leak out. Since a thief will always try to cheat, it makes sense that in a professional competition an expert should always be present to make clear and unbiased assessments of the authenticity of any work of art. Clearly, this is the duty of the jury who must be held to the same high standard as is expected of the artists. As an artist I have observed that creative people are often sensitive and passionate people. As a nurse I know that to mock any person for crying and being upset is to ignore his or her basic humanity. In any case, the question of this artist’s honesty will follow her for the rest of her life. It will certainly effect her ability to make a living. If she is innocent, you have done her a grave disservice.

I used to work in-house as a greeting card illustrator, and naturally we looked at our competitions’ products all the time. Hallmark, of course, was very influential to us. Some years after I left the greeting card job, I ended up in an annual juried, somewhat prestigious show in Pennsylvania, though I won’t say where. ( A fellow artist who lived there convinced me to be in it.) I didn’t go to the show after it was up, because I live a long way away. My friend brought me a catalog of the show when he came to visit. Flipping through the catalog, I saw a piece that was a copy of a Hallmark card (the card was better!). There was absolutely no mistaking it- it was a picture of cute mice dressed up in Victorian costumes, having tea. I had seen it numerous times at my job because the art director liked it and used it a lot for reference. All I could do was laugh, but I’m still amazed that someone would do that.

Any chance the questioning could have taken place in a more private setting? I don’t mind answering questions about my work; however in my experience as a juror, we usually have taken the artist to one side to make any inquiries.

What bugs me is that there is not enough integrity out there. I have seen paintings, which I saw were done in a workshop, entered into a juried show. Artists who are conducting workshops should start the workshop out with a little discussion on this subject.

Some artists are like little children, thinking whatever they produce is a masterpiece. One has to be critical of one’s own work and be honest about it. Let it sit for a few days and go back with “new eyes”. I’ve often found “what was I thinking? ” places and changed for the better.

You’re absolutely right, Robert, to point out the difficulties with which jurors are faced. As an infrequent juror and curator myself, I’m a busy sculptor who understand the difficulties from both sides. Committees and jurors have artistic and moral responsibilities and in that light, any juror or group of jurors worth their salt should have had the good sense to contact the artist prior to the opening. If they were unable to reach the artist, they should have had the courage to bite the bullet and made the decision to withhold the questionable piece from the exhibition. Period. Interrogating an artist during an awards ceremony is an unconscionable procedural faux pas with possible legal ramifications, as well as being potentially damaging to the reputation of the gallery itself. While this committee does not owe an apology to the artist for questioning the work per se, they certainly must make amends for doing so at an inappropriate time and causing her public embarrassment. I’m siding with the artist.

Several years ago I started doing the critiques for our plein air summer painting group. Since some of the people are as good if not better painters than I am and it was difficult to know just how much and what to say about their paintings. I finally decided to be more of a facilitator to the process. We have an understanding that negative comments are out and constructive comment are in. In other words, what’s good about the painting and what could make it better, not to mention what could make you grow as an artist. I am always evaluating myself as to how well this helps people improve and grow as an artist. We also share new techniques, materials, shows to see, etc. I am a firm believer in practice and try to encourage everyone to paint as often as they can. I suppose my main goal for the critique is to encourage each person in the group to enjoy painting so much that they want to keep painting and growing as an artist. Putting your work up in front of your peers takes some courage and I don’t want to abuse that trust. I feel that the friends I paint with are all becoming so much better as painters from year to year. It has been rewarding to be along with them in this journey. I would appreciate any suggestions or comments you might have about the process of critiquing artwork in a group.

