AIR

This is a discussion I've been looking for long time. I wonder if one goes to a shop, handle twenty quids to the cashier with the wish to acquire something but a few minutes later the shopkeeper comes and said, sorry you can't have anything for your money, you have not been selected this time, is this legal? it seems that for galleries or art entrepreneurs is perfectly legal... I wonder whether this practice is exploiting some loophole in the law, is there anyone with legal information regarding this topic? Thanks

posted on 2012-11-12 by Evaristo Vega

This is a discussion I've been looking for long time. I wonder if one goes to a shop, handle twenty quids to the cashier with the wish to acquire something but a few minutes later the shopkeeper comes and said, sorry you can't have anything for your money, you have not been selected this time, is this legal? it seems that for galleries or art entrepreneurs is perfectly legal... I wonder whether this practice is exploiting some loophole in the law, is there anyone with legal information regarding this topic? Thanks

posted on 2012-11-12 by Evaristo Vega

Submission fee?? it seems to me the problem is that (we) artists are too submissive and choosing who to submit too is not proactive. We consider paying for the right to be (potentially) told our work isn't "good" enough quite normal. 1000artists x £35 = a lot of resources... surely something more creative could be done with those resources? artist led opens? The prizes would be smaller but there would be more winners... or is it simply case of supply and demand? if so, this practice of submission fees could be looked as proof that there is a negative demand for art (the truth hurts). But when you have to pay to give it away and then it's refused... perhaps we should go on strike to demand better working conditions? only I would be worried hardly anyone would miss us, and then what? So in the mean time I will continue to buy lottery tickets.

posted on 2012-08-26 by Nicholas Leverington

Just to reinforce my original comment on this subject, I watched the BBC Culture Show programme on the Royal Academy last night, they had over 11000 submissions, selected just over 1000 'doubtfuls', that is initially over a 90% rejection rate, thats a lot of wasted submission fees and artist time, this is an absolute disgrace. One interviewee even admitted they select with an agenda to fit the theme of the show, which no one but the academy is privy too, if that was a business or retailer I think the trading standards people would take a long hard look at such an organisation !.

posted on 2012-06-16 by Kelvin Harvey

I look forward to seeing the Ludlow Open.

posted on 2012-06-16 by Steffan Jones-Hughes

Audience I like to see a coherent exhibition. I like suprises, finding new artists, seeing new developments. I find the RA Summer Exhibition overwhelming, as with many of the various Academy open exhibitions (too much, too many visitors). I like to see really good work. In summary then, I like opens, I think there are too many, and I wish they could all be really well organised. I resent paying to be in an open and then not getting feedback/notification because the gallery doesn't have the capacity to deal with the number of entries. It would be interesting to work out the real cost of an open exhibition, if it was passed on to the entry fee.

posted on 2012-06-16 by Steffan Jones-Hughes

I come at this from different angles: Artist Organisation Selector Audience Artist From an artist's perspective, opens offer the opportunity to have work seen. This might be their only opportunity as they see it. The work gets seen by selectors, and then potentially the media, buyers, galleries, and then who knows, "it could be you", you might break into the artworld elite, next stop New York, Basel, Venice? It seems unfair to have to pay so much to take a gamble.Why do you enter? To win the prize. How many prizes? 1-3? How many artists? 40-100 (lets say)? How many entrants? 300-1000? Organisation An open can operate on very different levels, servicing a local need by artists to show work, presenting the organisation within a national context (Davies Open), international context (Northern Print Biennale). They can be completely open, they can be focused on particular regions (North Wales Open), artforms (Wrexham Print International)etc. The work involved in organising an open well is huge in terms of staff time and capacity, as I'm sure others will agree. The processing of forms and payments, handling of cds or works, storage, organising selectors and selection days, collection days, installation days, marketing, processing sales, notifying unsuccessful entrants, marketing (both before and during), private views etc etc. The cost of working with more than 100 individuals for one exhibition is huge. Selector I've selected a number of open exhibitions, most recently the Eisteddfod last year. We were a group of selectors who were all coming with our own baggage. It was a good experience as we all got along well, although I have seen selectors fall out big time over who's in and who's out. It helped to have a clear vision for the "whole show". As it was, I think we still over-selected and this is always a danger with opens. Audience I like to see a coherent exhibition. I like suprises, finding new artists, seeing new developments. I find the RA Su

