From: mlo@bio-rad.COM (Mark L. Olson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Art Shows (was Re: Hello Confrancisco?)
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:59:20 GMT
Reply-To: mlo@bio-rad.com

>Date: 7 Dec 92 21:22:46 GMT
>From: rcampb@cac.washington.edu (Russ Campbell )
>Reply-to: sf-lovers-misc@Rutgers.Edu
>Subject: Art Shows (was Re: Hello Confrancisco?)
>
>...
>The factor I was more irritated at was that 1st time displayers would be
>limited to what amounts to 1/4 of my usual display space at the Northwest
>area conventions.
>...
I can see how that's a problem.  The way Boskone gets around it is by
saying that anyone who feels that they should get extra space should
write and tell us.  We're usually willing to bend our rules for a good
readon.  We feel an obligation to our *members* to give them
a good show as well as to the artists.  Making no attempt to select for
quality means we're not doing our best for our members.  And they're
subsidising the show with their membership fees.

>
>Russell D. Campbell
>rcampb@u.washington.edu
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: 10 Dec 92 05:26:43 GMT
>From: mwallis@lunacity.com (Michael Wallis)
>Reply-to: sf-lovers-misc@Rutgers.Edu
>Subject: Re: Hello Confrancisco?
>
>jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>> But there are good reasons for discouraging mail-ins (or, put another
>> way, giving preference to artists who can be there to hang up their own
>> work).
>
>No arguement that mail-in art is more work than just pointing to a panel
>and telling someone to go to it. I do object, however, to the implication
>that it's "too much" of a hassle. Since when has ANY part of convention
>preperation or running been "simple". To exclude artists because they
>aren't able to attend smacks of the elitism that leads to shows that are
>"open" to "approved" artists and "accredited" individuals. Who is to
>determine the criteria for entry? What's to stop an art show director from
>deciding only their friends can enter?
>
>Are we an open community where talent and effort are the determination of
>success or one based on an imposed mertocracy and the censorship of
>"acceptability"?

I think you're indulging in a bit of hyperbole, there.  But see above. 
What it comes down to is (a) we're doing a lot of work to make the con
successful (b) we want the con to be as good as possible given the
effort we're willing to spend, so (c) we have to make judgements as to
where to put our effort.  In general, we feel that mail-in art isn't a
good place to put our effort.

>When we start restricting access to "those who attend", we stop being
>open-minded, future-thinking fans and become closed-minded bureaucratic
>boors, in my humble opinion.
>
>There are ways of limiting an art show if size and logistics are a problem.
>Restricting or discouraging mail-in art should not be one of them.

An easy statement to make.  Name some.  

First-come, first-serve doesn't give our members as good a show. 
Limiting attending artists to favor mail-in is silly.  Building more
panels is limited by our space, our hangings, our energy and the
market.  (If we have more art than the market can supprot, then no one
sells well.) What do you suggest?

>
>Michael Wallis
>mwallis@lunacity.com
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark L. Olson    Bio-Rad / 237 Putnam Ave. / Cambridge, MA 02139
mlo@bio-rad.com                                     617-868-4330