Tough one. The jurors have no need to apologize for questioning the artist about production method and technique – they were only doing their job. But the fact that she was questioned PUBLICLY doesn’t sit well with me. They could (and should) have taken her and her painting to a more private location to ask their questions, then (possibly) have asked her to give a public address to briefly explain her process in case public rumblings had been heard. That would have served the same purpose, but would not have been so embarrassing and intimidating as being “grilled” (and seemingly accused) publicly. Jurors NEED to question what they see. I was recently at a plein air paint out with wet-paint sale at end of day where one of the participants was working on a canvas that was 24 x 36 or larger, and the canvas was completely covered – with photographic detail – early in the day. All of the other artists had the expected canvases (or watercolors) in sizes under 16 x 20. It turned out that this guy was a photographer who had just barely started taking painting classes, and his technique was to photograph the subject and print it out on large photo canvas then paint directly onto the canvas, matching the photo underneath, or at least passages of it, with few brush strokes evident. This day, he painted the vegetation … trees, leaves, shrubs, flowers, grass … but left the building untouched. So his “finished painting” was part photo and part painting. BUT this was NOT revealed to those attending the wet paint sale unless they specifically asked, and many commented that his painting was so realistic that it looked like a photo. Jurors not only have a right to question, it is their JOB to do so! But they also need to be discreet and sensitive.

In my humble opinion, all of this stems from ignorance of what art is. This ignorance seems to be gaining momentum with the cultural accent on technology rather than human creativity as having cultural value. I entered a local art competition several years ago in which the first prize winner was an enhanced photograph of curled paper. A black and white, no less. Needless to say, it was very discouraging. While visiting galleries in Bellevue, WA. I noticed a lot of collages in which “artists” had simply pasted digital images onto a surface and added some texture. No skilled drawing involved here! Yet they made it into galleries. Young people are buying $300+ Nike tennis shoes…it would never occur to them to invest in a painting that will last a lifetime. Thanks for your insights into the art world. I may decide to go back to being “the art lady”, my volunteer job in which I went around to the grade schools and gave 1 hour presentations of fine art to the kids with slides of the master artists. I’m sure it was the only exposure they ever had to fine art.

It is hard to have your work picked apart, but on the other hand, there are artist out there who will try to tip the scales any way they can. If you are not guilty of wrongful painting, then there is no need for tears. Ha, I loved your comment about your own cell phone getting wet from the artist tears on the other end of the line. Good one.

I am a potter/sculptor and live in northern Ontario. Several years ago I was accepted in the One-of-a-Kind Christmas Show in Toronto. After I had my booth set up several people (other artists) asked me where I was from and why they hadn’t heard of me before. Two exhibitors reported to the show management that I could not possibly have done the work, the inference being that nothing that good could come out of northern Ontario. After Christmas I received a letter from show management telling me that before being allowed back I had to prove the “ authenticity and originality” of my work, provide a description of the process I used and produce photos of works in progress and my studio. I was furious and very upset until my husband pointed out that I had “right” on my side. I provided the proof along with a letter from the head of the art department at the college where I taught part-time. I was quickly accepted back. On set-up day the following November one of my original inquisitors was openly shocked to see me. She got very upset when I told her what I had to do to get back “in.” After my work was all set up she came and bought a $200 piece. That was her apology.

I once helped jury a show. One of the images of a painting really rang alarms in my head. It was a direct copy of a National Geographic cover that I recognized immediately. The artist later called me to ask me what was wrong with her painting. I told her the painting was well executed, that it was just the choice of subject, a published photo. She didn’t argue with me. I still felt bad for her but also amazed that she would do such a thing.

Because I have been on juries, and have had work in many juried shows, I’ve been thinking about jury process for quite a while. Because of the wide-open world of art-making these days, I think that guidelines need to be set in the submission requirements; for example, “All works must be freehand with no use of projections or other tracing methods. No student work.” If rules such as these are written into the contract, then artists should expect to be questioned and should not object. If there are no rules, then artists and jurors should assume that anything goes; the work should be judged only on the finished product, unless there is evidence of blatant plagiarism. P.S. I never object to a juror’s decision – until I am out of earshot, talking to other artists, maybe over a beer…

I personally judged at a local fair and was faced with a painting that wasn’t a painting. The person had taken a coloured print and added some strokes in watercolour. With photocopying of high quality and on watercolour paper a judge has to be on their toes. It is amazing those who extend the rules get so upset when confronted. I guess that is why I am painting with multi-media – no doubt that it is an original.

