Essay: The American Artist as Pariah

The character and identity of all artists, but more specifically American artists, has been culturally misappropriated by woke political forces. These include the hegemony of academic "studies" professionals who pose as curators or administrators, radical feminists whose "Smash the Patriarchy" initiative is all that matters, and the innumerable special interest groups who supplement their own program finances by openly redirecting arts funding for political social engineering campaigns.

And it is not only the definition of art and artists that has been conflated with a single woke political profile.  The idea of community is also being appropriated to promote racism and identity bigotry and resentment. in melting pot America, community used to refer to integrated urban neighborhoods or country towns and villages.  In both cases, the common denominators were shared social concerns and a dedication to making those interpersonal social units more prosperous for everybody. Working, civil communities countywide can be identified by "not in my backyard!" mantras. In other words, this community manages just fine on its own because its worked at it and has earned its peace - that doesn't qualify it as a candidate to save the world. In fact, Native Americans might argue that "not in my backyard" is their historical meme.  

Contrast that conceptual model with the politically motivated woke narrative that claims that they *are* out to save the world.  But in order to do that saving,  segregation, suspicion, innuendo, reverse bigotry, political tribalism, decolonization, and a Pandora's box of psychological anger and fear needs to be utilized to achieve that goal.

In the context of art and craft, community no longer refers to the community of art and crafts practitioners, it refers to special interest groups who appropriate artistic roles and vernaculars to express their anger and bottomless greed for more funding to promote their holier-than-thou cause - "funding for mine, but not for thine".  Not for thine refers to any art practice that isn't loudly, obnoxiously selling some aspect of the woke identity agenda. This concept of community comes prepackaged with a word salad vernacular,  look-and-feel signaling ornamentation, a demographically tested narrative of need and historical abuse, and a plausibly digestible, socially redeemable intent.

While there is a cohort of woke-mind-virus inspired true believers, most artists just want to make art.  And making art or creating craft has nothing to do with politics, personal identity issues, or saving-the-world.

For highly successful artists, few of them need to care about any of this. But that is a tiny number of individuals. And this is why government funding dedicated to the arts is so critical to ensuring the autonomy of artists and new ideas.

The current Biden administration has allowed and empowered the National Endowment for the Arts to embezzle funding dedicated to the arts for identity politic and Democratic National Committee priority and promotion.  Significantly, union interests have as much or more representation in the NEA process than actual artists do.

Artists (conservatives, liberals, independents, and the indifferent) who would not pass the litmus tests involved must either hold their nose and fake interest, distort their art to fit a narrative, or otherwise hack their way through the process. The damage is external as well.

The funding of anti-Trump/anti-conservative, aesthetic hate speech through the National Endowment for the Arts and its subsidiaries is nothing short of criminal. Despite the presumption that all artists are woke and political, and unified in hating conservatives, the NEA suppresses and muzzles the truth.

Artists should never have to submit proposals for art funding through virtual gateways whose subliminal message is to conform or else and this is true nationally. The evidence is empirical when the administrators post identity politic profiles as their qualifications for the job.

The integrity of Arts funding has to be decolonized of politics and thoroughly regulated for these kinds of political subversion.  

  

National Embezzlement of the Arts - Part 1

 I started my research into the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) earlier this year based on the New England Foundation for the Arts (NEFA) and CT state arts grants.  The point of the research was to simply understand how tax-payer funded Arts grants to individual artists such as myself are administered.

That research resulted in discovering innumerable unethical and likely illegal administrative practices being conducted nationally, regionally, and in the hydra of local malpractices.

On April 3, I called the NEA office to inquire how to make them aware of what I was documenting. I was told to email the public affairs and office of the Inspector General which I did. On April 9 I added additional material in a second email. I received absolutely NO FEEDBACK whatsoever.

On May 1, I requested that both divisions simply acknowledge that my emails were received. Public Affairs replied with a robo-response that implied that the organization likely ignores all incoming mail on these channels.

The obvious conclusion is that the National Endowment for the Arts is self-insulating and that there is no serious autonomous Office of the Inspector General auditing the operation.

