A Jury Of Someone's Peers

Over the course of the last year I have primarily focused on my personal work and have had the opportunity to present this work in two separate portfolio reviews. These two experiences could not have been more diverse. I will explain further on. But first a brief background on the portfolio review phenomenon.

In recent years we have seen the “photography review” concept gain traction in both the fine art and commercial photography worlds. This method of seeing and being seen is ostensibly meant to cut down the time it would take for a large number of artists and reviewers to connect through conventional means (i.e. cold-calling and one-off meetings). As speed dating has done for many loving couples so has the paid review done for photographers and their potential suitors.

For those who haven’t had this experience before or are not aware of the process I will briefly explain. Many of these events are held as a benefit for non-profit trade organizations (i.e. ASMP, APA etc.). The basic premise is that an artist pays to have their work reviewed by several, sometimes dozens of industry professionals over the course of a few days in a series of roughly 20-minute meetings. The artists scan the list of reviewers a few weeks in advance and submit their wish list of whom they would like to meet with. Finally a lottery decides who on the wish list the photographers will see and when the meeting will take place.

I have just described the non-juried review. There is one more wrinkle to discuss, the juried review. This method injects an added level of gatekeepers chosen to decide whose work is worthy to be seen by the reviewers. A photographer pays to submit his or her work to a panel or jury who will then decide if the photographer should be allowed to pay further to have their work reviewed by industry professionals who can potentially help in the artists’ future success. Seems excessive and counter-productive to the detractors of this method but the proponents say this extra filter will keep the work at a high level. Of course whose standard of “high level” is being applied is the big question.

In April of this year I participated in a non-juried portfolio review. Registration was a first-come-first-serve affair with the first 160 applicants allowed to participate. No other filters were imposed and there were no gatekeepers except of course for the participants’ ability to afford the event (thousands of dollars for travel, hotel, meals and entrance fees). Since this was the first time I have shown my personal work in this type of venue (I have participated in several non-juried reviews in the commercial realm) I had no preconceived idea of what to expect. Detractors though had warned me that this non-juried event will surely be a mishmash of amateurs and bad work and that it would be a waste of my time and money. But this was an experiment for me. I went to experience the event with a complete open mind. As it turned out the detractors could not have been more wrong. I was amazed at the level of work, professionalism and commitment displayed by people from all areas of the medium. Sure there were a few artists that weren’t ready for prime time but I’ve seen that in juried events as well. The over-all impression was one of diversity and fresh ideas. Both the reviewers and photographers I spoke with felt that the experience was productive and valuable.

In order to get the full portfolio review experience, in June of this year I made the decision to participate in a juried review. The well respected event I participated in requires the artist to pay a fee to submit his or her work to an unnamed jury who will then choose the work of 100 photographers who will then be allowed to pay further to participate in the review. I paid my money and submitted my work to the anonymous jury. That was as far as I got. My three bodies of work never made it past the faceless few.

As a seasoned artist and art educator I am not a stranger to receiving and delivering rejection. And certainly working in the commercial world I’ve developed quite a thick hide. Nevertheless I was intrigued by the particular idea that work would need to be “chosen” to be reviewed. I have been a reviewer and have been reviewed in many non-juried events and never felt nor heard anyone express the opinion that there needed to be an added layer of filtration. Gallery shows, photo awards, yes judge and jury to your heart's content. But why jury a portfolio review?

My curiosity was further piqued since my work was being judged by an unnamed panel. Who were these people? Are they of a caliber that I would be honored just to have them see my work even if it meant they were not impressed? And by the way who chose the jurists and what was their criteria and credentials? And who chose the people that chose the jurist etc. etc.? And finally, if I don’t know anything about the jury how could I make an informed decision as to whether my work would be appropriate to submit? After the jury had made their selection their names and comments were released save for one jurist who declined to make any comments at all. As it turns out the jury was made up of three unremarkable, marginal industry members with very similar backgrounds and combined resumes that were, how best to put this? Thin.

The whole question of gatekeepers, how they are chosen and what criteria is being applied is a nagging one that challenges all areas of the arts. This challenge was highlighted when during a panel discussion the weekend of the juried event an audience member brought up her concerns over the homogenization and lack of real diversity of the work accepted for the review. She continued by asking if anyone on the panel wanted to comment on the possibility that this phenomenon could be a symptom of a small, non-diverse and inexperienced jury. No one on the panel wanted to touch that third rail. But if discussions in the lobby afterward are any indication it became clear that most in the audience where thinking the same thing and wondered out loud how such a jury could be selected and if a jury might even be counter-productive for a portfolio review.

The folks that put on these events do a wonderful service for the photographic community. They are good people who agree to throw themselves into the fray of artists’ egos, expectations and psychoses for the love and benefit of the medium while receiving little if any compensation. That’s why it’s so important to ensure their hard work is as beneficial to the photo community as possible by encouraging that care be taken when deciding when and if to apply a jury standard. And then assure that that jury is diverse enough to broaden our view and experienced enough to understand their responsibility.

The Gatekeepers

Who decides what photographs we see? Are we losing important photographic voices as editors, art buyers, curators, publishers, art jurists and gallerists become the arbiters of which photographers deserve to be seen? Are we witnessing the homogenization of the photographic medium? What is being done to assure that myopia does not govern accessibility to diverse points of view?

Recently there have been several occasions that brought to mind the slow but steady filtering of talent that goes on in our medium. A filtering that removes and edits the work of talented artists from our view and in so doing perhaps silences their public voices forever. Because of this these artists may never get the chance to inspire, challenge or provoke us. I find this sad but perhaps unavoidable as a function of the shear volume of imagery to be seen. The issue then is not so much that editing occurs but how best to go about deciding who does the editing and what criteria is used so that we will be assured of a broad, vital and diverse pool of talent now and in the future.

In the past several decades we've witnessed vast changes in the way photography is disseminated. Some changes have helped expand our view and others not so much. This is of course a broad subject and one in which I can only scratch the surface here. But I look forward to your comments and observations as they will serve to round out our understanding of how this filtering occurs, what its long-term affects might be and how we might make adjustments so as to expand rather than narrow our view of the world.

More to come...