No apology needed, no apology deserved. No way.

When one enters a juried show, especially with close to photographic appearance of the original work, one has to be prepared to be questioned. Today we see so much manipulation of giclees, appearing to be original paintings, to know that one can be taught to make one’s photo look like a painting, it is no wonder that jurors have to be on the alert! We must feel confident about our technical ability and integrity, so that a juror should not be questioned, doing his or her job!

This story reminds me of an experience that I had many, many years ago. At that time I was working in a photo-realistic style and had submitted a large canvas in a competition held in Petaluma, California. The day before the show was to open, I happened to pass by the exhibition space to see if I could get a advance look at the installation. I could hear the jury heatedly discussing a work. Several voices were saying that the work under discussion should be awarded “Best In Show”. Their opponent was yelling that it was a “bastard painting by a bastard of an artist” and that he would resign if the work was given any kind of a prize, He wanted the painting tossed out entirely. As I continued to eavesdrop I suddenly became aware that the painting under discussion was my submission! The jury finally agreed to keep my painting in the show, but not award it in order to keep the peace with the lone dissenter – who apparently held some special status with the show. Since then I’ve won several awards and have enjoyed a long career as a professional artist. And I’ve never forgotten that experience, which was very useful. Here’s my feeling about awards: An award, plus $1.95, will buy you a cup of coffee.

I strongly disagree. The artists are expected to be professional but the jurors are not? Dressing down in PUBLIC? I think the simple fact that she has called for a public retraction of the comments and assertions on her work shows that they were not.

Visual perception is very unique and individual. There’s no other person who can see absolutely the same in absolutely the same way as you do. Like fingerprints … Some people distinguish between many 1000s of different color shades, some noticeably less, and this varies for each colour.”

I learned to paint using a method for realism. We used a ‘slow dryer’ that is also ‘self leveling’. It was to give the student drying time. There are many slow dryers for oils out there on the market. It is unfortunate but maybe artists who paint in this style need to record a WIP? It seems to me that there should be a way to tell if a painting is a painting and not a print off. Would not pixels show up if magnified? Hopefully someone will come up with a solution so some poor artist who has labored endlessly, their integrity is not called into question. I hope jurors will find an answer soon:-)

I submitted a picture for a fund raiser at a prestigious museum – it was labeled as a Photographic Illustration. The picture was printed on canvas and gallery stretched. There was to be an artist’s reception the night before the auction, which I looked forward to, because I wanted to see my picture alongside all the other donated paintings and photographs, and I wanted my friends to see my work, too. I arrived at the reception and looked all over for my picture, but couldn’t find it. I finally tracked down the coordinator for the event who said, “Oh, I was going to call you tomorrow; we took your picture down because it was a giclée.” [Why they couldn’t call me before they took it down is a mystery to me.] I asked to speak to the director, and informed her of the difference between a giclée, where an artist has their work reproduced using digital tools and techniques, and the giclée inkjet printing process, which most photographers today use to print their photos and photographic illustrations. I told her that most if not all the photos that were being auctioned were printed with the giclée process, and that mine was, too, and pointed out that they had actually left hanging a giclée of a painting. Jurors need to know the difference. I was disappointed that my work was not seen by my peers, though the picture was re-hung in time for the auction. I did not submit a picture in the following year.

It is difficult to understand why the jury would question in front of people. Was the jurying done in public? Has art now become American Idol-ized?

Hi Paula, In our small town of Invermere, BC, somethings happen & are said & then gossiped about, that maybe more “seasoned” jurors in larger centres would not cause. She took a risk with a jury that was not discreet or sensitive towards her as an artist. They should have taken her aside and questioned her. She was brave to even enter her art to be juried. I have found that “jury & staff” can be disrespectful as if they have carte blanche over the artist. They should choose their words with kindness & think before saying anything. By doing this, the artist might not have been embarrassed & asked for a public apology. Why they do not learn from their mistakes, says something about their ego.

