Even if this dude with a chicks name had prizes and accolades galore and a check for me, it wouldn't make me feel these hideous street fairish prints.

Hey,
I get that Kim chose outside the list, but Brian Dick is one of our better artists in san diego, no?... aside from breaking the rules, what is the big deal? nepotism? The SD art prize doesnt really have all that much credibility anyway for young artists in SD, and aside from Lael last year (thank god) I have been seriously disappointed with most of the artists that are chosen. Not saying that some of the artists this year dont deserve it, a number of them definitely do. But if your anger is purely administrative, or even potentially ego based, I think it stunts the potential connection that the SD art prize could have with the few serious contemporary artists we actually have. The other thing is that Brian seems to have been working his ass off lately and really should get some attention.
Why didnt you guys nominate him anyway?

Kevin, first off I'd like to say that Brian Dick is a terrific artist. I'm glad Kim chose him. I had wanted to chose him last year but I thought Pamela Jaeger, whose work I like very much also, would make a better fit for a 2 person show with me. When an artist, regardless of his/her reputation, is scheduled to do a show with another artist, and is asked to chose her partner, she is, in a sense, curating that future show. I assume Kim not only likes and respects Brian's work, but believes they will make a good match. That's an art match. A coming together of 2 artists to make an interesting exhibition. That's the only professional way for an artist to make a good choice. The reason I'm writing to you about this is that you scolded me for my choice last year, though perhaps your reasons weren't precisely the same as they are now. You seem to think the choice for Kim and myself was an ethical decision. No, it was a pragmatic one.

What is at issue here is not whether Brian Dick is a good artist or bad nor whether Kim MacConnel made a good choice of artist or not. What is at issue here is that Kim did not perform his duties in selecting an emerging artist from the thirteen that were nominated this year, even if the committee was kind enough to provide a back door clause for selecting his own preference.

Whether you feel that the SD Art Prize is valuable or not is not particularly relevant. The fact is that a committee exists for this prize, that the committee selected thirteen artists they felt deserved more attention, that the committee chose an established artist to help them in awarding the art prize, and that the establish artist took the art prize for his own and awarded it using his own process.

The committee is not necessarily suggesting that these thirteen artists are the best in San Diego. There are truly very many good artists here. The committee was merely selecting thirteen _emerging_ artists that they felt deserved more recognition and whom they felt could achieve more recognition through this process.

There are many non-profit organizations in the world that you may not particularly support, but other people donate to them anyway and do support them. Those organizations have processes in place that govern to whom their funds and benefits are distributed. Not everyone will agree that any particular distribution of benefits is the most appropriate distribution, but the system is there nonetheless and should be respected. It is not for one person to suddenly decide that the system of which he is a part is pointless and to go off distributing benefits as he chooses. This is, in effect, what Kim has done.

The debate is not whether Kim chose a good artist. Perhaps we can all just agree that Brian deserves the art community's support. The present discussion should focus on whether Kim was ethical in his decision to disregard the thirteen nominated artists, disrespect the committee's hard work in choosing both him and the artists, and follow his own, opaque process of awarding the prize. So far, I have yet to see a response to Kevin's posting that addresses the issues that are central to his argument.

The SD ART PRIZE was created by a group of (philanthropic) individuals dedicated to improving the artistic climate in San Diego. Individuals who believe that the visual arts are a necessary and rewarding ingredient of any world-class city. The Prize was conceived to promote and encourage dialogue, reflection and social interaction about San Diego’s artistic and cultural life. and to provide a spotlight on those established and emerging artists doing great work.

While we were well aware that any selection/nomination process would come under scrutiny, it was a risk we were willing to take because very few great things are usually achieved by taking a safe - popular path. In fact, most initiatives don’t get off the ground because of the hurdles and lack of support.

Artists want to be supported and respected in their own communities and recognized for their individual voice. However, it is necessary, at times, to look past one’s own needs and support initiatives that are designed for the greater community - in the hopes that – in the long run everyone will benefit.

Kevin, while I agree with you that the Art Prize is problematic, I feel your analysis is at the wrong level: the prize outcome follows directly from the interaction of the explicit prize rules with the myriad of implicit rules that exist in the world (such as the one referred to by Antin).

