| susceptible to images a milwaukee art review |
Letters to the Editor Concerning
the Nohl Fellowship Awards
updated 01.31.07
These responses were sent in response to Debra Brehmer’s article
“The Nohl Fellowship: questions and considerations” (posted December
4, 2006).
Clarification of Nohl jurying process
Nicolas Lampert writes:
I just recently read your article on the Nohl grant and believe that it
raises a number of great points but I wanted to make a few clarifications
in regards to the section of your article where you write:
“And some people suggest that some of the artists who apply for
funding are actually the ones recommending jury choices to Morris.
One example, cited several times, was the case of Nicolas Lampert,
who won a $15,000 Fellowship in 2005. In 2004,Lampert had invited
curator Nato Thompson of MASS MoCA to Milwaukee as a visiting
lecturer at UWM where Lampert teaches. Subsequently, Lampert was
included in a show at Mass MOCA. The next year Thompson was
brought to UWM as a juror and Lampert was one of the three winners
in the top category. "Every year there are people who at least one of
the jurors knows, "Morris said, "They need to acknowledge the
relationship. It’s always out in the open."
Considering that you are specifically highlighting my name as an
example, I am surprised that you did not contact me while you were
writing the article to check the legitimacy of these claims. As well, it is
dubious journalistic practices to use ambiguous sources such as “some
people suggest” and “one example cited several times.” Why not cite
the specific names of the people who voiced these opinions and also
get the counter opinion?
To clarify my position, I certainly never recommended any potential
jurors to Polly Morris during the three cycles that I applied for the grant.
This important detail you could of easily learned by asking Polly Morris.
As well, you could have directly asked me this question.
Also to correct the chronology of events (which is wrong in your article)
I invited Nato during the Spring semester of 2005 to speak to my
classes at UWM and at MIAD to talk about a show that he curated at
MASS MoCA called “The Interventionists.” Prior to inviting him to give
the talk at UWM and MIAD, he had curated me into the “Becoming
Animal” show, scheduled for the Spring of 2006. My connection to Nato
goes far back. I have known him since 1995 and he has included my
work into a couple of shows since 2001. This fact alone would make it
extremely problematic for me to suggest him (or anyone for that matter)
as a potential juror.
To segue to the selection process itself, during the studio visit it was
clearly stated to everyone present by Polly Morris that Nato knew my
work and was including me into an upcoming MASS MoCA show. I later
heard from Nato after I had won the award, that Nato refrained from
deciding upon my work and that the two other curators where the ones
who decided if I was to be selected or not.
How Nato’s obvious interest in my work impacted the other two curator’s
final decision is open to debate, but it is critical to reiterate that I had no
role in ever suggesting Nato as a potential juror when I first applied.
I find these errors in your article unfortunate because of the importance
of many of your other points. I have found the all-male roster of the
past two years to be very discouraging and problematic. I know that the
other Nohl artists from last year expressed their disappointment in this
as well.
My hope is that your article (and others that have been written) will
provoke a critical dialog so that changes will be made in the future so
that this does not become a re-occurring theme each year. I think it is
critical that issues of gender, race, and class are at the forefront of any
decision process.
Sincerely,
Nicolas Lampert
Jonathan Winkle writes:
I visited the Susceptible to Images site for the first time today as a
result of the visit that my wife and I paid to the gallery (Portrait Society)
on Saturday.
I read your article on the Nohl Fellowships with some interest. My
background artistically is in classical music, but I was struck by some
similarities regarding gender equity (or inequity) in a competitive
context.
In my experience as an adjudicator of music competitions and auditions,
A "blind" audition can often yield different results than when there is
either direct interaction with the artists or indirect contact via written
materials outlining an artist's educational and professional pedigree.
I cannot imagine the Nohl Fellowship jurors not being influenced to some
degree by the written materials that are provided. It would be
interesting if the entire selection process were blind, taking a step
further than the Illinois process cited, and observe the results.
Regards,
Jonathan Winkle
Vice President, Institutional Advancement
Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design
Carolyn Snow writes:
Thank you for addressing this topic.
Bias & Experience
1) Assisted established female artist in applying for 3 years.
2) Applied this year as an emerging female artist.
3) Introduced myself at your Walker's Point Opening as a writer and an
artist who'd like to contribute to www.susceptibletoimages.com
I want to support the people that work so hard to put the fellowship on.
On the other hand, this Fellowship is endowed from a outsider female
artist. Are the objectives of the endowment being met when women are
excluded?
