Whoa, I sure hope you’re misinformed, Judy! I find it horrifying to
contemplate-- and, actually, impossible to believe-- that shows
would surrender their ability to choose their own jurors, with their
own instructions for the make-up of their shows.
One advantage to a digital selection system is that jurors could be
anyone, anywhere, and they can take whatever amount of time they
choose (at least in theory-- it could also be limited easily enough)
to look at entries, and do it at 3 in the morning if they chose.
I second your call for someone from Zapplication to give us the
straight dope.
On the other hand, now, instead of merely needing to have or buy
photography skills to show off our actual skills, we have to worry
about whether the people who get into shows will be the ones who
have or can afford the most retouching skills...
Hi All. A big show I’ve really wanted to get into now is using
Zapplication exclusively, so I finally have to confront this issue.
I think the process has lots of promise and merit, but the can of
worms it opens is troubling.
In the age of digital photography, seeing is definitely not
believing. If it can be conceived, it can be rendered- at least in 2
dimensions. Additions, corrections, snd “enhancements” are only a
click or two way. How can we now assure the process of show
application is fair and honest?
This is especially for Judy Hoch (and everyone else) to correct the
total misthat the show promoter gave Judy about ZAPP.
I’ll take things one at a time to the best of my ability.
There is a fee for shows to use the ZAPP system. It is nowhere near
$12,000. I can’t remember exactly how much it is other than it’s
under $7,000. Some of the larger shows have said that they currently
spend much more than that just dealing with the slides. It’s great
for larger shows with lots of applications, but small shows who only
get a small number of applications will find it too expensive for
them to use.
One of the things that comes with using the ZAPP system is that
WESTAF sends the shows the equipment, properly calibrated and ready
to use. The images are shown on screens, just like the slides were.
ZAPP has nothing to do with the jurors used. I repeat, since this is
extremely important, ZAPP has no say, no interest, no list of jurors
available. They have NOTHING to do with what jurors a show uses.
The NAIA did not start ZAPP. ZAPP came about thru WESTAF, an arts
non-profit based in Denver. The NAIA got involved to try to help
protect the artists interests. We are still trying to work with
WESTAF to help get the best system from the artists standpoint. This
is a link to the NAIA website:
The NAIA is currently putting on seminars and workshops across the
country, to help both get artists up to speed on digital imaging as
well as giving artists a chance to see their images projected on the
same equipment that the ZAPP system uses. This is the link for more
on that:
I am on the Board of the NAIA which is why I’ve been so involved but
I’m speaking for myself and not for the NAIA here.
I had replied a couple of days ago to Marlene but haven’t seen that
response yet. Hopefully it will appear because I want people to know
that the digital images that I’ve personally seen with the ZAPP
system are beautiful and please don’t worry. We all have a lot on the
line since our images can make or break our getting into shows but I
think you’ll be pleased with how good they look!
I think that Marlene is correct that the jury system is compromised
with Zapplication
I will take that thought a little further and say that the jury
system is compromised by photography, period. Looking at images is
not the same as looking at the actual pieces. Better yet, look at the
work in the actual booth. But who can really expect applications to
include the actual pieces?
I think that from the promoter’s point of view, the best way to not
get fooled by clever photography is to judge the exhibitors at the
show and invite back the best ones. I also very much approve of the
practice of giving the promoter leeway to override the jury for 5 to
10 percent of the exhibitors to balance the show with “crowd
pleasers”.
This makes fewer booths available for actual competitive
applications. Which is too bad if you are on the outside trying to
get in. A photo jury is never going to be perfectly fair, but what
else can they do?
There seems to be an idea that if we can just find the perfect jury
policy, then the right people will always be chosen and everything
will be wonderful. The jury system is terribly flawed. As it is now,
the quirks and different practices of various shows may be a nuisance
to those of us who apply, but it does spread around the opportunity
to get accepted. Does that make sense? If all juries run the same,
then the same exhibitors will be favored all the time and others will
never stand a chance.