To the extent that the explicit rules constitute a design, I urge you to consider that design to be at best a work-in-progress in need of fine-tuning to achieve its stated institutional goals, or at worst ill-conceived in its basic assumptions (most notably, its misapplication of the term emerging artist to artists such as Dick and Tomney, who have each been showing their work in well-known San Diego venues for the past fifteen years).

......to continue. I support Kim's choice of Brian Dick. Brian Dick is a well-deserving artist working in our community who was nominated last year. As the curator, I support the two artists together as it will make for a very interesting show. As the program director for the SD Art Prize, I am excited that we have these opportunities to put on exciting exhibitions that focus only on the local art community.

I'm new to this prize, though familiar with the bureaucratization of art. Maybe someone could fill me in on how the administrators of this award would allow such a decision to be made in the first place.

This is not about Brian Dick.

useless drama.
Brian Dick is a San Diego artist. therefore, the selection seems like fair game to me.
Bummer that Kim didn't play along with your elbow rubbing, social network's hopes and dreams. Tuff break dude.

I too am disappointed that Kim McConnel did not nominate an artist from this year’s pool of emergent artists. If he had done so I think he would have functioned in the spirit of what this Prize attempts to support – the vitality of art in all of San Diego. I know Kim knows the ins-and-outs of this Prize and its processes as he has been an intimate witness since Jean Lowe was honored as a principal prize winner for 2006-7.

Brian Dick is well known to Kim's family personally and in the broader sense of the UCSD “family”. Brian is a terrific artist and that comes from being a terrific, insightful, schooled, creative human being. He deserved his emergent award from the Prize last year and he certainly has sustained my interest given his recent exhibition at Luis de Jesus’ Seminal Projects. Brian and his work are very well known to Kim and I know Kim can see how the two of them together would make an excellent exhibition.
I think the career trajectory of Brian has in part been facilitated by his Prize nomination last year. Perhaps that adds to my disappointment. I wish other of Brian’s artistic peers would have the same chance.
I just don’t think any of us can sidestep the political responsibilities we owe to our community. I know Kim is a politically astute man with a strong sense of right and wrong (the ethics people have been writing about). I would have preferred that the more difficult path of searching within a new talent pool been tended to than to elect the easier path of familiarity. Without the spirit of the “search” the spirit of the Prize is deflated – dishonored some might say.
When I think of Kim and Brian I see the “UCSD Family” writ large. In this region where Town and Gown have never found harmony through the true practice of equality, another chance to bridge the divisions has been lost. I know “affirmative action” is now passé and impolitic – but as one who lived through a time when affirmative action was necessary to complete the doctrine of fairness and equality, Kim knows those lessons very well. I wish instead of looking back over his shoulder he had looked forward to see how his leadership could be extended to enfranchise the larger region. That is the political responsibility of those who are given the mantel of success and authority – for those who are our most important teachers.
To those that say that art is not about politics and politics should not inform our discussions of art, community, and art in the community – well, that just ain’t so.

Lee, you are the director of the L Street Gallery where the nominated established and emerging artists will show this year, like last year and the year before. You understand the importance of elbow rubbing more than anyone. Didn't you invite me to come see one of the shows you organized with artists from your own drawing group? I believe you were even in it. Anyway, besides being a good show, didn't you rub elbows and tap into your own social network's hopes and dreams?

But Lee, you missed the point of what I wrote. I would agree with you that it would be a tough break if I was trying to place my pawns in some larger game of fame and recognition - but there is none to have. I was part of the nominating committee, amongst many others, who got to vote if you will, but did not have the final say. It makes it difficult to manipulate something that you have no control over. I nominated Michele Guieu and Robert Matheny as the established artist. But this too is a moot point.

Yes Brian Dick is a San Diego artist, but this is not about Brian Dick. This about 13 other artists who were just as qualified, professional, and dedicated to their art just like Dick. One of them should have been chosen for the art prize.

I have to agree with Kevin and Doug Simay. UCSD choosing UCSD--it smacks of nepotism. This two person exhibition was a chance to break down the ranking system that exists in this town. Instead Kim MacConnel has reinforced the status quo.