What would she think of the political and self serving ramblings that
made up this years art? Meat in outdoors? Pictures taken off the
internet of boy's arm's?
I propose a do-over. More oversight of fellowship administration. Is
academic the best delivery method?
Restructure prizes. Even amounts of winners, 1/2 men and 1/2 women.
Restructure how the judges are selected. Selecting women as judges
doesn't always help. Women are trained in an art world influenced and
mostly controlled by men. Give the judges rules they must conform to
when selecting winners.
Is someone teaching in academia full time, how can they list themselves
as an established artist-when they are supporting themselves from
teaching?
Have the art, both in the application and in the show, reflect Ms. Nohl's
art-she did a wide sweep of art. Look hard at films and photographs.
Consider eliminating them as entry possibilities.
We have a rich pool of outsider art from the JMKAC and from this prize.
Why are we rewarding the same old, academic, conceptual art?
Good luck and thanks for trying to bring a groundswell. Even jsonline,
mjs, cited the Fellowship today-finally.
Thank you,
Carolyn Snow
Jennifer Geigel Mikulah writes:
I just finished reading your essay about the Nohl grants and I wanted to
thank you for the care you put into it. I especially appreciate that you
drew upon your master's research to offer broader context for Nohl's
legacy. I'm always surprised by how little people here know about Nohl
even though, as you say, she is quite a remarkable, inspiring figure.
Jennifer Geigel Mikulay
Jesus Ali clarifies Nohl jurying issue
Hello Ms. Brehmer,
I just read your "Nohl Dilemma" essay on the STI website and I have to
take an important issue with one particular element of it.
In the essay you state: "In 2004, Lampert had invited curator Nato
Thompson of MASS MoCA to Milwaukee as a visiting lecturer at UWM
where Lampert teaches. Subsequently, Lampert was included in a show
at Mass MOCA. The next year Thompson was brought to UWM as a
juror and Lampert was one of the three winners in the top category..."
While the chronology you present may be factually accurate, I consider
your use of the word "subsequently" to be intentionally misleading.
A far more accurate reading of the situation is to understand that
Nicolas had been accepted to the MASS MoCA "Becoming Animal"
show far in advance of Thompson's campus visit (it takes a great deal
of time and planning to utilize the football field long MASS MoCA gallery
space). It is also imperative to note that Thompson was a "very hot
draw" on the national arts scene for his incredible curatorial work on
MASS MoCA's "The Interventionists" show. It wasn't as if Lampert
forced him onto the standing room only Curtain Hall auditorium at UWM.
Any hand Lampert may have had in helping to facilitate Thompson's
visit to UWM was not any form of payola, on the contrary, it was likely
the only way such a popular curator could have been convinced to visit
and present in an arts community as small as Milwaukee at such a point
in his career.
Additionally, I have learned from multiple sources that Thompson did
indeed purposefully and obviously recuse himself from considering
Lampert's work during the juroring process, clearly explaining his past
relation to Lampert to the other jurors. Only the two other jurors voted
over Lampert's work. I learned this because of my own admitted
curiosity [skepticism] over the propriety of the selection.
The chronology and delivery in your piece does an unnecessary
disservice to the true facts of the situation and to the reputations of
Lampert, Thompson, Morris and the Nohl Fellowship. I do hope you
would consider revising it.
Thank you, Jesus Ali
And in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a 3rd year visual arts grad
student at UWM and Lampert's web designer. However, neither position
changes my objectivity in this matter.
Jesus Ali
Susan Barnett writes:
Thank you for the thoughtful articles about the gender issues the Nohl
Fund selection process raised. I enjoyed reading Polly Morris’s
explanation of the jurying process. Giving the money exclusively to
women artists is an interesting and appropriate idea given Mary Nohl’s
background, but then the work would not be taken seriously - it would
be seen as Women’s Art rather than The Region’s Best Art. I really like
the idea of having the first part of the jurying process contain no text --
great art should stand on its own visually, while the worst “academic” art
often serves as an illustration for a statement or manifesto. Most of the
work in this year’s show could not stand on its own without a written
statement.
As an undergraduate I asked an art history professor why there were
no great women in art history and he said, “That’s easy, there are no
great women artists!” In 1983 the popular textbook by Janson did not
feature a single women artist, though Lee Krasner and Elaine
DeKooning were listed as wives. It was only after taking a graduate-
level course on women in art that I began to notice their absence in
history, and that all of my tenured professors were male. Why don’t
women ever make the short list of greats? Is our work inferior? Are we
more self-effacing? Are we lacking the machinery for success in a male-
dominated art world?