The entire process of making art has coming into question. Why do (real) artists work to produce art using traditional methods, vise-a-vie- authentically, mechanically by hand, without aids, while posers produce work for the trash heap? I believe the reason is the same – recognition and respect. If you produce real art the old fashioned way, one hopes to gain the respect of society and of course their peers. Many, many would-be artists don’t have the skill, the training or know-how to pull off a work of art, so resort to trickery or fakery to get a result. They may even fool most of the people some of the time, but making ‘real’ art results in producing a body of work, an inventory. Over time, the fakers will get tired or worse be found out and will be weeded out while real artists will prevail. We should be diligent in judging art for galleries and shows, but the fakers will sneak through, once or even twice. In the end they will not prevail over the long haul. I always think we should be judging artists considering a body of work and not one piece placed into a show or gallery. When you look at fifteen or a hundred pieces, the proof will be in the pudding and all will know if this person deserves to be called ‘artist’.

To Katherine Tyrrell- No analogy is necessary. And you can’t blur the truth by bringing one up. This is a jury process. You entered. Period. You therefore set yourself up to be asked questions. Period. In public or not. Period. Once you entered you lost control of the process and your own expectations. They became moot. You don’t get to control the process. Period. If your feelings got hurt and you can’t grow up- you too sensitive thing- you… then stop entering juried exhibits. Period. Because you can’t handle it.

That weeping self-pity for being questioned about a person’s technique is absurd. What about all the other artists who were deemed not good enough. How do you think they feel? I did a number of juried everything but stopped doing them because they mean nothing. The artist always knows their own worth and will sell lots of art and then simply leave his body of work to the next generation, who’ll have to store masses of art. And then sell them for some good dollars. The best artists are the dead ones.

When there are groups of people competing there are so many good and bad issues at hand which can lead to a lot of negativity. No matter what, I believe it is important to be emphatic and acknowledge her disappointment and pain. This can be done without defending the status-quo, although perhaps it is time to evaluate the way things have been done.

When I first started painting I was impressed with some work of a successful local artist. Asking about the subject matter, which was very “old world” looking, I was told it was all his own work. After much personal studying, I learned he had been copying old masters painting almost to the brush stroke, and passing them off as his own work. Another successful local artist, winner of cash awards from a local art competition, told me directly, his work was totally original. Later, I found an obscure magazine with limited circulation, with the EXACT picture in it, as an advertisement. It took cash out of the pockets of non-copying artists and put it into the pockets OD a cheater. I have to then admit, before I understood the rules of painting vs. copying, I copied a picture and called it my own. When I later learned the difference, I felt badly. To this day I still feel shame for “stealing” someone’s intellectual property, even in innocence. I now use my extensive imagination. To make sure that I am not ever in that same situation again. I have come to understand, that an artist who must copy others work and pass it off as their own, are hurting themselves as well as others. They are not making themselves a better artist, no honing their creativity, they are just copying the work and ideas of others.

Yesterday, I participated in an arts walk show in my district. There were approximately fifty artists painting live on the sidewalk. For the first time in my life, I sold one of my pastel paintings made on a piece of paper. One person came by and wanted to buy my painting right away, although it was not on sale but only for the exhibition. She offered me a price and I agreed easily. Nevertheless, many great artists participating in the arts show could not sell their paintings. However, the tattoo work made on children sold fast. In brief, I am happy and that gives me the courage to pursue the way I am painting.

A person who represents themselves as an artist should have the integrity to be honest when entering competitions. This is probably highly idealistic, but the jurors should be tough on standards. With today’s technology and history of dishonest prize winners, it is part of a jurors task to keep it honest. It reflects poorly on all artists and professional groups to have people get away with something dishonest. If any juror questions an entry, it is for good reason. I have my own view on use of technology, a never-ending debate these days. It is part of being honest and having integrity in my view.

