Juried Shows

A friend of my was recently juried into a show that was at a Denver gallery. It was her first time in a Denver gallery, so of course we wanted to go and support her.

The show was excellent--an exhibition of Plein Aire paintings. The variety in styles was fantastic. I had two other friends with me, neither of them in the art field. It was really interesting to get their perspective as well.

One of them posed the question to me as to how the jurors decide which paintings win the ribbons. I confess to not really having an answer to that one. I know that a good juror can be more objective than some of us, but so much of art is personal taste. I've been to lots of shows where it is apparent that personal taste had more to do with assigning of ribbons than did mastery of the medium.

How do you decide between pieces of such wide variety of style and subject matter? Most of the pieces were very traditional in approach...and mostly that was what was rewarded. Did that make the more modern approaches any less good?

If you go back in art history, you will learn that many of the painters we view as plein aire masters today (think the Impressionists, for example) were not considered of value during their day. Mostly because they were "different".

So, if you are an artist, don't go for the ribbon. Go for what is in your heart. The market is big out there. I believe that if you paint what you love, and you continue to improve your skills, there is a market there for your work. Your heart will guide you and you will have great pleasure in what you do. That is worth more than a bunch of ribbons.