University of Alaska Anchorage professor Sean Licka juried the entries for the annual invitational exhibition at the International Gallery of Contemporary Art. In his posted juror's statement, he wrote that acceptance or rejection into the exhibition "is of no consequence," that another juror would have accepted different entries, and past and present aesthetic theories are "nothing more than a sham."
Instead of awarding the monetary stipends as past practice would dictate, Licka instead designated a roll of 50 pennies to be claimed by each artist in the show. "It's not meant to be an insult," he wrote. "Equality in terms of monetary awards interests me." He suggested a penny for his thoughts is "about all it's worth."
The show itself is consistently strong. With only a few exceptions, one is not left with any "How did that get in there?" moments. Though the juror shares no rationale or criteria for how the pieces were selected, judgments were seemingly made beyond personal bias or purely subjective taste.
I disagree that all other persons would have made altogether different choices. I have juried shows and served on selection and acquisition committees. I have often noted a relative consistency of preferences.
Experienced artists and critics can often find common ground based upon certain criteria such as skill, use of materials, creativity, craftsmanship, content, innovation, style or composition.
There are those who consider themselves "outsiders" in terms of the art establishment and who refer to those who make selections as "gatekeepers." That line has blurred in recent art history, but contending that anything and everything is of equal aesthetic value belies the reality of exceptional quality.
Would we want an art world with no such challenges? Should a work by, say Thomas Kincaid, hang next to a Michelangelo at the Louvre? Or, for that matter, should everyone automatically qualify for a BFA?
The Simon Cowells of the world do serve a purpose. They educate us while challenging our sensibilities and our biases. They add to the conversation.
There are several entries in the show deserving of some recognition, monetary or otherwise. For example, Carol Lambert's "Hand Drill" is a fine example of a pop art approach to still life. The chiaroscuro technique she employed to render the device with oil on linen is exemplary. It's a fine traditional painting skill used to good advantage.
Barbara Baugh's "The Indian" is a small 3-D photo. It reaches beyond gimmickry in presenting a slice of life in a thoughtfully compositional manner. A human figure is subtly integrated into the mechanical context. Baugh's other entry, "Sleeping Buddha," (actually 3-D) is also intriguing.
Ward Hulbert's photograph, "Alex's Boat," is a poignant look at the Combs estate in Halibut Cove, with Alex's self-portrait seen in the background. It's not only a warm reminder of the artist but a comment on our shared temporal nature.
I enjoyed Clark Mishler's "Camo Dog" ink jet print of a long legged spaniel on an oriental rug, and Duke Russell's kitsch/pop acrylic, "Rope Burn." Not meaning to be facetious, I sincerely enjoyed the smell of rope emanating from a nice hanging piece by Denise Heimel.
Garry Mealor exhibits a painting entitled "Still in Progress." Mealor's works are, in themselves, workshops on how to use aqueous media. His paintings frequently have some hidden content, often challenging for viewers to discover.
Mark Hanson's student show in the guest gallery is well worth a look. He has a bright future.
My guess is, even with the present state of the economy, the artists will little note nor long remember their penny rolls. They may wish to add the juried show to their resume or be satisfied having had the opportunity to show their work.
Artists and viewers alike, however, will have to guess why the artists' entries were included or not. In the absence of any discernible criteria, it's anybody's guess.
Don Decker is an Anchorage artist, teacher and writer.
By DON DECKER
Daily News correspondent