If you think it through, the next logical step for an efficient
centralized jury system would be to simply judge the images of every
artist on the Zapp system annually with a really big jury and then
use that score for all the shows, like you use SAT scores to apply to
university. Does anyone advocate THAT?
I would rather tolerate a patchwork of different standards for
different shows than to globalize things. The politically correct are
always going on about diversity. There is always going to be a certain
tension between “standards” and “diversity”. Not every diverse point
of view has a pushy advocacy group sticking up for it. So it is up to
those who devise these systems to do so in a flexible way that has
respect for the odd-ball and non-conformist.
Zapplication requires that the promoter use Zapplication jury
people - the promoter can chose which ones, but it is a limited
list.
Hi all. Can this be true? Why would a promoter want to (or need to)
cede control of a show to some centralized juror pool? I don’t think
this is the kind of “standardization” any of us artists are looking
for. In fact, I think it’s kind of scary.
All shows are not alike and different things sell in different
places. Promoters and local jurors know their market and should be
able to choose their own artists. When you factor in the potential
for abuse in using only digital images, I’m having second and third
thoughts about applying to any show using Zapplication.
I was told that the jury wants to see a plain grey, black, or
white background with nothing to interfere with the viewing of the
image.
What you need for jurying is a simple and consistent background.
This does not necessarily mean plain black, white or grey. The goal
is to use a background which complements (even enhances) the pieces
without detracting from them. A shaded, subtly colored background can
be entirely appropriate for this purpose. A highly textured, bright
background probably is not. Nor is a background with artistic props,
for instance. Check these pages for some examples of great jury
slides (although you would optimally select a set that used similar
backgrounds which is not necessarily the case here):
I sure would like to see some of the Zapplication management
respond to the concerns voiced
I have written to Ardath Prendergast of NAIA and asked her for a
clarification of the policies that Judy’s promoter friend described.
Hopefully she or a Zapplication representative will respond here as I
suggested. I’m concerned too!
Zapplication requires that the promoter use Zapplication jury
people - the promoter can chose which ones, but it is a limited
list.
Judy, I think your may be wrong, or else may not apply
to all shows using Zapplication. The ACC Craft Shows have just
started using Zapplication this year, and they have very specific
about their jury composition in their Show Application
Information booklet (available online). See page 10 at this link:
The jury is composed of a mix of current exhibitors, art
professionals, and buyers from galleries who purchase work at the ACC
Shows. I doubt this could be acheived if they were choosing from a
pre-assembled limited list of potential jurors offered by
Zapplication.
I am not connected with the show promoters in any way, just an
exhibitor in some of their shows. In fact have had my complaints
about the way shows have been run from time to time. I just want to
set the record straight about online application.
Anyone who is in this business in a serious way will be applying to
a minimum of ten shows per year, maybe twenty. Online applications
are a serious saving to the artist in both time and money, whether or
not you are able to do your own image preperation . You only pay once
for image preparation, instead of paying for every slide dupe. You
only prepare the application once, for any number of shows.
And for those who are worried that images used in online
applications are being tweaked in Photoshop–this is already
happening all the time, with traditional slide applications too.
Images can be improved in Photoshop, and then slides can be made from
the digital images.
On the subject of jury slides and backgrounds, etc–
At the Professional Practices Seminar at this year’s SNAG
conference, there was a panel of gallery-owners acting as jurors for
a group of slides submitted by SNAG members in a mock jury. The
"jurors" gave comments to the crowd about what their reaction was to
the slides and why.
For what it is worth, questioning revealed that this group, anyway,
was willing to overlook such “flaws” as images that didn’t fill the
frame, inconsistent backgrounds, and less-than-stellar slides if
they liked the pieces that were shown. They clearly were going
primarily on gut-reaction-- after all, in a real jury, there really
isn’t time for much of anything else.