I wonder if there is a different aesthetic between men and women. For
centuries subjects that relate to women’s lives were categorized as
“genre painting”, and considered inferior to “history painting”. Portraits
of women and children in everyday activities, still-lives and household
scenes were used as household decoration, while paintings of semi-
nude women, dramatic landscapes and violent scenes from the bible
and history were regarded as serious art, commissioned by powerful
patrons and collected by museums. Does the interest in relationships
versus action that differentiate men’s and women’s tastes in movies
also affect their tastes in art? Why is it that from a pool of
undergraduate students who are primarily women; the managers,
curators, critics, professors and directors who are appointed and
tenured are disproportionately men - especially as salary and influence
rise? Do men sustain a “male” aesthetic; inadvertantly promoting those
who look and think like themselves and thus perpetuating their own
influence? Do women contribute somehow to their own lesser influence?
There are more prominent men in the arts, so more exhibit jurors are
likely to be men, but even with equal appointments there might still be
barriers to women’s influence. Men are more comfortable using the
“voice of authority,” presenting their opinions as facts in a way that
stifles discussion, collaboration and compromise. Because women tend
to be less assertive, within a group of jurors women may have less
weight in the final outcome. Another problem in achieving equity is that
many women who break through the glass ceiling achieve their success
by emulating men and fail to bring gender differences to their
judgments; in fact women in power are often more critical and
unaccepting of other women. If there are no gender-based differences
in aesthetics why do a greater percentage of men than women find
televised sports, action movies and porn appealing?
Women need to learn to promote themselves, to serve as mentors, and
to speak their heart-felt aesthetic judgments with confidence. Women
who support arts and publishing institutions are in the position to
demand equal hiring practices as well as balanced view points in
exhibition judging and published art criticism. Simply asking curators,
publishers, grantors, and managers to consider how women are
represented in their organizations can only help bring more equity to
the ongoing conversation about the nature and quality of art. Keep up
the great work!
Susan Barnett
Melanie Jane writes:
Thank you for such an insightful, well-researched and thought
provoking article!
You do a great job and I am a regular visitor to the site! I look forward
to what you have next in store!
Thanks again.... and congratulations!
Melanie Jane
Larry Hamlin writes:
Hi. Terrific piece. I have seen every Nohl winner’s show so far and after
this last one I was thinking that if these were the best submissions out
there it might be possible that the foundation would run out of artists
before it ran out of $$$$.
Larry Hamlin
Lindsay Lochmann writes:
As a long-time applicant, I appreciated your complex and enlightening
(and hackle-raising) discussion of the Nohl Fellowship. I had heard
about the "juror chemistry" being problematic, but now I know it is a
more complicated dilemma. As I've compiled the application artists'
statements over the years, I wondered if the dialogue with women's
history and art history has just gone out of style. Thanks for taking the
time to notice, analyze and suggest.
Lindsay
Ariana Huggett writes:
I'm glad that you're addressing this issue. Over the past 4 years 23
men have won awards and 5 women have won awards. 3 women have
won established awards and 2 have won emerging artists awards.
To your questions, I doubt that having them administered through UWM
makes much difference. I think the selection of judges is probably the
key. In 2004, 4 women won awards. What was different about that
year from the others?
I believe that Polly Morris is doing an exceptional job in administering
this process. I feel that it's important that outside jurors continue to be
brought in. Maybe the process should not be blind. We live in a
gender biased culture, and it will not go away unless we address it.
Ariana Huggett
Michael Julian writes:
The selection panel for this year's Nohl Fellowship awards was
comprised of two women and one man. As a fellow, I was allowed to sit
in on the jurying process but only as an observer. For the 9 hours that I
was there none of the jurors ever asked any of our opinions, nor did
any of us voice any of our opinions one way or another regarding the
images being viewed. As far as I could tell there was little or no
interaction going on at all.
It is my recollection that no less than 60 people applied for each
category. I seem to remember the number being more in the range of
80 per category but when it comes to my memory and numbers I prefer
to err on the conservative side.
Having applied to a lot of juried competitions over the years I have
learned how much luck is involved in conjunction with the presentation
of awards and even the acceptance into certain shows. Who the jurors
are, where in the long sequence of viewing slides your images fall,
whose work is viewed right before your own, what the viewing conditions
in the room are like, all have a lot to do with the final selections. I had
guessed at all of this before. However, what I was incapable of
understanding before having such a privileged opportunity was just how
mind numbing the process can become. As depressing as this may
sound (as depressing as it felt) it was without a doubt a revelation.