In the interim I have attempted to solicit information from numerous tax-payer funded Arts organizations - a few of which are listed above.  Scott Wands at CT Humanities is the sole individual who ever responded.

All of the websites list phone numbers that, when called, don't get answered - leave a message - when leaving a message is attempted, you are informed the phone message box is full - send an email.  Sending the email is ignored.  It is unclear if anyone on the Arts payrolls ever works their job. Emptying the phone messages daily should be a no-brainer.  Reading the inbox and spam email folders is also a no-brainer. NOT DOING THE JOB YOU ARE PAID TO DO is malfeasance.

Given the wholesale dysfunction of the Arts network, the next most logical step is to lodge a discrimination complaint for both the lack of opportunity and the unacceptable conditions under which to pursue opportunities for grants and awards from these entities.

Yesterday I called the CT Human Rights and Opportunities Commission  to inquire as to where to file a discrimination complaint against NEFA which serves multiple states and is administered through a Boston office. I was directed to the federal Equal Employment and Opportunities website but hit a deadend. My complaint didn't neatly fit any of the obvious categories and so I selected "other".

The EEOC blindspot has to do with opportunities involving arts grants, funding, and arts administration. I called them and spoke with Rachel Aniston who said that although it wasn't covered by the EEOC that "some other" government agency regulates and governs Arts organizations.

She said that the answer must be listed on USAGOV.gov and if not there then the Federal Coordination and Compliance Division (FCC) of the Department of Justice.

Finding nothing on the USAGOV website, I called their number and was eventually speaking with an operator who was incapable of doing anything other than reading the USAGOV website talking points to me without adding any value.  Another deadend.

I located the information for the FCC and called their generic number.  It rang for three minutes and hung up.  So I called the Title 06 HOTLINE, it too rang for three minutes and hung up.  

There is little question in my mind, that the Arts and Arts funding is an unintentionally rogue set of operations that function out of sight and out of mind and as such are functionally unaccountable except to their own make-believe Offices of "Inspector Generals".

As such they represent a tax-payer money sink that has been illegally appropriated for Democratic party solicitations, special interest honeypots, and exclusive higher education institutional abuse. And there is nobody enforcing the ethics, the veracity, or the governance of this operation.

I'm going to share this with some politicians who should wake up to this.

Updates will follow. 

Criminalization of CT Artists by Proxy

I ran into the administrator from a local arts organization and the issue of soliciting government funding came up. "All I want to do is put a coat of fresh paint on the walls and I'm forced to fill out applications requiring all this Woke shit about diversity, gender, and on and on.  The building just needs a fresh coat of paint!"

There's a particularly obscene set of grants given by the Connecticut Office of the Arts called Artists Respond because of the dysfunctional and functionally malicious application of the National Endowment for the Art's (NEA) organizational criteria for Artistic Merit and Artistic Excellence to the criteria for grant evaluation at the individual artist or fellowship level. Both Merit and Excellence are wholly bleached out of the equation in favor of "Community" (e.g. Woke social issue engagement) criteria.  The result is that artists requesting funding are pledged into laundering public arts money into progressive (Woke-Democrat-friendly) issue advocacy. 

On a statewide basis this violates ethical and legal conventions by misappropriating these funds for political advantage.

Let's unpack the scope of duplicity, incompetence, and outright disingenuous bad intent involved.

In Your Everyday Art World, Lane Relyea documents how by the mid 1990's capitalism transformed the product made by artists into  Projects (Operational Business Units). Reputational Networks of Art collaboratives began to supersede the ability of artists to self-promote or compete with the cost of legal representation required to establish a business footprint.

And this appears to be the origin of the NEA's usage of the term. And this is important for artists to understand.  The vernacular for describing art is no longer merely that you are creating a worthwhile piece of art or craft or performance.  The individuals evaluating these grant and fellowship applications think in terms of project-speak. The expectation of the star chamber judges is based as much on your good standing in an exclusive reputational network of fiscally incestuous relations.  For example having Yale on your CV even as a one-night-drive-by provides plausible credibility. 

