If you use judges from out of town from the start, who see every entry, then you do away with 90% of the problems discussed here.

Of course the choice of judges will favor a certain aesthetic. But if there are more than one judge that could be dealt with too. The more diversity on a panel the less likelihood of it being skewed in one direction.

You can have a cut off point for entries based on the amount that can be handled by the administrators and the budget. First come, first serve maybe?

It has to be blind, no visible indication of who the artist is, no resumes etc.

Every kid over the age of 6 can use a videocam today so there’s no reason that these things can’t be taped. I offer to tape any local competition FREE of charge as long as the artists get to see the final tape. This would serve as proof of a fair competition and could be educational on many levels. Some people have already started to do this.

I’ve been a judge too and have been around during the judging of shows and have seen some pretty bad things. I’ve heard some nightmare stories from others too. I’m glad to hear that some have had only good experiences but I would rather see a better system in place to be sure.

Each case is different but if being fair is the goal it can easily be accomplished. Be creative, you’re artists!

I *was* agreeing the nominators and jurors names should be public. But its like having a target drawn on your chest, sometimes. Everyone hates you. Many suspect you are a nepotistic, lazy sleaze bag with an agenda. Except the winners. Its not worth the $ (or the time) they pay you so you do all that as somewhat of a service for something you believe in. No good deed goes unpunished.

Your comments about the knowledge of the jury are most accurate. A double edged sword. FYI–I am just about to jury something wherein I know close to half the applicants.

well – my point was that the jury could be made public *after* the process. i’m not certain what purpose attempted retroactive schmoozing would serve, or why anyone would do it.

i’m not saying that people would necessarily consciously act to help their friends, but that their fields of knowledge are necessarily, and that will be reflected (versus an open call that might bring in heretofore unknown work). as larry david says, it’s a commission-omission thing.

Just stop giving a shit. Make what you make!!

Oh….my hometown…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….

JM

Also–I find it repellent to be schmoozed by some desperate character if they know I’m on a panel (or were). FYI–I never was on a jury that seemed to act with a c/overt agenda to promote their friends or certain groups. If that happened at all, it was subconsciously done. They always seemed to be trying very hard to be very fair. That was my experience anyway.

But its probably best to release the names. I do agree with that. I’m just sayin’…

As the previous post says, you have a 0% chance if you are not nominated and that feeling of hope, not to mention the exposure to the jury’s eyeballs (regardless of whether you win or not) is really important and made the Pew stand out as a reason for artists to stick around Philly…
This surely discriminates against those who are unknown to the nominators–obviously, right? So that alone is lame because we all know artists in hiding who may be overlooked for that reason alone. So yup, at its worst–it could end up reinforcing a cynical social climbing game. Ugh. As a former juror I’d like to think I am immune to persuasion of that nature (not to mention that really doesn’t make a difference HOW the applicant pool is generated as as you still have that bias with whomever you end up jurying (assuming people you know are applying))

Not mentioned in that press release from Pew:
Will the nominators change every year? If they don’t I think there’s even more reason to be upset. MacArthur has new nominators all the time.

I don’t think we can make prediction about how the nominators will choose and who they will be biased for or against. An open process, while a pain in the ass, leaves the power to decide to the community it supposed to be serving and not with the funding inst. It has a big psychological effect. I think the hope thing is very important.

As a former winner AND former juror, I hope they rethink this.

Now the 60 nominated applicants have a 20% shot.”

let me explain math: the odds of getting in for those that aren’t nominated by the secret committee: 0%

the king britt example that keeps getting mentioned is nothing more than fucking embarrassing. as was mentioned above, he’s a well-known, mid-career POPULAR (by which i mean working in a popular genre) artist. sure, it might make pew look hip and helps get some eyeballs because of name recognition, but i’m not sure how it encourages risk-taking or even serious work.

“Franklin who she had in mind as her underserved population she mentioned King Britt and young people. How bad is that?” – Uh, it’s kinda bad. This doesn’t seem to jibe with the concern that “people are getting discouraged.” If you are a young person, either you haven’t applied much to Pew before, or you are extraordinarily easily discouraged, in which case maybe a life in art is not for you.

I also don’t understand at all why the nominating panel can’t be made public after the awards are given. What harm could there possibly be in that?