Here are some of the conclusions I have come to, having witnessed the
process.
1. I didn't win a fellowship as much as I was awarded one. There is a
difference. To believe that I won an award would imply a belief that I
defeated all of those that didn't - that I had conquered them somehow.
On the contrary, I know that there were many other artists just as
capable and deserving of the award, but who, quite simply, didn't have
the good fortune of being awarded one of them that year.
2. Even though I felt really confident about the conceptual and technical
nature of my work when I applied for the fellowship, I knew that there
was going to be a lot of stiff competition. I felt very fortunate, then, when
I first received word of the award, and now, after having witnessed the
jurying process, I feel really, really lucky to have been recipient of one!
3. I was witness to a lot of really fabulous painters, abstract and
figurative alike, being passed over without even a moment’s
consideration. Good painting, and/or beautiful images, aren’t going to
cut it, nor will paintings as singular events. If there isn't the appearance
of a larger concept driving the work, that is to say, a concept larger
than the personal exploration of design, technique, and a personally
favored motif, you don't have much of a chance (as a painter anyway).
4. I can only hope/imagine that the quiet simplicity of my works must
have seemed like a welcome, if not puzzling, respite to the long
endured, rapid-fire viewing of so much slick, casual, indifferent,
contemporary hyper-intensity. Well, other than luck, and maybe the
conceptual and installational aspects of my work, this is the only way my
ego can rationalize being chosen for the award.
5. It would be really great if, in addition to the Nohl Fellowships,
Milwaukee could put together major awards for the individual disciplines
- painting, photography, sculpture, textiles, etc. Sorry, I know that
seems really old fashion. Passé tendencies aside, it would most
certainly bring a lot of media attention to the visual arts in Milwaukee
and that would most definitely be a welcome event. Americans love to
view competition and scandal.
I hope that you find some of this useful, if not mildly reassuring. I would
be glad to answer any questions that you might have regarding my
experience of the fellowship.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Julian
2005 recipient of the Nohl Fellowship for Emerging Artists.
Pat Hidson writes:
I was interested in the questions and comments as a woman and
Milwaukee-based painter. I have felt very strongly that the fellowship
awards have been an extension of the university milieu. When I go to
the opening it just seems like there is no art scene in Milwaukee beyond
the campus, and that "the academy" has once more co-opted the
definition of art. It is all very controlled.
I suppose that once outsider art became the in-thing and formaldehyde
an acceptable medium those looking for originality and yet reassurance
would simply incorporate the idea that anything is meaningful art if the
academy says it is. Of course it goes without saying that it is the written
and spoken explanation, in properly didactic terms, that then lends the
imprimatur of desirability to the art for the marketplace and museum
curator alike. I have absolutely no problem with any of it, in and of itself,
except that I thought the awards were supposed to support people who
do not necessarily fit the academic mold.
Artists who are not verbally gifted or who do not pay close attention to
how their resume looks, or choices based on how they will look on
paper; are going to be left out of the process before their work is seen.
Since the university already has plenty of exhibition space for its faculty
and students, and is already in the business of promoting its
achievements as an institution, it seems that an opportunity to reflect
the art community at large is being missed.
The art world can be a cold and lonely place. It is natural for people to
try to organize it, however all the controls and gate-keeping somehow
seem hostile to the wonderful originality that Mary Nohl herself
exemplified. I am not suggesting that standards be lowered, but I would
like to know what they are, and why it looks so much like the same ones
that would apply if one was going for their BFA or MFA. Perhaps my
sensibilities are not in tune, maybe so many years in the studio have
made me out of sync with current fashion, but I still believe in the
inherent creative possibilities in artists doing what Mary did. Creative
drive does not need awards per se, but recognition comes so rarely,
and is so precious to every artist. It can allay years of discouragement
and keep someone going for a long time. The fellowship winners do not
look as though they need that kind of encouragement because it looks
as though they have the game well under control.
Pat Hidson
Comments? Email comments@susceptibletoimages.com
<<<<<Back to contents page
Copyright 2007 Art History Chicks LLC
the Nohl Fellowship Awards
updated 01.31.07
These responses were sent in response to Debra Brehmer’s article
“The Nohl Fellowship: questions and considerations” (posted December
4, 2006).