posted on 2012-06-16 by Steffan Jones-Hughes

Following from the excellent comments so far, can I interject a different question within this debate? If artists were predominantly fairly paid and remunerated would the paying of such submission fees be an issue? Is it a principle or an affordability issue? Is one problem that there is not a culture wthin the funded arts for remunerating artists for their #culturalvalue, resulting in artists being insufficiently financially resourced to be in charge of and conduct their own professional development/R&D, for which entering open exhibitions and competitions (and pitching for grants) is part?

posted on 2012-06-14 by Susan Jones

I think Jo misses the point a bit. It's not hard paying money and not being accepted. The issue is about the bigger picture - an economic model that is unfair on artists. As a coach and a curator you must have a good overview of the system and how artists work. The investment should go into the work, marketing is important yes, but lobbing ten and twenty quid a time to already funded organisations is unpalatable. I realise that ACE (and other) funding applications require some matched funds / proof of additional income, so I wonder if indirectly the pressure to charge artists is from a need to get income to please the funders (who are there to support the arts). That's a curious feedback loop...

posted on 2012-06-14 by Julie Freeman

Jo wrote: "I’m happy to discuss Alistair’s fascinating summing up of my funding and income, but for now I want to focus on the bigger picture." OK, let's do it! With respect I think the bigger picture is fairly clear to us all, as the comments here show. Let's get to the part you say is fascinating. For a start I would definitely disagree about the fee establishing a contract, generally speaking. What it does is establish an unequal power relationship, and mostly not a very transparent, accountable or healthy one. The best way to have a contract between artist and somebody who's showing their work is... well, a contract. A negotiable and equitable one that isn't about one party laying down the law to the other, or about one party granting or withholding anything in an opaque and unaccountable way. A fair contract- either on paper, verbally, or tacitly- clearly sets out what is expected and wanted on both sides, and what both sides are offering and taking. (See Artquest's and a-n's good work and reference materials on these matters.) I think we should "honour the work", full stop. Not just the work of organising, but also the work of artists both in the creative and artistic realm, and in all the other things they need to do in order to keep themselves. I don't think any of the comments here were saying or even implying that there isn't labour involved in running a competition or staging an exhibition. We honour that work, but think it's long overdue that other people honoured ours. The more I think about Susan's idea of crunching and publishing the data on Opens and competitions to realistically assess the odds of getting in (again, almost like at the bookies...) and their genuine- as opposed to claimed- worth to the artists who take part, the more I like it.

posted on 2012-06-14 by Alistair Gentry

I am glad that Jack’s interview has sparked such an important debate, and I understand it is not against Ludlow Open specifically. I’m happy to discuss Alistair’s fascinating summing up of my funding and income, but for now I want to focus on the bigger picture. My feeling is that all Opens should be transparent about how they allocate funds and how they select work, and in this respect Susan’s idea is spot on. Artists should be able to make an informed decision on where to apply. As an artists’ coach I encourage artists to make a decision each year on how much to invest in promoting their work, and to make informed decisions on where to do this. It could be going to networking talks and events, or applying to Opens, there are lots of options. Regarding the fee itself, I wouldn’t scrap it all together, as I find it a helpful tool in creating a contract between the LO organisation and the artist, which is important even pre-selection. I know it is hard spending money and not being accepted, but ultimately it is not a waste if you are choosing wisely, and it is important to honour the work that goes into organising events.

posted on 2012-06-14 by Jo King

I am glad that Jack’s interview has sparked such an important debate, and I understand it is not against Ludlow Open specifically. I’m happy to discuss Alistair’s fascinating summing up of my funding and income, but for now I want to focus on the bigger picture. My feeling is that all Opens should be transparent about how they allocate funds and how they select work, and in this respect Susan’s idea is spot on. Artists should be able to make an informed decision on where to apply. As an artists’ coach I encourage artists to make a decision each year on how much to invest in promoting their work, and to make informed decisions on where to do this. It could be going to networking talks and events, or applying to Opens, there are lots of options. Regarding the fee itself, I wouldn’t scrap it all together, as I find it a helpful tool in creating a contract between the LO organisation and the artist, which is important even pre-selection. I know it is hard spending money and not being accepted, but ultimately it is not a waste if you are choosing wisely, and it is important to honour the work that goes into organising events.

posted on 2012-06-14 by Jo King

Having spent many years and quite a lot of money trying to get into exhibitions in the UK because I am outside the UK, I am more than convinced that many such exhibitions are over-subscribed and the entry fees are used for funding. The number of new artists who get selected seems very small. Not a jaundiced view as I have been successful in some instances. David Richards, Guernsey 12/06/12

posted on 2012-06-12 by D E Richards

I'm glad people are on the case, I do feel like I'm being exploited. Model agencies and Actors agencies aren't allowed to charge up front, after a big hoo-ha and years of being exposed on TV, neither are freelancers diary services, so why is art excluded from this legislation? Is it because there aren't enough of us making a fuss about it?

posted on 2012-06-12 by Amanda Cox

Great points re: logic @Alistair. I'm sure the article didn't intend to be lip service-y but it does feel a bit like that. The bottom line is that curators need to value artists and their work. It's not through a lack of understanding because it's pretty clear how much time and effort, passion and dedication, it takes to produce work, so it must simply be perpetuation of how 'things are done' that allow this model to continue. Things have to change, and educating curation students is a good place to start. I don't think Jo King is setting a good example in this context.

posted on 2012-06-10 by Julie Freeman

The new a-n web platform will make it far easier to comment against specific comments than at present - but in response to Julie - I think artists taking assessing their chances pre entry is sound advice and also encouraging them to highlight "name and fame" in the words of Emily Speed the *good* communicators/players in the visual arts will serve to equalise what should be a reciprocal arrangement between professional artists and professional arts organisers, in pursuit of mutually held aspirations.

posted on 2012-06-10 by Susan Jones

Last thing... there's a really interesting conceptual connection here between buying a lottery ticket (sales of which have contributed towards Grants for the Arts) and Susan's mention of the odds of success. A lot of artists seem to effectively be buying very expensive lottery tickets to an unfair, opaque game in which somebody gets rich but the odds of success for any one person are so vanishingly small that you're worse off or hardly better off than if you hadn't bothered entering at all.

posted on 2012-06-10 by Alistair Gentry

I also could not agree more with Gillian's comments. If nobody is getting paid on a project or it's for the common good of everyone involved (which is what "pro bono" means, by the way- it doesn't mean "working for nothing") then it may be appropriate to crowdfund it, make compromises, to work out some kind of equitable non-monetary exchange of labour or product. But if somebody is running an Arts Council funded project then they should have budgeted to pay everyone who ought to be paid and their main source of revenue should not be the people upon who they are depending for the project to go ahead, i.e. artists.

posted on 2012-06-10 by Alistair Gentry

Good idea @Susan - a data set like this would be really interesting especially if the odds were all displayed. It exposes the gamble which it is, and which on reflection isn't so attractive, and isn't the best way of carving a career. Equally as interesting would be to have artists score charts detailing current and past form...provenance versus mediagenicacy, sensation versus depth, output rate, tradition versus trend. ;)

posted on 2012-06-10 by Julie Freeman

To further develop the comments made by Julie, Kelvin and Gillian, perhaps we could try to unpack the logic as well as the economics of this one, not to pick on Jo King in particular but as a case study among many others: King states "Ludlow Open is primarily funded by Arts Council England. Ludlow College have donated the gallery space, representing in-kind funding" amd also that "I pay for the catalogue through advertising revenue, and I pay for the private view through sponsorship." Just to recap 1) The gallery is provided at no cost to the organisers. 2) The catalogue is paid for by ad space. 3) The opening is sponsored. 4) She says there is "no spare money". 5) King herself is already on the payroll of Ludlow College, making the work she does on the open arguably part of her (paid) remit already. So... although there is clearly some admin and labour involved, it's still not clear where the ACE funding and/or the artist submission fee actually going. As Julie asks, it would useful to know what the level of funding is, how much revenue is made from submissions etc. and where THAT goes, etc.

posted on 2012-06-10 by Alistair Gentry

I think Julie makes some good points about setting out the facts/odds for entrants who can then make an informed choice about whether to go in for something. This sounds like 'good practice'. It looks like from the last show "130 artists from around the country submitted 780 art works; 42 artists were selected and 85 art works were hung." That's a high % success rate in comparison with some other opens I'm aware of (John Moores gets 3,000 entries, 45 selected on average). Would a guide to opens with such data be useful to have online?

posted on 2012-06-10 by Susan Jones

Interesting how the Ludlow open defends it's entry fee charge. The £16 fee goes toward the transportation of the artwork... which is in conflict with the application which states artists have to transport the work themselves to Ludlow. It doesn't make sense. I'd like to understand how this really works. I'd love to see: 1) number of entries submitted vs selected (and therefore total funds raised) 2) admin costs 3) transportation costs 4) confirmation that ALL artists apply and pay as per the normal route (as I suspect this isn't the case for high profile artists) 5) how much is sold (and the commission made) 6) final P&L statement for the whole thing That would be transparent arts administration in my eyes. I doubt there is a profit made, but is there any point for the artists? What have past artists gained from being in this show? And why are the poorest members in the hierarchy of the arts being asked to pay (yet again) on top of paying for materials and spending time producing the work?

posted on 2012-06-10 by Julie Freeman

I completely agree with you, Kelvin Harvey. I do not pay submission fees to anyone. If a project is UNFUNDED (e.g. an artist run project) and I really want to do it, I am willing to pay an exhibiting fee. If it is funded (e.g. ACE) I am not willing, as I have already paid for the project myself through my tax. Yes this means that I perhaps "miss out" on exhibiting sometimes, but one has to value one's work.

posted on 2012-06-09 by Gillian Mciver

As an artist I do not have a problem with paying a submission fee once selected for an exhibition I however feel that the submission fee model is exploited more than often as a way of raising money which exploits the vanity, hopes or desperation of many artists who can often not afford to waste money on pointless submissions. The Royal Academy is the biggest culprit, encouraging hundreds if not thousands of applicants for a small percentage of spaces, they may say they select on merit, but they are merely a cultural form of the X Factor. This practice is then copied all over the country to solicit funds, some with the lure of a prize, accompanied with a submission brief which is either vague or so broad that anyone or anything can apply, most of which will never fit the panels criteria. To add insult to injury, any sales made are usually at gallery rates of forty to fifty per cent, some even charge admission for visitors, here the RA and its regional affiliates are the biggest villains. I don't dispute many shows are excellent, albeit very niche events, which once the 'private view' or 'corporate evening is over receives few visitors, unless connected to a larger event. A new and more honest model needs to be created, perhaps linking with other events and with a follow up support for artists for the next year or months, linking in with schools and colleges exposing art and artists rather than the prestige of the venue, after all these are merely buildings, it's artists and the promotion of art which is of paramount importance without which art shows, open or curated would cease to exist.

posted on 2012-06-09 by Kelvin Harvey