Kevin: My problem with the issue you are taking with Kim's selection is that it potentially creates bad will within our spectacularly fragile arts community.
Also... consider the larger precedent with ruling out an artist who has been previously nominated. Brian did not win last year and if he had this would be a different conversation.
The process of churning out new nominees every year is as equally problematic as the "back door" loop hole or whatever that Kim chose.

(btw, if there is this loophole written into the prize then how is there an issue?)

Finally, we have started to reach one of the goals of the SD Prize with this exchange of ideas. "The Prize was conceived to promote and encourage dialogue, reflection and social interaction about San Diego’s artistic and cultural life." It has taken three years for this dialogue to manifest itself. I have been waiting patiently and hopefully for these challenges. Thank you all for taking the time to write and respond.

LOL!!!!!

I am still in a state of complete disbelief how all these very well thought out comments and Kevin’s original commentary about the “Art Prize” completely missed the point. Let’s go back in history and see how systems succeed and fail, and yes this art world of ours operates as a system, just like many others, following the same immutable laws of physics and biology.

First the art world claims to be “elitist.” I can quote two very distinguished members of our art community, who publicly stated this recently, (both of whom I very much respect and admire), and I am sure it is a widespread notion. Elitists systems, like our current art world are motivated by the same type of belief structure of the systems that encouraged the incestuous relationships between the pharaohs of Egypt and the Incas of Peru whose rulers thought they were so much better than everyone else and that only their siblings provided suitable mates. The royal families of Europe also dictated that one should only reproduce within their small royal families, producing many insane and deformed rulers.

Thoroughbred horses and pedigree dogs still follow the same elitist guidelines and cause severe deformities as well. Now before you feel I am talking about something other than art take a close look at the fact that cultures follow the same natural laws. Diversity and inclusiveness breed higher evolved animals, of which we are one, as well as higher evolved cultural systems. The diversity of cultures and peoples of the Romans, Ottoman Turks, English, and now Americans led to their leadership positions in the world. The baby sacrificing inbred Carthaginians or the elitist “we are better than you” Nazis did not.

Our art world is an abysmal failure in the eyes of the general public and will remain so as long as the members of this world believe in the special privileges of the special appointed committees or properly paper credentialed authorities. Using the words or applying these principles: ENTERTAINMENT, DEMOCRACY, SKILL, UNION, etc. are taboo in our art world. They were edited out of the recent panel discussion video, for example, and are considered to be not allowable in our presentation or selection of art.

Well the fact is, the Art Prize is not selected democratically or even semi-democratically, competitive shows are not either, nor are any displays of public art, publicly subsidized museum exhibits, or publicly funded grants. Let’s take our principles of elitism into our other lives. For example, in golf only amateurs from noble houses were allowed to compete in the major tournaments, the PGA (Professional Golf Association) or rabble was not. In the Olympics only the sons and daughters of the elite were allowed to compete and the stronger more athletic farmers were not.

Well somehow those systems figured out that if you want to win you have to allow participation based on merit not birthright. Actors and athletes, our fellow members of the entertainment community, formed a union and only then did they get paid, only then did the owners, who originally fought unionization, actually make tons of money. Our art world would benefit from the same concepts. Artists would make salaries commensurate with athletes, galleries would prosper, museum membership would skyrocket, art professionals would see a huge increase in salary and benefit, art would return to public schools, etc. No need to reinvent the wheel here. Just give up the medieval belief system of the divine rights of kings.

In the private sector, like commercial galleries, the owners have the right to be as exclusive as they choose, as they cater to a select clientele. But for more public offerings, such as museums, the Art Prize, and open juried competitions, exclusivity is self-defeating. The public worships freedom and democracy. They honor skill and unity. They do not appreciate being told what to do or what to buy from those who have not earned their respect based on merit. This is true in all systems be they government, entertainment (sports, theater, music and fine art), business, charitable organizations, whatever. If you cheat in business you will only have short term gains at best. If you sing like a lawnmower, you will not get a recording contract. If you can’t hit a curve ball (sorry Michael Jordan’s ego) you will not get paid, and if you can’t draw a straight line with a ruler and/or your ideas are derivative, you will not go down in art history.