I found this both reassuring and disconcerting (this last, at least
in part, because they were not excited about my slides). It is good
to think that great work will pop out in spite of handicaps;
disconcerting to see that there is really not a lot the individual
can do to influence the capricious nature of the process. I confess
I was baffled by some of what these folks got excited about.
All this being said, it still only makes sense to try to make the
"ambience" of the slides serve rather than distract. Graduated
backgrounds seem to be the order of the day, and it makes sense to
go with that, or solid black, unless there is a good reason to do
otherwise. Good focus, no wasted space, only make sense. But, bottom
line, I’d say, pick your best-looking slides (not necessarily your
best work) and go for it. I always say, if you don’t apply, you for
sure won’t get in!
As a gallery owner and a jewelry artist in the Cleveland area, I’m
very sorry to say I missed the jury session, I was looking foreward
to that.
The jurors in the N. E. Ohio area are generally hard to please. I
don’t know what they are looking for, but I continually see the same
artists, in the same spaces, at the usual shows.
Recently, a dirty piece of carpet, found in a warehouse, was framed
and exhibited- to my dismay, it wag give a FIRST PLACE prize by one
of the locally published art critics. Go figure?!? (I wish I were
kidding)
Noel, I think that you have made good points. Having just juried an
exhibition for our local-- Seattle-- metals guild, I have a fresh
recollection on how the quality of images affects the process.
A good image, one that is clear, well lit and not confusing and
ambiguous makes for a much more effective entry. Having to puzzle
out what was happening in a slide or what, in fact, we ( there were 2
of us) were looking at was distracting and often had a negative
impact on the jurying process. A poor image of a piece was not
necessarily a deal breaker: if we felt the work was strong we spent
more time and effort with it teasing out what we could.
On the other hand, a really fine image of (what we thought) was a
relatively less interesting piece did very little to aid that entry’s
acceptance. It really does boil down to the work. But if the numbers
are high, competition is stiff and there are many fine entries a poor
image becomes a liability. Put another way: a quality image may not
open the door but it never, never stands in the way. A poor or
confusing slide just might.
If the only true acquaintance a juror–be they an exhibition juror,
book or magazine editor or gallery director-- has with a piece is the
image taken of it, then that image had better make a positive first
impression.
Thank you for your recent invitation to respond to this thread on
ZAPPlication. I see that Bonnie Blandford already responded and the
that she shared is accurate.
Yes, there is a license fee to use ZAPP. When ZAPP was first
introduced, the licensing fee was $5,000, plus $1.75 per artist
applicant. However, I understand that now that ZAPP has had a year
under its belt and has a better idea of the actual costs involved,
that the fee has been reduced somewhat, although I am not presently
aware of the current fee.
I wish to reiterate what Bonnie wrote about jurors. ZAPP has no jury
list, and has no involvement in selecting or suggesting jurors
whatsoever. It is up to the show to put their own jury together. The
only thing that the ZAPP management team does during the jury process
is to assist the show with setting up and running the equipment
during the first year.
As far as NAIA’s involvement, the intent has always been to make the
application process easier for artists – i.e., the ability to
handle all application processes online from any location where the
artist may be, and to insure consistency in the quality of the image
projection so that artist’s images are viewed clearly and accurately
as the artist submitted them. As Bonnie noted, NAIA is also
conducting seminars and workshops to assist artists in understanding
the digital requirements of ZAPP, preparing accurate and true images,
and providing opportunities to see how images appear as projected
through the ROKU and LCD projector used by ZAPP.
We are writing to respond to the misabout ZAPPlication.org™ that recently appeared in the ORCHID forum. The
cited as being provided by a show promoter is incorrect.
Following are facts related to the ZAPP™ system.
Fees for Use
The fees for the use of the ZAPP™ system are far below the fee
cited on the forum. Individual shows pay a one time start up fee of
$1,500; an annual fee of $1,500 for the management of the application
data; and $1,500 for the management of the digital images. In
addition, a fee of $1.75 per artist is charged. A show with 2,000
artists applying would pay $8,000 in year one and $6,500 in year two.
