You might be an artist and reading this thinking ‘she’s crazy- juried art competitions are a staple in art’. Maybe you’re reading this and you have no idea what a juried art competition even is. Perhaps, you’re reading this and you are a part of an institution that hosts juried art competitions and you’re making a mental note to blocklist me from your establishment. Whatever your position in the art industry- I’d ask that you continue reading with an open mind…

My statement that art competitions, also called juried art shows or juried exhibitions, is a bold statement because these events are one of the most common, widely accepted, and regularly attended pillars of the arts community. A juried event- for those who are unfamiliar- is an art event in which artists submit their work (sometimes along with an entry fee ranging from $25 to several thousand dollars), their work then is examines by a ‘third-party’ institution-selected juror who has a background in the arts (usually art professors), and one of three actions take place. First, the juror might deem the art unworthy and reject it from the exhibition altogether. Second, the juror might deem the art worthy of being in the exhibition and the art is allowed to be exhibited in the show. Third, the juror might deem the art both worthy and exceptional of an award. That art piece is not only admitted into the show- but also awarded a special honour. The work is hung by the show’s curator(s) and the exhibit opens to the public for viewing. And that’s usually how a juried art competition works.

You might be asking (scratch that- you should be questioning what makes a piece worthy or unworthy). Competitions are events in which all participants are judged on a specific objective or criteria with pre-determined qualifications for what makes that objective successful. Think about tennis competitions. Players are expected to follow certain rules, use certain equipment, and the one with the most points wins. Chess competitions require the King to be checkmated to determine the winner. Figure skaters must follow specific rules, earn points for certain moves, and there is a slight leeway for creativity in form, costume, and music- but the weight of the points lies within their cumulative moves. Whichever skaters has the most points wins. Competitions are intended for goal-specific tasks and driven by point systems.

Jurors are also another gap in the competitive art narrative. Jurors can only ever be partisan in their efforts. Their selections will always be based upon their personal preferences since competitions lack all-encompassing criteria and a point system for such criteria. Jurors determine which art is worthy based upon which art they think is worthy. I’ve seen jurors deny an unmistakable masterpiece that could have been mistaken for a Renaissance piece only to turn around and accept a battlefield landscape whose proportions would have made even Michelangelo cringe. And it goes both ways- I’ve witnessed an artist lay on the floor breathing for 1 whole f*cking hour and it was acclaimed a masterpiece while an artist who’d spent years on an abstract piece was dismissed as ‘boring’. I’ll reiterate: jurors are unavoidably partisan and the act of jurying different art is impossible to execute accurately.

Art or Creativity is self expression. Individuals. They are not working within a defined objective. They are all beautifully different and unique. Artists work in a range of abilities as well- shattering ableism within the art industry. They are not goal-specific and there is no ‘point system’. Perhaps in the learning stages of their art education they encountered a rubric- but that was intended to help them master that one specific technique. That rubric doesn’t follow them around the rest of their art career. Every art genre you’ve ever encountered was the result of both creativity and a departure from its previous art genre. Art history is a visual example of rebellion from rules. I believe the Impressionists, Banksy, Modern Choreography, and countless other artist movements have shown us that the only constant in art is the change of it. Thus, a contemporary artist’s work is subjective, intuitive in context and technique. We are past the days where Realism ruled all and we’ve evolved, as artists, into self-expression and creative exploration of the unknown.

The only hand that should mark a piece of art as ‘worthy’ or ‘unworthy’ is the hand that made it. Because artists are the ones determining the specific objective in their work: they are their sole judges and jurors. We cannot know what a person meant, intended, or attempted to convey with their art- so who are we to say that they did it successfully or unsuccessfully? Action art is a great example of unknown ‘success’. Action artists are both movement artists and visual artists- their work relies on their subconscious, unconscious, instinctive, in-the-moment movements and interaction with the materials. Gone is any notion of a plan or criteria for success. We have outgrown art competitions because we now understand that art is simply the artists’ self-expression and that is something which we cannot assign points or compare to another artists’ self-expression. You cannot compare your story to mine and I cannot compare my story to yours- regardless of whether we drew it, painted it, sculpted it, wrote it, or embodied it.