This is by no means a disparagement of those fine talented artists who were selected for the Art prize this year and in years past, or those generous and dedicated individuals, who with the best of intentions and admirable taste participated in the selection process. It is the process and the exclusivity of the process, not the people nor there judgments, that is reprehensible.

The currently practiced methods used in selecting the Art Prize are fatally flawed and as a result most of the work only caters to the tastes of a select few of the cognoscenti with no consideration of the general public at all. So there is not any major media attention, no one is buying much of the art produced, and we get these wonderful commentaries and panel discussions about what is wrong and no one is coming up with any solutions except ENTERTAINMENT, DEMOCRACY, SKILL, & UNION!!! If you would like details of how to educate our art world into realizing it is part of the entertainment industry and not just the educational system, how to apply democratic principles, that skills of both hand-eye coordination and cerebral imaginative creativity can be valued, and how to form a union of art professionals, artists, and benefactors alike, it would take several more pages. If interested you know where to find me.

To make this rather long diatribe come to an end, I would like to make a small observation. Our art world has a very clear division amongst its participants. There are those who need or desire to actually make a living at their trade and those who do not or believe it is only a dream. Many of us, me included, are able to create art because we obtained support by other means. This includes those who married or were born into wealth. It includes people who are able to work as art teachers/professors and those who do commercial work on the side. It also includes those who have other means of support and/or have retired from the workplace and art is one of their hobbies/avocations.

The other side, of which I was once one, includes those who actually survive or try to survive on money earned from selling works of art. Are any full time fine artists invited to be on selection and/or discussion panels? Do any full time artists end up on a jury for an art show? Are there any full time artists on the boards of any museums or an integral part of the exhibition selection process? There are a lot of these artists in our community and some even make decent incomes, but their opinions are not sought and only a very few are ever given any recognition by the art museums. I guess they are too busy creating art for a living to have the time on their hands to dally in the art world and debate the finer points of which of the Emperor’s new wardrobes is the most flattering. :)

Dennis Paul Batt

I feel like I don't really know all of the factors at play, but in general the choice does seem to me out of whack. If Dick has been showing for a while and was nominated last year, it seems he should be at least implicitly barred from the decision. Is the point not to give exposure to new artists, rather tha to show an artist that San Diego has seen before (even multiple times)?

This leads me to my real question. What do you define as an emerging artist? As RG asked, How can someone who has been showing in galleries and established venues for years (15?) be considered emerging? How old is the youngest "emerging" artist of the 13 selected? Obviously age doesn't really have anything to do with it, I kind of just say it to make a point. I think it would take courage to select an artist with little or no résumé, because all that artist would have to stand on would be the strength of their work. That seems to me to be the point of recognizing emerging artists. I guess another way to put it would be, whats the point of recognizing someone as "emerging" if they have a fairly long résumé? This inclination undermines and damages the entire project.

[ps] Patricia I like the late night blogging.

Zuri, thanks for the commentary. Listen, my intentions are neither ego based nor destructive to a solidifying albeit fragile - to use your word - San Diego art community. This isn't about choosing your camp, UCSD, SDSU, BFD or who is the best, its about doing the right thing. Archaic, old school thinking? - perhaps, but it's about leveling the playing field and giving the opportunity to succeed to those who you have invited to join you in the process - the art prize. Or what Ann refers to as "a benefit to the larger community." Though I honestly don't believe she is referring to a larger "public" community but solely the artistic one.

But there is a problem with Ann's reasoning in that it is a huge assumption to believe these types of pre-selected selections, and two artists - Kim and Brian - irregardless of their qualities, stature, importance, could ever hope to benefit an entire community, simply because they choose to make art and show together. The choice then becomes pragmatic as Eleanor points out, but it is only beneficial to the individual artists who have been selected. Where is the risk? The challenge? The mentorship? Dick certainly doesn't need a mentor, but perhaps the other 13 artists could benefit from some of Kim's expertise, advice, and insight. Does Brian really need Kim's approval? I doubt it. Others might though.

