A discussion with other artists prompted this article on “the ol’ rejection letter.” Galleries and museums need to come up with better rejection letters. We know that these places are inundated with proposals and solicitations but then again it’s all part of their day’s work.

Gallery rejection letters are usually sensitive and honest while being encouraging but there is a common phrase that I find both humorous and somewhat insulting: we find that [your work] is not a good fit with our gallery. This remark implies that the artist did not do their due diligence when soliciting their gallery. If a gallery shows geo abstract work and an artist shows them geo abstract work then in theory the work is a “good fit.” If a gallery shows realistic figurative work and an artist shows them realistic figurative work then in theory the work is a “good fit.” You get the point. If the gallery is intending “not a good fit” to be vague enough to mean anything, well, this phrase is just not cutting it. Galleries should be more direct in why they think work is “not a good fit” or at least use a better rejection form letter.

Museums on the other hand most commonly reject proposals by stating: our museum exhibition schedule is currently booked for the next few years. This phrase is most confusing and doesn’t even sound like a rejection but more like a brush off. Artists (and potential curators) realize that museums plan shows a few years in advance so the intention of any proposal is for future exhibition. Talk about a “catch-22″. A better way of phrasing the rejection would be something like: we are planning our 20XX exhibition season and your proposal does not fall in the parameters of our artistic direction.”

Rejection is never a good thing but the way a solicitation or proposal is rejected should be handled with utmost professionalism.

It’s finally here. A reality TV show featuring visual artists—Bravo’s Work of Art: The Search for the Next Great Artist (the show will air starting Wednesday, June 9th). If the competition between fashion designers, chefs, musicians, hair stylists, etc. is not enough visual artists will now get their due.

I’m not a big fan of these types of shows. If a person aspires to be a “serious” artist then participating in a reality type show is not the way to go. It seems cheap and actually kind of silly. It really comes down to being about a “TV show” and the “competition”—not about the craft.

Talent competition shows are not new. They have been around for many years. The difference is that today there is too much emphasis and media coverage put on today’s winners and competitors. It’s very difficult live down the fact that you were the “winner” of such and such. Again, I think it’s more about the “TV show” and “competition” than the actual craft or skill.

I have only seen previews of Work of Art but there is one thing I am curious to see. Supposedly these artist (based on all the other reality/competition shows) will be working within strict time limits. I think this would propose a hindrance to some—I have heard many an artist utter, “I can only work when the mood hits me”. Well, if you are one of the competitors the “mood” better “hit you” before the time limit bell goes off…if you want to win.

watch the preview

An Art Coach is not a new profession but there definitely have been a lot more of them creeping up within the last decade. There have also been a lot of books published on the subject of how an artist can correctly market themselves and sell their work. The same tired topics are discussed: how to solicit galleries, the correct way to send a packet to a gallery, how to write an effective artist statement and resumé, etc. etc. etc. There is also a gallery owner in NYC that has a popular blog which discusses the same topics.

Don’t get me wrong. I think a serious artist can learn a few things from using an Art Coach and/or reading some of these books but after awhile it all sounds the same. Everyone has an opinion—right or wrong. Some people suggest doing it this way while others prefer dong it that way. There are no absolutes here.

Use common sense when marketing yourself. Have clear concise objectives and work your way toward fulfilling those objectives. Learn and take where you can—an Art Coach, a book, a blog or a fellow artist. Do what feels right or is comfortable for you.

Because you have to achieve, or earn, a presence in the Art World, there is also risk for failure. On the other hand, there is no failure in the DIY World, because there is nothing to achieve. This gives the illusion of success, unless of course your vision of success is a blue ribbon at the neighborhood art-walk exhibit.

I have a problem with performance art* that relies on doing something outrageous in public. This stuff isn’t any different than stupid radio, game show or reality show stunts. High art…it ain’t. No matter how much philosophical, psychological or sociological bullshit you attach to it, this type of art is just garbage. It’s “attention-getting” nonsense…and too bad that the art world actually gives it attention. To all curators and gallerists: there is good work out there so please pass on the “cherries stuffed in the vagina, tampons in the mouth, sucking your toe, trying to talk while having water in your mouth, etc. etc. etc.

* Not all performance art is bad. I’m just discussing the shitty stuff…you know who you are!

The following are definitions of “Career Levels” taken from the CAAP grant application here in Chicago. These definitions are also used throughout the art world.

New
Those at early stages of development defined as having received no or very small grants, awards, or funding from any source. Although the applicant may have little or no exhibition/performance/production history, there is strong commitment demonstrated by the art with potential for growth. The applicant is at the beginning of professional, or organizational development. Individuals with professional or degree training, self-taught, or mentored artists are eligible.

Emerging
Those with progressive exhibition/performance/production history as demonstrated by resume, grants or funding history. Has received funding from any of these sources: the Department of Cultural Affairs, The Illinois Arts Council, the National Endowment for the Arts or Humanities, or prizes/awards from local, national/international programs. Organizations will show a board of directors, productive, established management systems, and at least one staff member who is paid either part or full time.