When asked about the multitude of religions on earth, mythologist Joseph Campbell remarked, "There's a lot of ways to get it wrong." At the national level, the NEA establishes Artistic Merit and Artistic Excellence definitions that are primarily tailored for organizational requests for funding.  Tightly coupled to arts organizations are communities they may serve with specific requests.

The first way that the pretense of Merit and Excellence goes sideways is when the assumption is that all organizations are somehow community ambassadors for a cause. Many organizations just need to paint the walls.  There's no real political or social spin that is necessary except that it is coerced with increasing intolerance by the application expectations at every lower level. And at every lower  level of funding administration are ever more incompetent, cover-your-ass midwits.

Not only are organizational requests for funding nuanced yet treated with Kafkaesque indifference, these evaluation metrics are applied to individual artists who in no way shape or form are responsible for, representative of, or otherwise likely to engineer social change objectives for a vaguely-woke-ambiguous social cause, say, *climate*.

At the national regional level I have already documented how badly broken the New England Foundation for the arts is.

Let's look at how badly those NEA quality metrics get mangled in CT using the Artists Respond biyearly arts grants as an example.  If you open the FY23 (latest) Grant Recipients list, you'll see the damage.

There are 81 artists who got funded and all but one had to pick a social justice cause to frame their request for an art grant.  The claim made about these grants is that they serve a "community" interest but that's an obvious lie.  The vast majority of these pre-seeded categories are progressive social justice advocacies driven by Democrat special interests.

In other words, assuming that arts funds should ever be subsidizing the interests of political parties, why aren't there categories for safe borders, lower taxes, deregulation, right to life, and so on? All of these are equally legitimate and maybe even more so.

And as a fine artist my larger problem is why aren't these categories based on art and aesthetics? Why not Promote Abstract Art, Art for Art's Sake, PostModernism for Everyone, or a million other art related advocacies.  After all, Everything is not Art - if it were, nothing would be art and artists themselves become anybody with a social axe to grind.

The use of cognitive bias to coerce artists to distort their art to conform to politically expedient objectives is a criminal enterprise - extortion.  

A Grants Writing for Artists, April 2024 document contains another subliminal suggestion:

Step five on slide three is ominous. Artists who don't "look" (conform) to that above woke profile may as well pound sand.  This is an exclusive club and you're not in it.

There's a lot of ways to administer art funding wrong.  This is just a teaser.

The Uniparty Arts Money Pit - A Work in Progress

 The acronyms in this diagram refer are:

NEA - National Endowment (euphemistically) for the Arts

NEFA - New England Foundation (euphemistically) for the Arts

DECD - [CT} Department for Economic Community Development (e.g. a special interest group run by and for casino gambling)

COA - CT Office (Euphemistically) for the Arts 

DRSO - Designated Regional Services Organization (CT is divided into "service" regions)

This topology of organizations manages to mismanage multi-millions of Federal, State, and local taxes in addition to funds donated to promote the Arts community (e.g. actual, living, breathing artists). This investigative series that started by simply attempting to understand if there was a single source, uniformly administered way to apply for an arts grant or fund to -gasp- make some more art.

By the time money is awarded to actual, living, breathing local artists the grand total awarded to a cohort of artists is equivalent to less than one single State of Connecticut bureaucrat (about $100,000 per year) with no benefits. The awards to individual artists is $1000, $3000, or $5000 dollars, the quivalent of a week's to a few week's pay of that same sample CT State employee - don't spend it all in one place.

The deeper I dig, the more obvious it is that this money is illegally being funneled into a single political party's narrative. An apolitical fine artist not only doesn't stand an honest chance of  consideration but is doomed to witness money intended for arts to be squandered maliciously on the corrupt and unethical subversion of that funding for illiberal political gain. 

Use this link to follow my investigative series into all of these organizations, their malfeasance, and their brazen criminal practices.

 

  

NEA First Inquiry -NEFA Concerns

 NEFA Concerns

Fromkrasicki@protonmail.com <krasicki@protonmail.com>

Topublicaffairs@arts.gov, oig@arts.gov

CCkrasicki@protonmail.com

DateThursday, April 4th, 2024 at 12:17 PM

Yesterday I called the NEA and spoke with someone who advised that I send an email to document my concerns.

