Juried vs. All-Inclusive Shows

There are benefits to both juried and all-inclusive exhibits. A lot of artists take up issues with one or the other, for reasons that I will touch on as I discuss the pros and cons of both. I am not including invitational and other curated exhibitions in this discussion because they tend to fall into their own category someplace in between by requiring that the artist be invited to participate.

What are some issues artists have against juried shows?
Juried shows are limited by what someone selects as good art, the opinion of which varies from person to person, and that can eliminate a lot of good art that doesn't fit within the juror's ideal. A lot of juried shows require an entry fee which goes towards show expenses and jurying fees regardless of whether or not an artist was accepted, and a lot of artists feel that the system is inherently unfair and that such shows take undue advantage of those whom they purport to serve by charging them money for nothing more than a chance at exposure. (Some galleries are doing what they can to get away from this by charging exhibition fees upon acceptance instead.)

What are the pros of juried shows?
Juried shows are typically more prestigious than all-inclusive shows because there is a method of elimination involved. Because of the process, juried exhibitions have a more cohesive feel overall and flow much more smoothly between pieces. The level of craftsmanship is generally higher and the artwork presented more professionally. The end effect is that the likelihood that any one artist's work is undermined by his/her neighbor's due to a radical shift in focus or differing levels of craftsmanship and presentation is much slimmer.

There is another factor that arises with the juried show, and that is dealing with rejection. People in the arts (including writing, theater, music, visual art and so on) have to deal with rejection on a regular basis, much more frequently than non-artists, and this is especially true for emerging artists who lack the experience and exposure necessary to find a following. Rejection can be particularly hard on such artists, discouraging them from participating and getting their work out there where it can be seen. (All artists must learn to deal with rejection, and I have posted about this here.)

What do artists have against all-inclusive shows?
All-inclusive shows offer up an anything-goes environment for artists to participate in, regardless of the level of professionalism that they exhibit both in their artwork and in how they manage themselves. If everything is accepted for show, then well-crafted works can be shown alongside of poorly executed ones. There may not be a strong theme or current flowing through the exhibition tying everything together, and as a result the overall show can appear scattered and disjointed. Oftentimes, the whole show appears less professional and is thusly not regarded highly.

What is good about all-inclusive shows?
All-inclusive shows provide emerging artists with opportunities to show their work apart from the juried show circuit. Some artists starting out feel very uncomfortable with the professional gallery setting and don't try to get their work out there where it can be seen for fear of rejection. This intimidation prevents a lot of very talented, strong artists from exhibiting and does not affect just those whose work is less professional or poorly executed. Also, all-inclusive shows offer venues for edgy, experimental work that does not fit within the boundaries of what is typically accepted as art, thus allowing artists the chance to create and to speak their minds about things that would otherwise not be shown or expressed.

All-inclusive shows may not be the best resume-building exercises, especially for established artists, but they do provide artists with the chance to experiment and to get their work out there where it will be seen and where viewers can judge it for themselves without having been presented a biased opinion to start.

I think that both juried and all-inclusive shows are essential because they fill very different roles. The art community as a whole benefits from both. Juried shows offer a higher standard of professionalism which gives credence to the art community, while all-inclusive shows offer the opportunity to redefine the boundaries of what is and isn't art and to explore new and different ideas.