All those lessons learned could be exhibited in a exhibit that had more to do with two artists working together as opposed to two individual artists doing what they want. The public and not just all of us who are intrinsically tied and nurtured by what we produce, could also benefit. There is nothing to gain or lose if the focus returns to the creative act and the quality and diversity of what is being shown. This can be potentially found in the group of "emerging" artists you're promoting. Where's the problem in that?

Yes I agree Zuri, the get out of jail card was written into the rules, and you like Richard are correct in believing Kim did no wrong according to the rules. You gave him the option, he took advantage of it. The point is he didn't have to, like Doug pointed out, Kim is fully aware of the interstices of the SD art prize. Even Eleanor had a backup plan had she not chosen Pamela. The point is, she like De Salvo and others chose within the pool however distasteful it appeared. Emphasis on appearance.

Dear Mr. Authority,

Respectfully, I have to disagree with you on a number of counts. I’ll try to make this brief.

1. You should consider consulting an editor next time.
2. You should know the facts before you offer your daunting opinions. Despite there being a ‘nominating’ committee, this is not a juried prize or competition. As I understand it, mentors are free to make their selection from the list of nominees or to go outside of it, as is the case with Kim McConnell. There was nothing wrong with him doing this. Whether or not they are nominated, all artists in San Diego are worthy of being chosen for the Prize in any given year.
3. You failed to capitalize on an opportunity to discuss more broadly the problems and challenges facing the San Diego Art Prize. Good intensions aside, a clearer evaluation of this situation would have enabled you to argue its pros and cons and, hopefully, addressed them in a more constructive manner. You obviously have strong opinions about how the Prize should be organized and administered. I am surprised that you did not make them public beforehand—especially since you played a role in this year’s nominations. By the way, Brian Dick’s name was posted on the SDVAN site in relation to this year’s Prize for many weeks leading up to the formal announcement.

Regrettably, because I was out of town, I missed last week’s panel discussion, “Changing Perspectives in the San Diego Art Scene”. But maybe this is the perfect follow-up: “What’s wrong with the San Diego Art Prize?”

Kevin, I applaud your passion for art and your enthusiastic support of the local art scene. If only there was more of your kind around. And we certainly need and should welcome more of these discussions. As my friend, Brian Dick, says, “It’s not Jackson Pollock pissing into the fireplace, but at least we’re arguing about something.”

Smacks of nepotism?
That's an understatement.
When I first heard about the art prize I thought:"Maybe I'll have a chance at the bright lights at last.." NOT!
Now on to the point of this discussion: I agree with Patricia and Eleanor.If the purpose of the Art Prize is to bring support and attention to the artists of our community, then should we not consider artists who have not yet received world wide attention but deserve the prize solely on the merit of their work?
Of course who or what is to determine merit is another topic wide open for discusion and we all know that art is subjective..so Kim has made a purely subjective choice..and according to Eleanor there was a clause allowing this choice and Brian is very deserving but not emerging in my mind because he is already glimmering in the glow of "the bright lights".(San Diego Museum & MCASD)
What will happen next? will all this discussing and emailing make a dent in the future of Art in San Diego? will it change the rules of the art prize selection? It would be up to the committee to decide the future of the art prize.
If the San Diego art museums would be more supportive of their own local artists this would be the stamp of approval we all need and possibly bring a new group of artists into the public eye giving them the chance to be selected.
Collaborations as history has proven or movements therin get public attention and critical review badly needed in San Diego,ie: New York, San Francisco, L.A.,Leipzig,etc.The beginning of these groups here is a good start.

Ann, Patricia — thanks for having the vision and talent to create the Art Prize as a legitimate institution in the San Diego art community.

Eleanor, Kim — thanks for giving your time to support the Art Prize, when you could have been spending the time doing your own work (which I love).

Brian — I hope the prize gives you more time to do your work (which is full of grace). If anyone in town deserves an art prize, you do — you're one of the best in San Diego.

Kevin — thanks for not only feeling strongly about art in San Diego, but also having the devotion and courage to take those feelings public in service of a bigger goal, whether through organizing the recent panel discussion or by exercising freedom of the press.