I am semi-retired at the moment, a lifelong artist, I've dedicated quite a bit of time to unpacking and disentangling American Arts funding nationally and at local levels. I consider this the first of what I expect to be more correspondences as the feedback cycle will generate additional questions and areas of research.

Today I want to address two specific areas of inquiry and concern. One is the governance of NEA's regional affiliates. In my case, the New England Foundation for the Arts.

My understanding from yesterday's phone call is that 40% of all NEA arts funding is distributed to these regional affiliates. If I assume that to be true, then as an artist I can apply directly to the NEA for Federal grant money which is sourced from 60% of the total NEA budget allocated for that purpose and that I can apply to my regional Arts affiliate for grants sourced from some percentage of the 40% of the budget made available to a specific region. Importantly, in order to apply for such grants or opportunities,

I must somehow both navigate to and through the application process AND be provided some set of understandable instructions for successfully doing so.

AND, implicitly, anyArtist should not be coerced into political loyalty oaths, political identity litmus tests, illegal constraints on the creation or content of my proposal, or other illegitimate expectations. Equally, implicit, is the clear and unambiguous understanding that the art being proposed or advocated for consideration will be evaluated strictly on its own merit and accepted or not based on those metrics. Presumably, American citizens over the age of 18 is the only qualification and that the solicitation for grants or whatever is for art​.

Please do correct my understanding of how the NEA funding operates is any of this is wrong or sadly mistaken (and I'm not naive enough to believe that, in practice, there's a broader range of interpretation by certain individuals administering the programs).

Assuming that as a context that anyArtist can expect and given that the only​access to NEFA arts funding is through NEFA's web portal, anyArtist has absolutely no other alternative for application for funding, grants, and so on.

However there are differences between the NEA's broad spectrum of art opportunities and NEFA's regional subset. I documented those differences in on my art criticism blog; https://artscrub.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-criminal-negligence-of-new-england.html

Nothing has changed. In essence, the NEA - instead of ensuring a consistent funding distribution model based on professional practice, say Visual Arts - distributes funding opportunities by geography and geography is implemented on that local level by funding power brokers who can constrain (or more accurately operate a money laundering operation) because they abuse the system to empower themselves to. The corruption of opportunity is contagious to even finer grains of more local funding on the State level (a different discussion). Numerous categories of professional art activity are missing.

And this speaks directly to my first empirical complaint - the NEFA site is a, for lack of a better term, woke hellhole of political advocacy, racial and identity politic litmus tests and more. There is nothing balanced and there is no avenue for a professional anyArtist to navigate a neutral, unbiased, nonconformist application process. Conservative or disinterested artists are wholly discouraged to apply or even think that their applications - barring a word salad of magic associations - will ever be taken seriously. This is a big problem.

The problem gets even bigger when anyArtist examines the NEFA Terms of Use for the (reminder) only portal to apply for the 40ish% of regional funding. The TOU is self-referential as a legally binding agreement yet contains numerous passages that are entirely capitalized. In digital form, the convention of using all caps is to be screaming - needless to say, not a typical legally formulated convention to my knowledge.

More to the point, the TOU is unusual in that it attempts to insulate NEFA from all and any accountability for their implementation and administration of federal (and State) arts funding. Many of its assertions appear to be, at face value, entirely an attempt to subvert the legal rights of artists to engage in legal remedy. Only one other region, the South copies the TOU (badly - misspellings and maybe other quirks).

Section 12d, essentially eliminates your ability to access the funding opportunities:

" BY ACCEPTING THESE TCU, YOU WAIVE AND HOLD HARMLESS NEFA FROM ANY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM ANY ACTION TAKEN BY NEFA DURING OR AS A RESULT OF NEFA’S INVESTIGATION AND/OR FROM ANY ACTIONS TAKEN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INVESTIGATIONS BY EITHER NEFA OR LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED TO YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT CONTENT REMAINS ON THE SERVICES WHICH VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS OR THESE TCU, AS STATED IN SECTION 15, YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AGAINST NEFA SHALL BE TO TERMINATE YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES."