The shows can also rent projection equipment from ZAPP™, however,
we encourage shows to acquire their own equipment. Multiple show
promoters may gang more than one event into a jury to reduce overall
jury costs for all events combined. In this case, the fee would be
higher than an individual jury, but lower than jurying one event at a
time.
Jurors
ZAPP™ does not select jurors or require the use of jurors from a
roster or pool. Selection of the jurors is entirely the decision of
the participating shows.
Impact on Artists Fees
We are not aware of any show that has raised artist application fees
to cover the costs of ZAPP™. In most cases the use of ZAPP™
should save a show money previously expended for brochure printing,
financial management, and data input. Some shows have offered the
service of scanning images and entering data to applicants who wish
to send in a paper application. In these cases the shows have charged
a modest fee.
The Role of Advisors
ZAPP™ is managed by the Western States Arts Federation (WESTAF).
WESTAF is a nonprofit arts service organization. The project is
advised by the directors of 9 major art festivals that are partners
in the system. In addition the ZAPP™ project staff regularly
consults with the leadership of the National Association of
Independent Artists (NAIA). All of these entities have an interest in
the encouragement of professionalism in the field in the area of
jurying. However, while the ZAPP™ project managers can encourage
professionalism, they cannot mandate it, and all jurying decision are
ultimately left to the individual shows.
Artist Concerns
If artists have concerns about a show’s jury process, we encourage
them to contact the participating show directly. Many shows are open
to having artists view their jury process. In addition, each show
using ZAPP™ is equipped to assist artists with the digitizing
process. For complex technical questions about ZAPP™ that shows
may not be able to answer, artists are encouraged to contact the
ZAPP™ team directly at contactzapp@westaf.org .
We will be happy to provide additional about the
ZAPP™ project to artists and others. We understand that any
unfamiliar system will prompt questions.
In closing, we wish to report that the system has experienced
continued success in aiding promoters in developing a streamlined
application and jury process and in providing artists with a
consistent mechanism to apply to many events. Currently nearly 10,000
artists are using it and the system holds more than 60,000 images.
Jurors have reported a very positive reaction to the image quality,
artists have welcomed the reduction in paperwork, and show directors
have positively remarked on the ability of the system to improve
their ability to manage shows.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the concerns posted in
the ORCHID forum.
The ZAPP™ Team
WESTAF
Beth A. Cooper
The Western States Arts Federation
1743 Wazee Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
303.629.1166
After reading several of these posts, I have a comment/question.
doesn’t all of this not encourage the artist, but only who has the
best photos, the best PR package, and most importantly the most
money? (ie…an artist who is not really that great but has alot
of money to sink into their project, let’s say have a jeweler have to
make the “art” for them (see posts “venting about designers”) can pay
a photographer $10,000 to make incredible pictures (photoshoped and
all) and pays to be part of a streamlined organization…I guess
you get commercial art…(which is a contrast of words anyway)
then again, since when is the commercial side of art not money
motivated and as an end result usually very mundane and uninspired.
Making money is great, but sometimes I fail to see how is relates to
art and to the artist…just as technology is great but sometimes it
proves to be a greater hinderence to the joys of life then a benefit.
Hi all. It looks like the recent thread regarding Zapplication and
the various issues that were raised: jury pools, photographic
presentation, etc. kind of petered out before any definitive answers
were offered. I keep hoping someone from Zapplication will write in
and set us all straight.
You were looking for answers on the questions posed about ZAPP and
said that no one had answered them. Actually, 2 people with direct
knowledge of ZAPP and one person from WESTAF all posted here,
answering all the questions that had been posed. As I wrote before,
if people have other questions about ZAPP, I will be happy to either
answer it myself or find the answer for you.
For anyone who is interested, we are doing a seminar in West
Michigan in the spring, on ZAPP, how to prepare your slides and
showing your images. If anyone is interested, feel free to e-mail me
and I’ll pass along the when it becomes available.
bonnieatbblandforddotcom.