Patricia — thanks encore for expressing your view of the Art Prize as a process rather than an institution. I hope you'll consider revising or clarifying the following aspects of the prize:

• Is it truly for emerging artists? If so, the term needs to be defined in a manner that respects the integrity of both the concept and the prize.
  
• Have the mentee winners actually benefited from the mentor relationship that is promoted as a key feature? If not, the prize might be less problematic if the two categories (emerging and established artist) were kept independent.
  
• Is it necessary to show together the work of the chooser and the choosed? Per Eleanor's comment this feature evidently has a limiting effect on the chooser, who might otherwise select another artist on the intrinsic merit of their work even though the chooser considers that work incompatible with their own.
  
• What is the status of a nominee who is not chosen in a given year? Should they still have a chance to win in a subsequent year? Should they have more of a chance than someone who has never been nominated?
  
• Is it necessary to have shows of the nominees' work? Such shows seem to create an expectation among the nominees (and others) that someone in said show will win the prize. A better prize design would address this problem at a root psychological level rather than by the inclusion of a footnote to a rule.
  

Dear Mr. Gallery Director,

Respectfully, please do not take my enthusiasm for the art scene in San Diego as maintaining the status quo. You should know something about that. I am not talking merits here but about taking the responsibility for the decisions you make. It is far too easy to rely on a clause in a very fuzzy and ill-defined — now let's see: competition? prize? juried show? — to justify and rely on and support the horse you're used to training and who you know runs well. We are approaching some twenty-odd comments and there's been no mention of the 13 artists who were either under the ether when accepting the nomination, or they had a more-than-reasonable expectation at having a crack at the prize. It is called the San Diego Art Prize no? Think for a second what the implications of a prize means for someone who is in the running for it. If it's not a prize, then get rid of the word.

Speaking of words and editors, guilty as charged Mr. Director, but nonetheless a strawman of an argument. I've noticed over the years, on Art as Authority as well as other blogs, that the perpetrators who level these claims of syntactic errors generally have a complete and utter comprehension of the issue(s) at hand. To claim or imply otherwise is simply dismissive and unflattering certainly coming from you, Luis.

As to my alleged lack of understanding of the rules and regulations of the Art Prize, I precisely wrote about this issue a year ago when I reviewed the first New Contemporaries show under the tutelage of Doug Simay. A clause that perhaps was intended to save the recognized artists a certain embarassment, was in the end something no one thought anyone would use. At least anyone who fully understood the intent and purpose of the Art Prize. Finally, I will continue to support the SD Art Prize and question its merits at every turn when I feel there has been an injustice.

Lastly Luis, as a dealer who represents Brian Dick, please help us to move this dialog forward by answering your own question first: "What's wrong with the San Diego Art Prize?"

Best, Kevin

PS

An important key in responding to that question would be to have Brian and/or Kim answer it. It still may not be pissing into the fireplace, but it might be a little like pissing into the wind if they don't.

After reading all these wonderful opinions I believe Kim had the right to pick Brian or anyone else he desired. After talking with many of the nominees, they are more than happy, for the most part, to be considered at all, and delighted with the Honorable Mention status granted by their selection and the subsequent follow up focus exhibits. No harm no foul. I just don’t understand what took so long for Kim to be selected in the first place. Based on his accomplishments, he should have been chosen as one of the first prize winners. Where is Bob Irwin, why has he not yet been given a prize? I hope he is selected next year.

How we all forget. Many many years ago when contemplation of the Art Prize was first discussed I remember at one of those creative committee meetings giving my two cents worth on what would be a successful format. I believe I used the Oscars, Grammys, Tonys, etc and similar arts entertainment award ceremonies as examples of what would be an ideal way to bring serious attention to the fantastic array of talent in the visual arts of our region. Discussed was a black-tie ceremony complete with TV coverage in a high class venue, with city, county, and local celebrity dignitaries in attendance awarding a plethora of various prizes. WOW!! just imagine visual artists achieving long deserved recognition on a par with others in the various arts.