I don't know why no one reads or realizes that this amounts to intimidation and the normalization of the abuse of the legal system by this arts organization.

OTOH, other regions (see MidAtlantic Region) acknowledge the legal rights and remedies available to artists in their TOU for geographical domain portals.I will publish this as an open correspondence on my blog artscrub.blogspot.com and update it with your feedback. My long term intent is to create a HOWTO set of instructions for anyArtist to follow to apply for funding opportunities so this is a work in progress, one small step at a time.

regards,

Frank Krasicki

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

NEFA - Don't Bother Applying If You Are a White Male

This Monday, Dec. 4, 2023 was a NEFA grants and programs deadline to apply for a "Public Art for Spatial Justice" grants. The grants are sizable and are constrained to Massachusetts based artists only (this usually means that all kinds of nod and wink exceptions abound but let's pretend its true).

Website to clarify:

Eligibility Criteria

Eligible

Lead Applicant must be based in Massachusetts.

Lead applicant may a be…

• Community-based anchor organization in Massachusetts, working in collaboration with a particular artist(s); organizations may be a 501c3 or fiscally sponsored
• Massachusetts-based Artist(s). Individual artist applicants must be 18+ years old. Artistic collaborations may be a group of artists informally working together for this particular project, or an artist collective that regularly works together on projects.

Recognizing the intersectionality of identities, we acknowledge that artists may also identify as cultural practitioners, activists, and community-rooted collaborators, and may be self/community-taught, institutionally trained, or a combination of both. All are welcome to apply.

Proposed public art projects must:

• Be located in Massachusetts.
• Engage the public realm and/or be available to the general public to happen upon.
• Cultivate expressions of and/or embodiments of spatial justice through public artmaking. Projects of all artistic disciplines –visual, performative, rooted in ritual, etc.-- are eligible.

Not eligible

• Lead applicants based outside of Massachusetts.
• Proposed projects based outside of Massachusetts.
• Current PASJ grantee (lead applicant) who has not completed their respective grantee report.
• Past PASJ Grantees are not eligible to apply to PASJ again for a full calendar year from completing their grantee report (e.g., If you submit a PASJ grantee report on June 1, 2023 that is approved, you are not eligible to submit a new application for PASJ till June 1, 2024 or after). 

Note: If you are applying for a Collective Imagination for Spatial Justice and a Public Art for Spatial Justice grant in the same grant round, each application will be reviewed independently and funding is not guaranteed (i.e., you may be funded for one but not the other).

So what the hell does any of this have to do with NEFA (the 'NE' presumably representing all New England artists (tho this cohort is rarely if ever the beneficiary of NEFA funding)?

NEFA serves as a social engineering platform to launder Arts funding into the coffers of political operatives who let's face it represent a unitary interest and that is the national DNC Democrats. By monopolizing the grant specifications and definitions, art no longer belongs to artists but to the political puppet masters at NEFA and nationally at the National Endowment for the Arts.

The Arts community was once dedicated to a profession of making art as was the choosing of the artist. Today the most marginalized and underrepresented group of art makers are artists themselves. Social engineers, sociology craftspeople, talent challenged political activists, and money changers far outnumber artists. It is this administrative overhead that poisons the aesthetic experience.

Let's take a look at the "reimagined" specifics:

NEFA (2018 - 2021 strategic plan (who knew?) on Public art:

Vision and Values

Guided by NEFA’s organizational values, articulated in the 2018-2021 strategic plan, NEFA’s vision for our public art programs is rooted in the beliefs that: 

• Public art has the power to shift public culture and change the future.  
  • Public art can help us all see, feel, experience and imagine decolonized and/or indigenized places. These tangible experiences are essential on the journey towards realizing more just futures for our public spaces and public culture.  
• Diverse cultural and artistic expressions of Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) are essential to more equitable and vibrant public spaces. 
  • Addressing the intersectionality of spatial justice and racial justice is critical to cultivating a more vibrant public art ecosystem. 
• Context is important in public artmaking.  
  • NEFA aims to support public art that honors the integrity of the people, places, stories, and ideas – past, present, and future - engaged in the artmaking.   
  • Disrupting harmful historic narratives that uphold structural inequities requires understanding context.  
  • Public spaces are not neutral. And public art made in public spaces is not neutral. 
  • Public art practices that reduce people, places and stories to tools for artmaking are harmful.  

