How does $250,000 sound as an award for having your work voted as the best in show by the public at large? Well all artists anywhere on the planet are being given that exact opportunity by two entrepreneurs with an interest in igniting public discussion about art. Business owner Rick Devos and Jeffery Meeuwsen executive director of Michigan’s Urban Institute for Contemporary Art have come together to launch ArtPrize.org, something they’ve described as a “social experiment” to “reboot” the dialogue between artists and audiences.
But the project has met with resistance from some facets of the art world due to the fact that the 10 winning artists who will be awarded prizes ranging from $250,000 (top prize) – $7,000 will not be chosen by a formal jury, curator or judge, but by the citizens of Grand Rapids Michigan where the venue will be hosted. According to critics of the competition, this method of choosing a winning artist is controversial and tantamount to scandal because it relies on the “uneducated” public’s opinion. From the public’s stance, many would probably counter that curators in the world’s elite museums and galleries routinely applaud and support works of art that leave audiences scratching their heads and have themselves, questionable and irrelevant taste.
András Szántó, one of the founding and contributing editors of Artworld Salon, issued a strong opposing critique of the competition in May equating it to an American Idol-style contest and predicted that the prize would have little if any impact on the long-term careers of the winning artists. Szántó believes that an appropriate, though “frayed” structure already exists for augmenting the notoriety of deserving artists, and that the prize money up for grabs could have been better spent by investing it into this system. He gives a scant critique of the existing system, mentioning the allure of capitalism and its assumed corrupting influence as an issue but neglects to highlight other major issues infecting it such as elitism, favoritism and prejudice (though Szántó is admittedly unapologetic about the elitism bit).
The disconnect between what is worthy of being in the MOMA or commanding high figures in a Christies auction and the average viewing public is very real (a 2006 Urban Institute study Investing in Creativity showed that only 23% of respondents felt that artists contributed a lot of good to society). I guess the bigger question is should it matter?
While I don’t believe an artist should cater to a populist notion that their work should be understood or accepted by everyone, I think that the existing elite circles in the art world do more harm than good when they anoint themselves the number one authority on what dictates good taste in art and then subsequently create an aura of alienation by promoting the idea that the only proper way a viewing audience can decipher or approach a piece of art is through the auspices of an art critic, particularly an art critic from “that” particular environment. There is a definite condescending air in the higher levels of art that regards the masses as intellectually inferior, and that prejudice even flows toward artists who are often regarded as incapable of describing or writing about their own work or whose work is ignored if they didn’t rise up the food chain in an expected manner.
Another assertion made in the Szántó article is that any artist who would win the ArtPrize competition would never be accepted into the art world “big-leagues”. Success is really up to the individual artist to define; for many just making a real income from their work would be considered having attained the “brass ring” and Szántó seems to assume that every artist entering the competition would want to eventually rub shoulders with the likes of Damien Hirst.
The creators of ArtPrize declare on their website that the primary aim of their social experiment is education and fostering communication between art experts and the public, not to act as a referendum on established art practices. Instead of decrying this opportunity as a “publicity stunt” its detractors should get beyond the large cash prizes and their fear of having their supposed authority superseded, and examine the event to gauge the response of the participating public and the artists, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here about bridging a gap. This particular way may not be perfect but at least someone is putting some thought and action into it.
Deadline to enter is July 31, 2009.
Further Reading:
ArtPrize.org
ArtPrize – Anarchy or Education?
Anti-ArtPrize – András Szántó’s criticism of the competition
MyArtspace blog article in support of ArtPrize
Tags: art buying, art competition, art controversy, politics
I guess one person’s opportunity is another person’s “publicity stunt.” I can see where the “experienced panels” are coming from with “the regular-folk being too lowbrow to appreciate important art.” I mean, I’d hate to see what my sister would vote for …(pretty much anything with Jesus in it…lol). But like your Artists Statement says, it’s about communication. It should elicit a reaction of some kind, and more importantly, that reaction whether positive or negative should come from a somewhat diverse audience. For example, If I see a diverse group of people standing in line to buy a corned beef sandwich – it’s a safe bet that it’s gotta be a damn good sandwich. If I see a monolithic group standing in line for a corned beef sandwich – I’m likely to run the other way.
When different types people can appreciate the merits of a particular work (whatever the medium), it says a lot about that work. I’m a little bit of a class warrior when it comes to this topic because I sometimes feel like art (in my case photography) is the playground only for the wealthy (and their children). I guess it makes sense cause wealthy people are major financial supporters – but that doesn’t give you much variety in the way of perspective and vision.
A lot of stuff I see is ‘technically’ well done (I’m referring to photography)….. but it seems so empty and void of any interesting perspectives or substance – just cliché after cliché. I feel content is just as important and technical execution.
But that’s just me.
I think a lot of people share your sentiments. I’m curious to see the out come of the competition, not just to see who wins but to see the level of public participation (how many people vote and attend the venue).