I also stressed that the selection process should follow a similar tact as the Oscars with the Academy. Imagine artists, art dealers, curators, art professionals all nominating their choices from amongst the vast sea of talent and the top finalists going before a select panel for the final selection, (not pure democracy but at least a start.) Believe it or not many of those already selected would most likely would have won using the democratic format, but the process would have energized the community at large and not just the few of us.

However, that did not come to pass as the time was not right for such a radical (effective and proven) approach. The process chosen and of course for the current state of the visual arts in our world, rightly so, was to select by the few, the already recognized few so as to garner financial support and respectability and not tip the apple cart. But to my knowledge the prize has another year or so before the funds dry up and no one has come forward to guarantee the $10,000 per year necessary to continue. I hope we can continue in any format. But if the money runs out, maybe some recalculating is in order.

Dennis Paul Batt

You know what we definitely dont need more of in San Diego? Communities that self-destruct a year or two into it because of shortsighted infighting. You may not value the fact that ray street is meeting UCSD on similar terms, but it is integral to this still very fragile, hardly solid, art scene that it happen and continue.
Support and compromise.
If San Diego one day actually has an art scene that consists of gallery (s), critic (s) , a museum that shows local artists, and a fluidity between art schools and communities of artists, then maybe we can start squabbling over petty recognition.

The SD art prize needs to be re-evaluated. If it promotes artists that have long standing relationships and simply results in an incestuous marriage, what's the point? Not that I think it would be a bad show I'm sure it would be be great. But if they have an existing relationship why don't they just have that show outside of the prize?

I cant say I really blame Kim. If he didnt like what he saw, he didnt like what he saw and found a "loop hole". Or perhaps he felt that his friend Brian was slighted in the prior art prize and sought to rectify the situation. Yah its kinda harsh to this years nominees, but I'm really thinkin: who cares about the San Diego art prize anyway? Whats the "prize" exactly? Showing at the coveted L street lobby? A pat on the back from a senior artist? "Hey your alright kiddo!" or "look our arts in the same room!" - Oh! thats right, you get to "rub elbows", the "prize" is career promotion. Maybe they'll get to sell a piece to one of the handful of "real collectors" in San Diego that you hear about, a smidge of monetary value to let 'em know there art has worth. Or maybe it will get you a show at another gallery, so that the same 30 people (I realize this is a slight understatement) who go to these art openings can see your work in a different venue. Is that career promotion? Why focus on promoting your a career in this city? This is a place to live and make work, not make a career.

I'm revising my opening statement; fuck the art prize all together. If there is something to be learned from another person (which I believe their always is) you will learn it best working with them side by side, not by putting your picture next to theirs and trying to discuss them over dry crackers and shitty wine in a plastic cup. So why dont we just do away with the "prize", that stupid trophy. Stop pretending its so important and try to do something interesting instead. If we pair up an emerging artist with an established one why dont they collaborate? Prompt them to come up with ideas for each other to create, or work together on something. Create a scenario in which they can actually push and challenge each others work and stop pretending that this "prize" is promoting the careers of emerging artists. Why not let the artists select the venue? Or give them a decent one. Maybe a venue that's not even a gallery. If they do select L street maybe they'll actually utilize that space and do something site specific instead of pretending that its a good place to show wall art. Just throwin it out there..

Just so its clear, I have nothing but respect for the artists in the art prize, past and present, and I in no way think less of them for taking part in it. But I have no respect for the SD art prize. And hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it really has promoted careers and pushed work to new levels, but I'm pretty sure it hasnt.

Kevin,

The ‘editorial’ criticism that I leveled against you was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab for your over-the-top speechifying—nothing more. I didn’t miss anything (although, I’ll be the first to admit that I am a lousy joke teller).