NEFA acknowledges that the arts sector has a legacy of benefiting from and perpetuating white privilege, and therefore we are committed to working towards racial justice. 

The Public Art Team at NEFA aims to uphold and hold ourselves accountable to these values through our public art program design and grantmaking.  

Program Goals

Through our public art grantmaking and field-building opportunities NEFA aims to: 

• Invest in artists and the creative process. Foster public art practices that are dynamic and aesthetically impactful, and authentically honor the integrity of the people, places, stories, and ideas that are engaged in the process and presentation of the artmaking. 
• Cultivate artists as civic leaders. Support public art that positions artists to directly inspire, disrupt and engage the public sphere to strive for greater equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in our public culture.  
• Strengthen a community of practice by fostering partnerships that facilitate knowledge building and sharing to support the evolving field of public art throughout the New England region. 

Does anyone else detect a disconnect between NEFA's values and goals?

• "Public art can help us all see, feel, experience and imagine decolonized and/or indigenized places. These tangible experiences are essential on the journey towards realizing more just futures for our public spaces and public culture. "
   

Art isn't going to "decolonize" anywhere. Fact of the matter is that public art can be separated into two categories: nationally specific art and everything else.  NEFA disingenuously conflates the two to promote an agenda of recrimination and political division.

The United States cohabits a part of North America with tradition Indian populations who are no more indigenous than anyone else born here. And being born here doesn't magically endow anyone with a right to claim more of an insight on nature than the next person. The United States is not decolonizing. And Indigenous places exist within the country, are self-governed, and nobody tells them how to make, present, or sell their art (and they sell a lot of it).

Public art (not nationally specific) must be judged on quality to ensure that it is an aesthetic experience being promoted  regardless of WHO the artist is or WHO they claim to speak for.  But my guess is that NEFA is doing the speaking and aesthetics have nothing to do with any of it.

What about this rancid word salad:

• "Diverse cultural and artistic expressions of Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) are essential to more equitable and vibrant public spaces. 

  • Addressing the intersectionality of spatial justice and racial justice is critical to cultivating a more vibrant public art ecosystem."

Here the word justice is used to discriminate against artists who don't belong to these insider curated institutions. As I've documented previously, the organizations that get these grants largely subsidized the recreational funding of elite educational institutions whose diverse constituency is limited to the wealthy and their guests.

The undefinable term, 'equity' is nowhere on the horizon and that ensures that the race-baiters have a never ending supply of grift to mine.  And for artists this means never being granted the opportunity to express a universal or loving ambient artistic vision that doesn't pander to the political narrative.

And, if that's not toxic enough there's always context:

Context is important in public artmaking.  

• NEFA aims to support public art that honors the integrity of the people, places, stories, and ideas – past, present, and future - engaged in the artmaking.   
• Disrupting harmful historic narratives that uphold structural inequities requires understanding context.  
• Public spaces are not neutral. And public art made in public spaces is not neutral. 
• Public art practices that reduce people, places and stories to tools for artmaking are harmful.  

"Disrupting harmful historic narratives" is quite a mouthful. These are code words for distorting the civil commons with subliminal interpretations of political truths.  Again, a conflation of nation and state sponsored art with public space art that represents the aesthetic, shared human experience.

The assertion that "public spaces are not neutral" is  false. Public spaces not only can be neutral but often are in the United States.  Furthermore they are more often diverse, inviting, multi-cultural, and democratically representative than these misguided administrators would have us believe.

And their last bullet point is pure irony. NEFA's entire narrative is an exercise in reducing all artists to political pawns and there's nothing in their literature that implies anything but a predetermined guilt by skin color for male artists and an obvious disinvitation to any artist who isn't  selling myopic, progressive politics.