Competitions that determine one’s value in the art industry based up skewed/partisan jurors, unknown work/art/skill/contextual objectives, unspecific art genres/techniques, are harmful. Competitions are specific to the areas in which the space exists. I’ve seen it. Every single time. In the countryside- jurors favour landscapes, farm animals, battle scenes, and the occasional still life. In the urban settings- work that is political, socially-charged, and figures are favoured. In the bigger cities- abstract, modern, and post-modernism art is favoured. Can you understand how frustrating competitions are for artists and how tempting it might be for an artist to cease authentic work and create work that appeased the institutions and garners them a spot in their competitive spaces?

I find art competitions especially harmful when children’s art is involved. Putting aside secondary art teachers who fail a 7 year old for not mastering realism and favouring students who follow the rules: allowing children to get sucked into this toxic form of ‘let’s judge your personality against your fellow artists’’ is harmful because it teaches them that their creativity is good or bad and that lesson really sinks into their minds. Children who are taught that their photorealist work is successful and worthy of first place will cling to that validation and continue to make that exact work- rarely exploring other sides of their creativity. And children who are told their art isn’t good enough really, truly believe that they’re bad at art and possess no creativity. But creativity is internal and is directly linked to their confidence of expression. For shame! While grown artists might have fully developed frontal lobes and not be so absorbent: they get the same treatment and it does the same damage.

So why do artists take the bait? Why do artists fall into the trap of allowing competitions, jurors, and institutions to determine the value of their art and of themselves as artists? Because art spaces are routinely inaccessible to artists unless it is through this competition pathway.

Artists are routinely denied access to art spaces because they, as the artist, are not popular enough to render the institution attendees which feed directly into the institution’s grants arena. Artists are routinely denied access to art spaces because the gallery owner doesn’t think the art will sell and create a profit for the gallery. Artists are routinely denied access to physical art spaces because there is simply not enough room as we lack art spaces and enough time slots. Artists are even routinely denied access to physical art spaces because they aren’t related to or friends with the juror.

And do not- for even a second, try to tell me that blind jurying is a reliable and ethical. Jurors are well-versed in their local scenes. They know who’s who and they can recognize a specific artist’s work. The art industry is so interconnected that it’s practically impossible to interact with an unknown artist or their art. It’s very much a web. That was my very first lesson in art politics: it’s not what you know- but who you know.

So moving past the ‘competition is outdated and unhelpful’ themes- what is the solution? Until there are enough spaces for enough artists with enough equitable opportunities for those artists to exhibit: there is no answer. The current structure is flawed, underserved, and rigid in its inert traditions. Let yourself (especially artists reading this) imagine what a solution would look like. Fair opportunity to art spaces like MOMAs and large-scale art fairs. No endless and exorbitant entry fees. No attending countless social events (I’m looking at you Warhol) to cozy up to all the right people who can pull strings for you. You could simply focus on making your art that tells your story in an authentic and meaningful way. No more dragging art to and from shows- paying for steep cargo fees or endless driving time. It’s a creative utopia.

However. I will begrudgingly point out that that’s what technology has provided: a free market for art space. One positive thing about technology is that it takes out the middleman when artists are trying to reach their audiences. Social media is free (if you’re not counting the trade of your private information for access to their app and all the audiences using it). Technology takes away the structure and power of art institutions. An art institution can show images and videos of their hand-selected artists and their work and just below that post is an unheard of artist and their art. Free. Market. Everyone has access to everyone. Viewers become the curators of their feeds and the jurors of their visual experience. Gallery owners weep and scramble to regain control of their gatekeeping access to art collectors. Art collectors connect directly with the artists and arrange the sales independent of art dealers and gallery owners. It’s a bloodbath for the elitists and gatekeepers.

So for artists reading this- take heart and take heed: there are more opportunities present-day than just the traditional options. To non-artists reading this- I hope this helped you better understand the complexities within the art industry for living artists. To those working within art institutions reading this: my name is spelled B E C K M E T Z B O W E R for your blocklist of rebellious artists.

———————————————————————————————————————————

Post-script

For clarification, I have applied for many juried exhibitions, I’ve been in all three positions- rejected, chosen, and chosen/awarded. While I am grateful for the opportunities and enjoyed being chosen and awarded for shows- I stand resolute that there is a better way to witness art that removes competitions and objectification of an artist’s creativity and personal narrative.