Mid-Career
Those demonstrating an extensive, progressive history in exhibition/performance/production as demonstrated by resume; local, regional, national/international recognition in the field; has professional or commercial affiliations. Includes any or all aspects of the Emerging Level.

I have a few random thoughts:

Concerning “New”, an artist can have 20 years experience at their craft, producing and selling good work, but not have great exhibitions or any grants to show for it…would this artist still be considered “New”? Based on the definitions, this artist is not “Emerging” because of their weak resume and no grant history and certainly not “Mid-Career” so this particular artist after 20 years of working would be considered “New”.

Concerning “Emerging”, how long can one be an emerging artist? Emerging seems to be a one or two year stint. After “Emerging” one or two years does that then put the artist at “Mid-Career”?! or maybe just “Plain Old Artist”…? Can one be labeled an “Emerging” artist after 5, 6 or 10 years of experience? Let’s say an artist gets their MFA at 24 and has a great run for 5 years. Based on the definitions, this artist is definitely not “New” and really not “Emerging” after 5 years of an “extensive” history so it seems that this artist is “Mid-Career” at the ripe old age of 29. And let’s not even get into the term “Re-Emerging”.

On to “Mid-Career”. This is easy enough to understand in its purest sense. This artist has years of experience and has an “extensive, progressive, international” resume and some grant history. All understood. My question is: what would this artist want with a CAAP grant?!

My point to all of this is that it would be easier and make more sense if we drop the silly “Levels” bullshit and just ask the simple question: How long have you been an artist?

WTF is a periodic rant about an ill of the art world, one of humankind’s most screwed-up endeavors.

One way to prop up shit is to put it in the same context as good work. If garbage is associated with excellence, the quality rubs off on the junk. For some reason, it doesn’t work the other way around. This is a technique used by curators and writers alike. It’s all good.

WTF is a periodic rant about an ill of the art world, one of humankind’s most screwed-up endeavors.

Artist communities don’t attract good artists. Having a “community” of artists seems like a good idea but if you look deeper into any “community” invariably you’ll find a lack of talent, a hobbyist mentality, more social than serious.

Some artists find out that playing with the big guys or getting into a “real” gallery is too difficult so they join a “community”. Has any artist ever become a “rock star” while climbing through the ranks of a community art group? In Chicago we have Around the Coyote, the CAC, the Ravenswood Art Walk District and the Pilsen Art District to name a few.

There are usually two kinds of artists. Look at their résumés. On the one side you’ll find respectable galleries, serious curated shows, museums, residencies, grants and on the other side you’ll see store front and frame shop galleries, restaurant and bar shows, Co-ops, vanity galleries and a lot of community art stuff.

Embrace the path that best makes you happy. Just be clear that each path will take you on a different journey.

WTF is a periodic rant about an ill of the art world, one of humankind’s most screwed-up endeavors.

It can be interesting, inspiring and enriching to see the sketches, trials and, the mock-ups of an artist. The rough and awkward sketches on kraft or scrap paper can tell a lot of how an artist came to painting that finished masterpiece. Automobile designer Dick Teague sketched the Pacer on a barf bag while on a business flight. Many great things start out as an idea sketched or outlined on a bar napkin. I love looking at rough stages of anything.

Unfortunately, too much art stops here. Today, paintings are rough (and sometimes crappy) sketches on construction paper, wrinkled from the paper that unevenly shrinks as the paint dries. They are then push-pinned to the gallery wall as a finished piece. Installations are made of unfinished scrap wood, slapped together. Sculpture is cut out of cardboard boxes and taped together with duct tape. A lot of art ends up looking like some sort of day camp project. The “bar napkin” has become the finished piece.

For some reason, the art world really responds to work that seems to be slapped together as opposed to fully executed…something that looks polished. Though a piece that is quickly put-together shows an immediate connection to the idea, it just doesn’t seem finished…something is missing.

The word “craft” has connotations of “arts and craft”…hobbyists in a park district field house making pots. If you ask me, dashed off quick sketches on torn construction paper makes me think of “craft.” Would it be so bad to take those drawings to the next level? Probably, because today it would be received as out-dated and old fashioned. I think it’s time for a new trend.

WTF is a periodic rant about an ill of the art world, one of humankind’s most screwed-up endeavors.

It seems that everywhere I turn the art world is discussed in negative terms.

• The gallery system is outdated.
• The art scene in (insert your city here) is too small.
• Artists don’t follow the proper procedures to obtain representation.
• Art fairs are too commercial.
• The art world is vapid.
• Painting is making a comeback as it’s a safer bet in a weakened economy.
• Older artists can’t get a break.
• Younger Artists can’t get a break.
• There aren’t enough women being shown.
• There aren’t enough minorities being shown.
• and so on and so on…

Is there anything good about the current art world?