It is important to be open to comments/questions, and not to be a prima donna about one’s work. Being defensive blocks learning. I once had the unexpected gift of being “the fly on the wall.” An art quilt of mine was admitted to a juried show on Key Largo in Florida, where I do not know anyone. During the opening reception, I was wandering around the exhibit. When I returned to my own piece, two women were standing in front of the quilt saying things like “Do you think this is hand-quilted?” (It was.) “How did she get that tiny printing on there?” (extra fine permanent marker) and other such curious comments. They stayed for quite a while and I got an earful of truly honest and inquisitive feedback. They were having such a good time discussing my quilt that I didn’t want to intrude, and never did introduce myself as the artist.

Recalling my first two years in art school, it was tough at first to have my art work picked out and poked at in front of others but it was a necessary experience in the end. I became more conscious of my efforts as an artist through listening to my peers observations and mentors comments. It’s somewhat of a test of emotional endurance to put yourself out there. There is always the risk of negative feedback to the artist, whether it is rejection, a bad review or the unexpected, such as a misprint of your name in a published article.

After reading the article, I can see the need for juror’s to have hard questions. Copies, giclee’s and other things like this probably should come with a fine and penalty, like athletes on steroids. While hard questions may be difficult on the artist it’s tough to see art get into a show because the artist was so realistic in the ability to copy what clearly was a projected image, or to know the image was a copy of another work. Artists who work hard to develop their own techniques and ideas IS what artists do. We need to be able to know how valuable that work is, to speak to it. Let the questions fly and learn from them. As for insults and insinuations go…people either have manors and diplomatic skills or they don’t.”

I have been at special events by jurors who were willing to speak about their choices, or not, and why. To me, most what was said was a lot of pure nonsense and not the least bit helpful. There was a real mix-up of some rejected work being discussed, and some included pieces….. Here’s what is important: Think of the positive side: you can list the juried show on your CV (if you have a piece/s selected) and nobody will remember who the jurors were, which pieces won prizes or which were rejected! I do not think it was appropriate for a juror to question an artist in public……very unprofessional! Anyway, it was just one person’s opinion and that is hardly worth getting upset about – unpleasant, yes, – listen and move on!

If the juror had some doubts about the entry, that artist should have been called privately beforehand. I do not see any reason to embarrass anyone – if the artwork is in question perhaps it should not even be considered. In my opinion, any copying of another artists work is quite recognizable and unforgivable; however, technique (as in the case of no visible brushstrokes) should not be held against the artist. If the juror believes this to be a giclee, then the artist should be questioned beforehand.

I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find that gambling is going on in here. So if you want honesty, tell them is has to be done freehand. And if you must question the integrity someone’s work do it in an appropriately private setting. Otherwise your own integrity may be questioned in turn.

As someone who often wonders whether to put my work up for competition or evaluation, I think very carefully before doing it. Its not the constructive criticism that worries me, that is why I would enter my work after all; its how easy it is for jurors to easily give offence, even where none was intended. Its inevitable that any incautious remark will get back to the person its about. FWIW, anyone who is a juror at any sort of competition or show needs to put a zip on their mouth and think before they speak. The insult was made public, even if that was not the intention, therefore the apology should be the same and hopefully the artist has not gone home bad-mouthing the jurors and the show. Its good PR as well as good manners, and you certainly catch more flies with honey than vinegar! Its exactly why I rarely enter shows. Its happened to me too.

I have been painting portraits for years and find it always a challenge sometimes frustrating and sometimes rewarding. I have never thought of cheating with painting over a photograph. This would be easy, I will try it once….!! A true artist www.fredaArt.ch

A lot of artists are pretty fragile and that makes sense, art is personal. But I don’t understand why a contesting (ambitious) artist would get upset being asked to expound about their work in front of an audience UNLESS there’s something was not kosher about the process, UNLESS the artist was so reclusive and inhibited that their skin never got thick enough to handle criticism, which is commonly handed out in art colleges and workshops and classes daily. I don’t think a public apology is warranted. She got into the show. –But now I wondering if she got into the show because she got upset over being queried? Did the jury cave, or did she come through with a satisfactory explanation? The only apology she might be entitled to is for being caught by surprise by the question posed in public. A heads up might have been helpful. I’ve been asked to explain my work when I was young and got a little uppity, but did so quite well and fielded negative responses too. I didn’t get into the show, but I also didn’t hold it against the jury for asking me to explain my work, myself. It was a lesson. A good one. If you’re going to be competitive, you have to expect to be challenged. You have to be prepared to assert your aesthetics and their authenticity.

