JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  October 2010

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING October 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

the jury:

From:

Melinda Rackham <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Melinda Rackham <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:58:31 +1030

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (156 lines)

re Sarah's Q about jurying::

thought i'd share some thoughts on the media art jury process i wrote  
about 18 months  ago..
---

The Itch Factor
When asked how she knew good art, Gertrude Stein reportedly retorted,  
”it makes me itch.”

How do we judge good art—especially good media art when the field is  
still relatively new and our Australian sector operates at a distance  
from the global hubs of media art production? Our unique Australian  
sensibility, conceptual and geographical distance can also  
unfortunately lead to parochialism.

Rather than relying on scratching an itch to identify outstanding work  
we most often employ a jury or peer review system to ensure fairness  
and adherence to high standards. In our modern legal system a jury is  
a sworn body of people convened to render a rational, impartial  
verdict, its members usually given time off from their daily life to  
deliberate. In the art world, judges, jurors, peers or assessors are  
expected to display impartial expertise across a large and  
encompassing discipline, and must fit often un- or underpaid jury work  
into already tight schedules.

How carefully is the jury process considered? Are there transparent  
criteria for selecting a winning artist, project or text? How much  
time are assessors given to review projects? How appropriately are  
they paid? Does the process become one of self-enhancement that awards  
the most personally charming entrant; the most politically opportune  
artwork; or the candidate who fits best the current institutional  
profile rather than setting any visionary precedent? Are the  
technically compliant outcomes of award, residency and prize  
deliberations always ethical or fair?

the process
Having made the transition from applicant to juror over the past five  
years, I have found myself sitting in judgment in 30 or so situations  
ranging from the heavy responsibility of the singular juror to  
negotiating unwieldly email discussions amongst 20. These have  
included net art commissions for Rhizome and Turbulence in New York;  
international symposiums and exhibitions such as several ISEA and  
Futuresonic Festivals; assessments for ANAT, AFC and the Australia  
Council for the Arts; art and industry prizes like SmartyBlog, AIMIA  
and the Queensland Premier’s Award for New Media Art; and, recently,  
assessing 320 entrants over five days on the five-person Hybrid Arts  
Jury at Ars Electronica in Austria.

Most challenging was the day-long Second Life Architecture Award “Open  
Jury” meeting of seven jurors of diverse backgrounds held during the  
Ars Electronica Festival in 2007. A live audience filled the jury hall— 
some being entrants in the award. Proceedings were netcast, in real  
time, to a public square in Second Life where the avatars of global  
entrants and a general audience also gathered. Our singular jury  
avatar, resplendent in a pink and green Chanel suit, explored each  
short-listed project in-world as audience avatars looked on. This  
online process was simultaneously screened back into the jury room.  
Inside a constant feedback loop, with no ‘cone of silence’, every word  
and gesture of the jury was publicly, globally accountable, including  
the repeated proclamations of an internationally respected senior  
architect (with no virtual world experience) of “It’s all rubbish!”  
Five outstanding finalists were eventually selected and we adjourned  
for beer and schnitzel.

Jury duty is hard, hard work. Academic assessments and online peer  
reviews are far less charged, as automated forms, comment boxes and  
rating systems are designed to ensure emotional detachment. However  
nothing can compare with the personal interaction and vigorous debate  
that characterises an art jury. It can assume the mantle of a  
courtroom drama of the Boston Legal kind, with otherwise sane and  
rational individuals displaying ruthless strategies, pathos and  
absurdity. Over hours or weeks, bizarre behaviour can emerge as  
individuals grapple to make decisions. And these decisions are not  
taken lightly as the outcomes will set agendas for a sector, promote  
and reward certain artists and artforms.

the people
Permit me to make some observations on the personalities engaged and  
tactics employed, to a greater or lesser extent, in these grand  
deliberations.

The Player: Having watched the movie Rainman they know it’s all a  
numbers game. Their strategy is to rate their favoured artist at  
around 85-100%, while rating the other strong contenders, or those who  
seem to be favoured by other jurors, in the bottom 15 %. A shrewder  
variant of the Player will subtly trade with others for ranking,  
forfeiting some favourite projects to ensure the elevation of others.

The Persuader: They sit up late in bars bending the ears of other  
jurors; send prolific emails extolling the virtues of a project; and  
bring complimentary articles on it to other jurors’ attention. Their  
lengthy implorings, peppered with rational and emotional hooks, seldom  
ensure a winning choice.

The Tantrum Thrower: They walk around muttering angrily, or indeed  
sometimes shouting unabashedly that noone else understands the  
criteria, the sector, the audience, the projects. They threaten to  
walk out, talk to the press, issue a dissenting statement. Some  
tantrum throwers take it further than this, later publishing  
disparaging articles on the jury process, questioning the character  
and suitability of the other jurors.

The Dictator: They are often corporate, museum or festival directors  
without specific knowledge of the arena being juried or, alternately,  
a highly distinguished and fiercely opinionated veteran jury chair.  
They truly believe they know best, blocking opinions and discussion in  
favour of the quick decision. Equally destructive is the politically  
appointed juror who demonstrates complete disengagement—sometimes  
falling asleep during deliberations. Strong coffee and dark chocolate  
should be mandatory assessment refreshments.

The Consensus Seeker: The world would be perfect if everyone agreed,  
and this juror wants the process to be a shared, harmonious  
experience. Except, rarely does everyone totally agree. The decision  
must be made, the announcement has to go out, the publicity department  
is waiting for copy, but the consensus seeker is undeterred. To them  
the process is more important than the outcome. Eternal optimism as a  
redeeming quality is either endlessly infuriating or infectiously  
refreshing.

the prize
Hopefully sharing the elation of reaching a satisfying consensus—when  
all are at a point of emotional and physical exhaustion—it’s time to  
go public. The statements are written, the jury gird their collective  
loins and, no matter what, smile. At the Announcement, the winner(s)  
feel deservedly rewarded or are stunned. Those without a prize  
generously congratulate the winners, and the gossip and rumours start.  
Everyone is a critic after the fact and of course would have made a  
better decision. The Art Dealer is the happiest person in the room,  
grinning from ear to ear, as the profile of their artist instantly  
soars with this new accolade and its public recognition, financial  
reward, possible acquisition and career acceleration.

solutions
And there we have it. If we want to award work that really makes us  
itch, that poses provocative questions, coalesces bodies of knowledge  
and delivers an accessible and engaging audience experience, then jury  
selection and the jury process are crucial. But do we want important  
assessments to be made in airport lounges between flights by exhausted  
experts? Providing appropriate remuneration and sufficient time to  
deliberate on all aspects of the works in competition underpins the  
construction of a vibrant media arts sector.

My vision for our future has Gertrude scratching wildly—immersed in  
the exteroceptive delights of sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing and  
balance; revelling in kinaesthetic satisfaction; and savouring her  
intellectual engagement with the new modalities and emergent practices  
of media arts.


Media artist Melinda Rackham, former Executive Director of the  
Australian Network for Art and Technology (ANAT), is currently engaged  
in diverse curatorial and writing projects.
RealTime issue #91 June-July 2009 pg. 30

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager