Seattle has no art scene, just a bunch of gay homos making garbage.

Seattle has no art scene, just a bunch of gay homos making garbage.

I think a juried NW Biennial implies that the selection would be based on what the curators thought was the best work of the region...

Obviously, you don't agree with the choice. That's fine, I don't either. Just the same, That has little to do with whether an artist should have had the foresight to determine if their work might not be selected and save $25.

I moreso agree that an exhibit like that should have been curated, and should have been a larger show. $25,000 should easily be "donated" by patrons who might see the value of an exhibit of NW Art representated with better stature.

represented

money well spent I'd say - we've never seen anything like this before -

http://www.elizabethleach.com/Artist-Detail.cfm?ArtistsID=115

or this - apparently inspired by a biology class or text - remarkable vision - so apropos of the zeitgeist yet abstract all at the same time

bloddy rot

Gay Homos?

you must be one of them strait heteros...

Of course, we do things a little more democratically; slotting is done on a first-come-first-served basis for juried events such as festivals (or done by-invitation), so the issue of pre-judging doesn't really come up.

Still, this does smack somewhat of elitism, which may be all well-and-good so far as it goes, but also knowing that many artists are not the sharpest chisels on the bench when it comes to left-brain activities such as reading the fine print, it does seem a bit disingenuous on the surface at least to demand an "entry fee" but not provide "entry".

On the other hand, it's pretty clear most of the "artists" submitting entries never had a realistic shot at getting into the exhibition in the first place, but I still can't help feeling the process is perhaps just a tad exploitive, encouraging those with little hope of acceptance to cough up a total of $21,250, which TAM then doles out to the few who do get in.

“I either want less corruption, or more CHANCE to participate in it.”
--Ashleigh Brilliant

“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the GOOSE as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing”
-Jean Baptiste Colbert

There are a bazzillion would-be artists in the world. I'm one of them. So if a gallery or museum simply allowed wide open submissions, they would drown under the shear volume of submissions, most of which are, well, not very good. So it is understandable that they want some way of reducing the overall volume, and at the same time weeding out some of the weaker work. To some degree, charging a submission fee achieves both goals. It reduces the number of submissions to a manageable level. And since most artists are poor, the entry fee acts as a self selection tool. I can't afford to spend $25 to enter every gallery and museum artists call that I hear about, so I have to pick and choose which I think I might have the best chance of being accepted.

That is where the difference lays between a legit artist call and a scam. It is legit if I have an equal chance with other artists who submit. It is a scam if I have no real chance, and they are simply pocketing my submission money. If TAM was jurying all the submitted work on an equal footing, preferably with the jury not knowing the identity of the artists, then it is a fair system. If the system is rigged, or the jurists know the names that match the art and are encouraged to choose artists they know, then it is a scam.

I'd be curious to see the language of the "disclosure" that TAM made in their call to artists. If they made it very clear that there would be a bias to the jury, then caveat emptor. But I'm guessing that if almost a thousand artists responded to the call for artists, then it seems unlikely that their bias disclosure was very clear.

Shame on TAM.

THAT line gave artists the (false)impression that TAM was looking for a broad range of artists and not just ones whose work is alreay in the TAM collection.

HOW many traditional/craft-based work is included in the show? There is Joe Fedderson, who usually does prints and also baskets, who has glass vessels that reference Native American basketry in the biennial, just so that TAM can say they have craft and a non-white artist living outside of Seattle (lives in Olympia but is represented by a Portland gallery) in the show, see how broad the spectrum is?

I also wonder if some of the artists who are included were specifically invited/personally encouraged to "enter" (that happens,too, even in "juried" shows); I find it hard to believe that an artist like Spafford would otherwise bother to enter such a show.

TAM once had Craft biennials alternating with the "fine art' biennials, and emerging NW artists really did have a chance to be included.

I am looking forward to hearing what Jen and the rest have to say about this show.

Of course, the accepted artists were invited an hour earlier, to the donor reception, where free champagne in glass flutes was served.

Postage = 39 cents

Admission to the party = $0

Getting your work in front of a curator from The Whitney [however brief] = priceless

I am what I like to call a pre-emerging artist and I think my work is fairly good (though not particularly trendy).

However I don't have much of a track record; I thought it would be a blind jury (didn't read the fine print, last time I'll make that mistake).

I live on about $10,000 per year so $25 is a lot of money and yes, I'm bitter and pissed. I don't plan to have much to do with TAM going forward, ever. (And boy, will they be sorry when I'm famous...)

I am happy to pay a fee, but only if I think I have a chance based on VISUAL MERITS.

I think clarification of what I biennial should be is an excellent idea. I just assumed that since a jury was involved selection would be blind. I would really like my $25 back, please.

Als....Well, there are some less knowns in the show like Buddy Bunting and Portland's MacK Mcfarland. Sure, both are active in their scenes and have been doing increasingly strong work as of late so Im not so certain the selection process is as flawed or closed as some infer.

It is the overall effect of the show that is what seems to be really irksome to many....

For example, had the Portland Art Museum done this for the recent Oregon Biennial it wouldn't have been pretty. The difference is Tacoma isn't Portland or Seattle and the question of who the intended audience might be is key here.

What is interesting is the activity level and quality present in the region have risen enough to make the Tacoma show an issue.

There have been some comments that have teased from this mess some positive spin: exposure of work to high level curators, "free" invitation to opening, etc.

However many of these positives we evoke or construe, there remains the original issue: it is clear that intentionally or unintentionally, TAM misrepresented, or underepresented qualifications necessary to be selected for the show.

I would like two things from TAM:
1) an appology
2) a refund of my $25

Scott Lawrimore's comment is the most observant: getting your work in front of a curator from the Whitney (however brief) was priceless.

Now, shut up and get back to work.