Would you put your own work into a show you were jurying?

[2Roses]

In a discussion the other day several instances were noted wherein the juror of a show had submitted their own work to the show they were jurying. At first glance this seemed ...uncomfortable. But then, perhaps times have changed and we we're not keeping up on current events. What are your thoughts on this? Would you submit your own work to a show you were jurying?

[Doxallo Designs]

I work in Clinical Research and deal with ethics committees, when panel discussions ensue regarding our own research projects, we simply recuse ourselves and this is documented. We also complete disclosure forms indicating if we have any affiliation with anyone or anything that might sway our vote (or seem to sway it). If this is not current practice among jurying panels, perhaps it could be (should be?). If so, I don't think it would be a problem to submit one's own work. I've never been on a jury so I am unsure of what the rules and requirements may be in terms of standard practices for members of the panel.
Janice

[Thea Clark]

I don't think it should be done. Would the same apply to juried publications? All Lark Books 500 series include work of the juror, for instance.

[2Roses]

Thank you for pointing that out Thea. We had not noticed that. In practice it would appear that entering one's own work into a show or publication one is jurying may be considered a "perk of the job". At the very least, this implies that the juror's work is not held to the same standards required for acceptance as all the other work.

Janice raises an interesting point about recusing oneself when your own work is being evaluated. Scientific methodology and repeatable results provides some benchmark for clinical evaluation. Art is somewhat more subjective. Most shows and publications have one, maybe two and rarely three jurors. If one juror recused themselves during evaluation of their own work, how likely is it that one, or even two other jurors would tell them they didn't make the cut?

[Stevie B.]

I think the Lark jurors are automatically allowed an entry or two. I doubt that if there is more then one juror that they "submit" and actually "vote" on anything, they just pick whatever they would like to include in the book. I guess it's considered a "perk of the job", but I think they are allowed an auto entry or two because readers that are unfamiliar with the juror may like to know the jurors own work. It may help with questions like, "How the hell did that get in a book?" And, "I thought this was a jewelry book. WTF is that 5 foot thing protruding from that model's chest?" And the ever popular, "I could sooo do that!"

Janice brings up standards and practices, but it's not like these "rules" are universal in the art field, far from it. It seems to me that "making it" in art is more about making the right connections then it is about making actual art. There are a lot of favors for favors. Hidden hierarchies between artists. Secret handshakes and head nods from gallery owners. Someone always has a distant relative who happens to be in the "waste removal" business. Some might even call it an Art Mafia*. I wouldn't. I know better. Fugetaboutit!

Thea doesn't think it should be done but I think there are times when it's helpful, like with Lark. It's also a bit of compensation to the juror who had to look through a ton of entries for an insufferable long period of time, eyes crossed and bloodshot, breath stinking like rotten coffee grinds and stomach acid--Basically torture. They go through this elective suffering not for monetary reasons (what sort of stipend do you think they get?) just so we can see some nice pictures of some nice art work in a heavy book while we lounge lazily on our sofas and sit numb legged on our toilets.

Perhaps it is because of this brain numbing jury system that 5 foot things that protrude from model's chests find their way into art books.

-Stevie

BTW-I quickly scanned a few 500 books and did find at least one juror who did not have his/her work published in the book.

*There is no such thing as the Mafia.

[Birdland Creations]

I think that to be asked to be juror would be such an honor that I wouldn't even contemplate putting in my own work. That in itself shows that your work is valued and respected.

Maybe publications should just have a separate page where it details the jurors names etc and each juror has one photo of one of their pieces next to their name - that way, people can see what they do and hopefully realize why they were considered suitable jurors - but that piece is not an entry....

[Kay Taylor]

Would not enter my work in a show (live or print) that I was asked evaluate, unless management required it. To do so would put the other work in question. However, management of the show may require juror work because it does reveal the aesthetic value of the juror to see their work and how they interpret the theme of the show. Their entries should somehow be qualified as juror work no matter what. Otherwise seems underhanded to me.

[2Roses]

Stevie, Birdland and Kay introduce an interesting theme to this discussion. Namely, showing the juror's work as a form of justification, qualification or definition of their judgment. We don't recall ever seeing a juror's work presented in this context.

Is this whole thing an American trend? Are the Europeans also doing this?

[Angela Baduel-Crispin]

I've personally never noticed that practice here in France. That said, I don't notice everything either :o) but it's not something that has ever called my attention here, whereas the issue has (often) called my attention in the US. Here, I think it really depends on the type of show. But often times juried exhibitions have a panel of jurors or a "commission", but one doesn't necessarily know who they are, at least for large shows. For smaller, selective exhibitions (museums, galleries, etc) it might be a little different, where there might be only one curator, let's say, or a very small specific panel.
I think this whole question mainly arises because the jurors are composed of artists themselves. What I've noticed here is that these people aren't necessarily artists themselves, but are related to the arts and might be art critics, or people within the various sectors of the arts selecting the exhibit participants. Observing the practice in the US only from a distance, I'm less "in the know" as to how jurors for shows are selected or how they themselves may participate in the exhibit.

Concerning publications, though, I have noticed the fact that often times in the US the jurors are artists themselves and have pieces within the publication. I confess that if their participation is limited to, say, one piece and that those are within a section of "jurors" with a correct preface like an introduction to them, it doesn't really bother me. This was actually applied in the 2nd Guild Annual after a long debate in a forum concerning the issue in the 1st edition. The first pages contain 2 photos of each juror, with a special section in the beginning on pages with a different background and the word "JURORS" at each page heading. I think, like it's been said, as long as it's very clear it can actually help the reader understand a certain perspective. Although it's already a great thing to be chosen as a juror, maybe it's also be seen as the advantage of having been chosen and maybe the "reward" for the job done, because it *is* a lot of work to go through and select.

If someone is jurying, it implies a certain high level of excellence, high enough to "judge" one's own peers. More than one or 2 photos of their work would seem to defeat the purpose. Why not just choose art critics, art journalists, gallery owners, etc. for the job so all artists get a fair chance within the space, which is often limited ? And, if it were the case would they too be allowed to have photos of their gallery, magazines, etc in the book? :o)
Yes, it can be delicate and intriguing, like, who "juried" the jurors in the first place ? ;o) and should they too show their work ? ;o)
(as you can tell, I love smileys, specially since you can't hear or see how I'm talking - a lot of smiles in there )

[2Roses]

Some of you have noticed that we have put one of our own pieces into the Birdhaus Online Exhibition that we curated. Prior to this discussion, we would not have done this. But, we had speculated that we may not be abreast of the times, and your responses indeed bore this out. So we have updated our position on the topic and put one of our own pieces in the show.

[Stevie B.]

This discussion actually turned me around to the 2Roses original point of view but now that I read the newest 2Roses comment I am back where I started. What a strange trip that was.

[2Roses]

Indeedy! For us too.

[Kay Taylor]

With six replies, 6 said yes&no w/ qualifications, as I read them. None were "yes" w/out qualifications.

Out of six responses: 6, maybe; 0, yes.