Funding the National Endowment of the Arts is national suicide. And the NEFA administrators who advocate these hate-filled, discriminatory policies can't be shown the door fast enough. 

The Weaponization of Juried Art Shows

Americans are well-aware of a concept developed by our rival global antagonists of using American freedoms, social norms and expectations against us.  For example, extremism can effectively hide behind religious freedom of expression against criticism or legal remedy.

The curation of Art has been under political attack for decades usually by politicians who extort concessions by withholding funding and claiming to be guardians of a public constituency needing protection from the indecency of the latest art sensation.  The soft fascism of threatening public funding of the offending institution was often enough to discourage another such sensation getting exposed *there*.

And though the Art World would be loathe to admit it, art in America has been self-constrained for decades.  Art curators, like dogs trained not to break their way across and electronic fence, are rarely suicidal enough to promote anything too risque for fear of their jobs and a tarnished CV.

However, the object of the contention was always the quality of art and not something else.

Today, we see disruptive mutations of this idea being played out nationally, and to some degree internationally. The variation is a logical one.

First, the exposure of certain kinds of art can be constrained is well-established.  One way [using copiously by government] is to threaten or deny funding.  Soooo... one way to exercise control over what gets shown is to seize control of the agency of what gets funded. And so, under the special interest banner of "diversity" - [as defined by minority status, geographic origin, and cultural [no matter how dubious] background] - the micromanagement of art funding is being controlled.  This is the first form of the Identity Politics effect that eliminates the quality of art as a metric of artistic merit and elevates the individual nuances [no matter how contrived] of the artist and their constituency.

The second mutation is cultural vigilantism. To understand the ease in which juried art shows can be fixed I need to briefly explain the game pieces.

Art has no formal definition.  It has a number of categories, all of them fair but soft. In other words, no one can authoritatively claim something isn't art.  Within the working artist community, there's a trust relationship that what is submitted as art is intended to be worthy of consideration.

The second gaming piece is that jurors of art shows are also trusted to use their best judgment in evaluating the body of submissions and to honor the subject to which the work was addressed. The juror is rarely held accountable for the selections they make.  As an artist, you take your chances and it always costs money - you are subsidizing the show this juror selects as a matter of trust that its curation is trustworthy.

So these two gaming pieces offer plausible deniability for the eventual selection of art for juried shows.  Artists trust each other to submit authentic art and they trust [implicitly biased] jurors to put their biases to one side and objectively curate *the art*. And everyone in the art community is aware that the final selection is used to always be an aesthetic sausage for better or worse.

But all of these trust presumptions cannot be taken for granted any longer.  Any simple arithmetic applied to juried art shows in the United States going back years exposes an alarming fact. Juried art shows are more often than not juried by women who ore often than not favor female artists with statistically improbable regularity.

It is empirically obvious that the quality of art, the metrics by which art is judged, and the veracity of prestige associated with curators and their politically endorsed art beneficiaries is the equivalent of artistic malware - a denial of service attack on gallery institutions.  And its being performed by presumably well educated, credentialed individuals who seem to believe they are being asked to punish contemporary innocents for the crimes of historical ancestors.

By being disingenuous as to their intent and by taking money from individuals they have no intention of judging objectively, they are committing fraud on a class action scale. They and their educational mentors need an intervention.

In the meantime, choose your juried shows carefully AND publish the scorecards of local jurors so we can all triangulate this kind of information.

Key pieces of information;

How many entries to a show, then by gender.

How many accepted pieces, then by gender of artist.

Note that the names of male sounding names are often deceptions. 

How to Submit Art to a Show in the Era of Identity Politics and Curatorial Scorecards

The cost of showing work as an artist consists of many things

• the cost of the materials to make the artwork with
• the time to make it
• the cost of entering art shows both open and juried
• joining the gallery usually discounts the entry fee for shows
• not joining the gallery usually adds $5 to $10 per entry piece for the show
• the cost of transporting/shipping the piece to and from the show
• satisfying the show obligations
• gallery sitting or a $5-ish buyout
• Show opening contribution in helping to set up or food contribution
• manufacture or distribution of show/personal marketing artifacts
• repair of damaged work/frames (its all on you)

As if all of this wasn't enough, all galleries require a commission fee on anything sold.  This can range usually not more than 50%.  Thirty percent is more common. So, the artist must factor in that discount to their final remuneration.

