Behind Closed Doors: Inside the Final Jury Session for the Smithsonian Craft Show (TCR 4/98)

Behind Closed Doors: Inside the Final Jury Session for the Smithsonian Craft Show

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

The Smithsonian Women's Committee agreed to our publishing jurors' comments from the confidential jury session on the condition that they would not be attributed to any particular juror or about any specific artist or work. Their inclusion here is intended to shed some light on the jury process in general.
For more information about the Smithsonian Craft Show, call the Smithsonian Women's Committee at: (202) 357-4000.

Samples of work accepted into the 1998 Smithsonian Craft Show. (Top) Glass by Schwartz/Swanson. (Below) Basket by Leon Niehues.
Photo courtesy Smithsonian Craft Show.

In November, I attended the final jurying session for the 1998 Smithsonian Craft Show. It was an eye-opening experience, to say the least. I left with a new perspective on juries and their inner workings. More importantly, I left with a new understanding of the onerous decisions with which jurors are faced, their meticulous examination of process and form, and above all, the significance of each juror's personal discretion.

Because of the choices the jurors made, the 1998 Smithsonian Craft Show, to be held April 23-26, represents what might be considered a change in direction. The body of work promises to be less conventional than others in the show's 15-year history. The varied backgrounds of the jurors might have had something to do with it. Bob Ebendorf is a full-time metals professor and an independent studio artist who primarily creates unusual jewelry, using startling combinations of precious metals or gems with items such as rat paws and crab claws. Paula Owen is the director of the Southwest Craft Center, holds a master's of fine arts degree in painting and printmaking, and does some studio work. Jane Sauer is a full-time studio artist who creates sculptural basket-forms and is the chair of the American Craft Council.

But the jurors' varied backgrounds seemed to have less to do with the show's departure from tradition than each juror's intent on choosing work that "broke boundaries." In fact, some of the words used most frequently, and most favorably, by the jurors were risk, exploring, taking on new issues and pushing the material. At the same time, however, the jurors also went to great pains to maintain the show's integrity in terms of quality, using phrases like doesn't quite meet the standards established, doesn't stand up and very skillfully crafted.

Jane Mason, chairman for jurying and judging, and former craft show co-chair, agrees that this year's show will be a bit unconventional. "I think that is absolutely true," she says, "that the jurors were perhaps interested in pushing the envelope. They seemed to be looking for work that was good and also new, or maybe work that was new and also good." Which, as Mason points out, doesn't mean that the artists who didn't get into the show were not doing work that was good and new. "The jurors really seemed to judge each person in a fresh way, without any preconceptions," she adds.

Eleanor Carter, the 1998 craft show chairwoman, says, "The jurors chose to return a few gifted audience favorites whose work grows each year, and singled out some new talents whose artistry is less commercial and is certainly pushing the boundaries. There are real surprises that will captivate the growing craft audience."

From more than 1,600 applicants, the three jurors selected 300 finalists, and from there, narrowed it down to 120 artists. The final jury session was grouped in the following categories (the number of artists in each category is in parenthesis), with a few artists' work appearing in two categories: jewelry (91), wood (31), glass (13), wearables (28), furniture (13), ceramics (43), leather (9), paper (3), metal (20), baskets (11), fiber-decorative (26) and mixed media (17). Each artist's work was represented by five slides.

As each category was reviewed, a quick run-through of all slides in the category came first. Each artist's slides were projected for about three seconds, until the jurors had seen all of the work in that medium. Then, each artist's slides were projected again, this time for as much time (within reason) as the jurors needed to make their decision.

Ceramics by Michael Sherrill.
Photo courtesy Smithsonian Craft Show.

The jurors were allowed to discuss the work, and even to provide some background on techniques or processes with which the other jurors might not have been familiar. For example, Bob Ebendorf's knowledge of metals enabled him to shed light on pieces that were technically complicated or unusual; without his input, this complexity might have been overlooked. Works in media with which the jurors were not as familiar often solicited less discussion. And, if a juror happened to be familiar with the work of the artist being shown, s/he could comment on the artist's career or progress over the years (without revealing the artist's identity), as well as any recent style changes or direction. Personal opinions were shared on many pieces, though scores were recorded silently.

Most interesting to me were the individual comments the three jurors made about each artist's work. Detailed below are some of these comments. They may provide some insight into how work is evaluated for one of the most prestigious craft shows in the country. I can't pretend to understand exactly what all of the comments mean, but at the very least they'll reveal a bit of what went on behind the closed doors of the 1998 Smithsonian Craft Show's final jury session ... but remember, next year presents a whole new panel.

JEWELRY

Positive comments:

The work has minimal attitude, but enough to have interest within that.
There's a real restlessness there that I'm really attracted to.
This artist handles his/her work much differently from others doing this kind of work; s/he has his/her own style.
This work is more poetic vs. more predictable.
S/he is very consistent.
This work is very complicated in its vocabulary.
The slide showing the detail (a close up) of the work shows that this aspect, the surface, is really important to artist. It's good that s/he pointed that out.
This work speaks very strongly.
The artist has a limited vocabulary, but there are a lot of words within that vocabulary.