So, what is wrong with the San Diego Art Prize? From the many opinions offered it’s obvious that there are a host of contentious issues that need to be addressed and ironed out, which I hope the Prize organizers will attempt to do before the next competition. But let me give you a couple of the ones that stand out for me. Clarity—in every form. Not long ago I had a conversation with Patricia Frischer about this issue. I told her that I found navigating the ins and outs of the Prize challenging at best and suggested that they be spelled out more clearly for everyone to see. For example, who are the “art professionals” and “advisory board of patrons” responsible for helping to select the current crop of nominees? (I don’t mean this year’s or last year’s recipients either.) Why aren’t these people listed on SDVAN site at the top under the banner “Nominating Committee”. And, what about the Prize itself? What is it? A trophy? A check for $5,000? A gift card to Home Depot? Where is this information? If national visibility for the Prize and the artists is one of its main goals then maybe the organizers should consider inviting several outsiders into the mix every year— say, curators like Ali Subotnick from the Hammer or Thelma Golden from The Studio Museum, or art critic/writer Joshua Decter. That would certainly raise awareness and add credibility. Are we ready for this?

I give Patricia and Ann a lot of credit for taking this on and for what they’ve been able to accomplish in just a few years. But I would like to recommend to them, and to anyone else involved, that they consider evaluating ways in which to improve the Prize and the organization itself. This shouldn’t be so difficult. There are already many other examples of successful awards and grant-making organizations across the country, such as the New York Foundation for the Arts, Art Matters, The San Francisco Foundation Art Awards, and the Carnegie Art Award, to name a few. I’m certain that they’ve all faced similar challenges at one point or another. We should learn from them.

I would like to thank ALL of the organizers of the Art Prize for their vote of ‘no confidence’ in the emerging artists of San Diego. By including the ‘loophole’ you made it transparently clear that you do not feel it is possible to find 13 emerging artists of decent quality to choose from on a yearly basis in San Diego. Finally, the transparency people have been asking for. I guess covering your ass is what passes for community around here. Maybe the San Diego Art Prize should include LA and Orange County and then you could remove the loophole? Or maybe the Five Boroughs as well? Then you could have some worthy artists and “save the recognized artists a certain embarrassment”.

Sorry to disappoint you, Art Prize.

If nobody was supposed to use the loophole, then why include it. In the end you only have to choose 2-3 artists a year. I guess San Diego doesn’t have 2 artists a year that go beyond embarrassment? The argument that the choice is based on work that is similar to the work of the established artist also seems to imply that the New Contemporaries show is poorly conceived from the start (or any diverse group show), based on the fact that diverse work is next to each other? What is wrong with having two artists who both have good work, but differing practices, show with each other? It seems like it has been done infinite times before. (ie current show at Seminal Projects)

… the way the work was installed at Noel-Baza did not do the artists any favors. I have seen some of the artists’ involved artwork at other venues and it looked better on those occasions. Even though those venues at which I saw the work were not commercial galleries. I felt bad for the artists to have to shoehorn good work into a space that is geared more towards an ‘art-walk’ type audience. (these galleries are fine and necessary, but don’t lend themselves well to some of the work shown. Another limitation toward the type of work to be considered and maybe a factor in the choices made?)

…Maybe ‘younger’ SD artists should consider, if they are tapped next year by the Art Prize as an emerging artist, whether it is worth putting their work into a situation where the organizers obviously don’t have faith in you, just so that your hard work is made to look out of context. The Art Prize IS an honor, but not that big of an honor. $1000 is a lot of money, and at the same time it is not that much money…

…on the other hand, it seems like the amount of money given to the established Art Prize winners is enough to ask them to take one for the team and slum it with a SD artist from the group that year. (They don’t really have to be that embarrassed, we are in San Diego, nobody of any import is going see the show and/or write criticism about it anyway)

…On a daily basis I fluctuate between having to console young artists here in SD that they should not feel demoralized in the art scene in hope that they don’t move away or give up; and having to convince people at UCSD (undergrads, grads, faculty) not to snicker when I talk about the fact that there are some interesting things happening here in SD that they should see/be involved in. This “no confidence” vote/loophole by the SD Art Prize has just made both of these all that much a harder to justify and my job that much more difficult...

thank you, Art Prize.

Remember the arms length rule. Too many strategies here to be able to make a coherent comment about them all. Whew!

Steve,

When words fail, point:

SECA awards @ SFMOMA

Greater New York @ PS1

Oregon Biennial @ PAM

Hmmm, there's a trend here: the M word.

Better change the subject, pronto:

PORT @ Portland