A common complaint about the commission structure is that frames (an expensive cosmetic value add) are included in the commission even though the artist's final take is less AND in order to even out that double-jeopardy these pieces must be adjusted cost even more thus making them less likely affordable.

So far so good.  But the subliminal message here is that art is not cheap to make nor show.

Okay. So the next consideration has to be what shows are worth submitting work to.

Here we have to triangulate the cost of showing as calculated from the show-based costs identified previously against show duration, anticipated show attendance, and opportunity cost.

IMO, shows that last fewer than a full month must be inexpensive to submit to or incredibly attractive in terms of sales potential or prestige.  And every show ties up the works involved for the duration of the show. That can be an opportunity cost in certain situations.  The other opportunity cost is limited arts funds being dedicated to *this* opportunity.

As far as all of this is concerned, there is nothing discriminatory in terms of identity politics.  You, the artist, whoever you are or think you are or have been told who you are play by these rules.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Things that are out of our control as artists are the conventions and practices of the gallery owners/organizers. Somebody ALWAYS has an upper hand in what they deem acceptable.
Raging on about that is a different blog entry.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally speaking, open gallery shows will accept as much work as they can show within wall/floor space constraints.

And in deciding whether or not to enter a show all candidate entrants need to study the aesthetic bias of the juror involved.  Representationally opinionated jurors are generally less likely to select abstract or contemporary work and vice versa.  You want to pick a juror at least sympathetic to your practice.

The Identity Politic Tax kicks in for juried and blatantly discriminatory shows that sell themselves as oppressed, special interest group promotional vehicles.

In recent years the number of woman only gallery shows has become a floodwater.  In browsing open calls for artists its rare that a month goes by without at least one of these advertised close by.

This is the first erosion of art shows evolving from being quality-of-object specific to identity politic specific. Its unclear who this truly benefits.  Its anti-democratic nature removes a degree of prestige from the work involved and the self-imposed autonomy of the enterprise is as likely to generate animosity as promotion of anything more than hate politics.

Maybe the intended by-product of these tactics is to simply reduce the exposure of anyone who doesn't qualify and hope the public's taste is socially-engineered to believe the quality of art has an artistic identity preference.

The more pernicious effects of juried shows comes into play when the juror or the gallery put their thumb on the scale so that, as previously mentioned the show is no longer about the quality of the art being juried and instead some kind of socially engineered conclusion. The rationalizations are endless to justify this stuff so let the recriminations make their way into the comments section.

But to be more specific, in recent years,  juried art shows increasingly reflect disproportionate female representation.  Furthermore the remaining entries often favor tightly-coupled gallery members, supporters, or associated figures.  Some of this is to be expected.  But that leaves but a small fraction of eligible entry spots.

For men, there's an economic consequence.  Their work is less likely to be selected, they are more likely to be subsidizing an unspecified and unwelcome discriminatory practice, and contributing to the deterioration of the community's artistic reputation.

The sober reality is that the Identity Politic war has deeply polluted the art community worldwide amounting to nothing less than cultural appropriation not only of the present but the past.  This is an unregulated affirmative action program - aesthetic vigilante-ism in the professional ranks.  Its by-product is an archaeology of myopic mediocrity elevated to a seat of importance not even the village idiot artist can salute.

The most obvious personal solution is for male artists to simply be far more awoke about who the jurors are, what their agenda is, and what the track record of the galleries are.

To the degree a more general solution must be a scorecard for jurors that includes the Political Identity arithmetic involved  in their jury practice. This must include all the politically motivated algorithms being used to bludgeon the artistic community into yet another polarized political institution.

It shouldn't be long before, on a scale of one to five vaginas, any gallery or museum ranks or how genital friendly any gallery call for art will be.