Negative comments:

This work is similar to the other work I liked for being sensual, but this work is more commercial in its sensuality and less inventive.
The handling of the material is not as smooth as other people's.
They're a little inconsistent from one piece to the next.
This is too cute.
This work is really compelling, but it's brought down by that one piece.
The artist has a limited vocabulary, but there are a lot of words within that vocabulary.

WOOD

Positive comments:

Each piece is its own statement.
The carving is so fluid.
S/he is being very gutsy.
There is a very powerful design relationship that's going on between all of the pieces.

Negative comments:

S/he doesn't really approach this any differently than what's been done.
The surface doesn't really seem to go with the form or the material.

GLASS

Positive comments:

These newer pieces show the changes the artist has undergone.
The work feels very passionate.
The layering technique is shown really well.

Negative comments:

I'm confused here; it seems like some of this may be the artist's production work and the other ones his/her one-of-a-kind work? It's too bad there's not more of a relationship between them.
The form doesn't seem to work with the surface patterns.
The design is confusing.

Wearables by Hulda and Kenneth Bridgeman.
Photos courtesy Smithsonian Craft Show.

WEARABLES

Positive comments:

Good construction, good sense of layout.
This artist really explores the knitting machine and all it can do.
This is definitely a different voice than what we've seen.
There's no breaking barriers with this work, but it is beautifully done.
A very good use of dye.
A very thoughtful and beautiful sense of color.
This work takes on some new issues I haven't seen taken on.
This has a stronger and more unique design sense to the pattern than work we've seen.
This artist seems very resolved with his/her style.
They've really made the garment work with the materials.

Negative comments:

I don't feel that this artist's sense of design relationship is very strong. (After another juror commented that the work was hand-knitted, the original juror said, "Well that puts a little different spin on it.")
This work seems very restrained.
They haven't told us enough about what else they do (referring to the similarity of the work in all five slides).
S/he has a very tight vocabulary.
This work doesn't seem to consider the practical aspects of clothing; the gob of material in the front seems like it's going to be hard to negotiate.
Some of the imagery used is a little trite.
This doesn't quite meet the standards of work we've established with some of the other work.

FURNITURE

Positive comments:

These are fun, but the artist didn't allow them to fall over into silly.
This artist took the idea of a cabinet and is really exploring it.
These are very eloquently styled.

Negative comments:

There isn't really anything new here compared to what we've seen.

CERAMICS

Positive comments:

There's been nothing so far in this kind of surface.
There's something very quiet and strong about these.
I like the feeling of 'the hand' that you get.
This artist works with a very good understanding of the glaze.
I feel like the artist really enjoyed painting these.
There's a great sense of glaze relationship here.
I've seen his work develop, and he's definitely made his footprint.
This artist tells us a little more about his/her stretch, range of capabilities in these slides.
These are really gutsy.
These are whimsical, but in such a fresh way.
It's great to see someone doing real functional ware with this type of whimsy.
This artist really goes far in pushing the clay around.

Negative comments:

This is competent work, but it just doesn't stand up to some of the others.
This doesn't hold its own next to other related work.

LEATHER

Positive comments:

These go beyond good sewing.
The design structure is very strong.

Negative comments:

I worry about the inconsistency (between work shown in the slides).

PAPER

Positive comments:

I've never seen this technique used before.

METAL

Positive comments:

This is very raw, very honest and delicate.
These are very difficult forms to create, and the artist is very good at it.
The artist is very competent; the skill is very impressive.
This work is definitely museum quality.
These are very sensuous in their behavior.

Steve Madsen was accepted into this year's Smithsonian Craft Show in the wood category.
Negative comments:

The forms aren't very inventive.
I feel like this artist is still in the experimental phase and not quite ready to get out there.
In this genre of work, this is not the best representation.

BASKETS

Positive comments:

I have not seen a basket being handled like this.
This artist has worked really hard to push the forms, to find new ways of using the materials.
I like the restlessness here, and that the artist brought two materials together and made it work.

Negative comments:

These are obviously well crafted, but there's nothing new about them.

FIBER-DECORATIVE

Positive comments:

This is very bold in its compositions.
The stitching is very subtle but very powerful.
This is adventurous, daring.

Negative comments:

I feel that work like this just doesn't photograph well; you don't get the sense of the layers that are involved in it.

Behind Closed Doors: Inside the Final Jury Session for the Smithsonian Craft Show

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

JEWELRY

WOOD

GLASS

WEARABLES

FURNITURE

CERAMICS

LEATHER

PAPER

METAL

BASKETS

FIBER-DECORATIVE

MIXED MEDIA