A lot of opinions, most in general agreement that jurying needs to be done with tact and discretion, but needs to be done. The original post didn’t give enough specifics to determine if lines had been crossed. Sometimes people ask questions not to find the truth, but to put things into question. As for Juries, Roberts comments should be taken to heart by all who participate in the “competitions” its purely a matter of opinion, beauty being in the eye of the beholder. One of my most recognized works was rejected from even being in the show by a Jury. There is no better Jury than a person who doesn’t just comment “that’s nice” but actually takes hard earned cash out of their pocket to purchase your work, and then takes it home to hang with pride for the next several decades. In our gallery we have posted a little sign “We consider all of our customers to be experts, beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.

If originality and the ensuing process of creative work is an important value of your art ethics and aesthetics, then questions of what your work involves, should not present issues to one personally–I would believe. To be fair, however, I also think that much more is put on visual artists today to be articulate about their work and if questions regarding work do come up, to be able to speak intelligently about one’s work. Dialogue, I think is a great avenue for artists. I once had a collector tell me that there are many artists out there, but scratch their surface and there isn’t much there.

The fresco issue if a new work would be of interest. As a restoration one would think that the restorer would maintain the original integrity of the work, rather than create a new work. The original was a work of genius, where the “restoration” would be better described as a defacing. I cant help wondering what the original artist would think of the cartoon that was plastered over his work.

I have been saying that for years. I have been an Artist In Residence in schools from time to time. My last gig lasted 14 years. The program was killed off in 2009.

I agree with you wholeheartedly as there are artist out there today who believe that painting one or two brushstrokes on a giclee turns it into an original piece of art…very devious but makes the artist lots of money, and apparently isn’t illegal. When I was president of the Alberta Community Art Clubs Association several years ago we had a situation at a zone art competition where the jurors questioned an artist’s rendering of a big cat (Ocelot or something similar). Of course, no copies of other peoples’ photos are allowed so they asked if she’d been to Africa and had painted the cat from her own photo (which she had.) The artist produced her photo and she went on to win a prestigious award. She was not offended. How does one create a painting in acrylic or oil without one single brushstroke visible? The writer didn’t explain that. I’m very curious.

I have heard negative comments about paintings of african subject matter on several occasions – mostly implying that the artist could not have possibly been there in Africa to source those subjects. In many cases I knew for a fact that the artists in question have indeed visited Africa. It blows my mind how jurors make such dumb assumptions that someone “could not have possibly seen the source in person”. I hear this argument very often and I make a point to respond strongly against such assumptions.

I’m a little surprised at the number of people commenting here who see no difference between a legitimate critique of a work of art on its merits, and charging an artist with fraudulent practices in public. Being able to accept criticism and submitting to accusatory questioning are quite different things. By all means, a juror suspecting that a work is not authentic should question the artist, but in private and before the gala reception. An art contest is not a court of law, but the principle of innocent until proven guilty should still apply. Our current technology makes it easier to cheat, and it’s unfortunate that there are apparently quite a lot of people desperate enough to do anything to win, even if that means cheating. That doesn’t make the jurors’ job any easier (I’ve been a juror, I know the predicament) but to single out an artist for questioning in public I feel is arrogant and in bad taste. Better to err on the side of decency.

If the work is created with honesty and integrity there should be no need for the artist to feel defensive or offended when questioned about methods. When asked “How do you create your art?”, I do not take the question as an affront but rather as genuine interest expressed by a viewer who can not understand how the painting came about.