Clarification of Nohl jurying process
Nicolas Lampert writes:
I just recently read your article on the Nohl grant and believe that it
raises a number of great points but I wanted to make a few clarifications
in regards to the section of your article where you write:
“And some people suggest that some of the artists who apply for
funding are actually the ones recommending jury choices to Morris.
One example, cited several times, was the case of Nicolas Lampert,
who won a $15,000 Fellowship in 2005. In 2004,Lampert had invited
curator Nato Thompson of MASS MoCA to Milwaukee as a visiting
lecturer at UWM where Lampert teaches. Subsequently, Lampert was
included in a show at Mass MOCA. The next year Thompson was
brought to UWM as a juror and Lampert was one of the three winners
in the top category. "Every year there are people who at least one of
the jurors knows, "Morris said, "They need to acknowledge the
relationship. It’s always out in the open."
Considering that you are specifically highlighting my name as an
example, I am surprised that you did not contact me while you were
writing the article to check the legitimacy of these claims. As well, it is
dubious journalistic practices to use ambiguous sources such as “some
people suggest” and “one example cited several times.” Why not cite
the specific names of the people who voiced these opinions and also
get the counter opinion?
To clarify my position, I certainly never recommended any potential
jurors to Polly Morris during the three cycles that I applied for the grant.
This important detail you could of easily learned by asking Polly Morris.
As well, you could have directly asked me this question.
Also to correct the chronology of events (which is wrong in your article)
I invited Nato during the Spring semester of 2005 to speak to my
classes at UWM and at MIAD to talk about a show that he curated at
MASS MoCA called “The Interventionists.” Prior to inviting him to give
the talk at UWM and MIAD, he had curated me into the “Becoming
Animal” show, scheduled for the Spring of 2006. My connection to Nato
goes far back. I have known him since 1995 and he has included my
work into a couple of shows since 2001. This fact alone would make it
extremely problematic for me to suggest him (or anyone for that matter)
as a potential juror.
To segue to the selection process itself, during the studio visit it was
clearly stated to everyone present by Polly Morris that Nato knew my
work and was including me into an upcoming MASS MoCA show. I later
heard from Nato after I had won the award, that Nato refrained from
deciding upon my work and that the two other curators where the ones
who decided if I was to be selected or not.
How Nato’s obvious interest in my work impacted the other two curator’s
final decision is open to debate, but it is critical to reiterate that I had no
role in ever suggesting Nato as a potential juror when I first applied.
I find these errors in your article unfortunate because of the importance
of many of your other points. I have found the all-male roster of the
past two years to be very discouraging and problematic. I know that the
other Nohl artists from last year expressed their disappointment in this
as well.
My hope is that your article (and others that have been written) will
provoke a critical dialog so that changes will be made in the future so
that this does not become a re-occurring theme each year. I think it is
critical that issues of gender, race, and class are at the forefront of any
decision process.
Sincerely,
Nicolas Lampert
Jonathan Winkle writes:
I visited the Susceptible to Images site for the first time today as a
result of the visit that my wife and I paid to the gallery (Portrait Society)
on Saturday.
I read your article on the Nohl Fellowships with some interest. My
background artistically is in classical music, but I was struck by some
similarities regarding gender equity (or inequity) in a competitive
context.
In my experience as an adjudicator of music competitions and auditions,
A "blind" audition can often yield different results than when there is
either direct interaction with the artists or indirect contact via written
materials outlining an artist's educational and professional pedigree.
I cannot imagine the Nohl Fellowship jurors not being influenced to some
degree by the written materials that are provided. It would be
interesting if the entire selection process were blind, taking a step
further than the Illinois process cited, and observe the results.
Regards,
Jonathan Winkle
Vice President, Institutional Advancement
Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design
Carolyn Snow writes:
Thank you for addressing this topic.
Bias & Experience
1) Assisted established female artist in applying for 3 years.
2) Applied this year as an emerging female artist.
3) Introduced myself at your Walker's Point Opening as a writer and an
artist who'd like to contribute to www.susceptibletoimages.com
I want to support the people that work so hard to put the fellowship on.
On the other hand, this Fellowship is endowed from a outsider female
artist. Are the objectives of the endowment being met when women are
excluded?
What would she think of the political and self serving ramblings that
made up this years art? Meat in outdoors? Pictures taken off the
internet of boy's arm's?
I propose a do-over. More oversight of fellowship administration. Is
academic the best delivery method?
Restructure prizes. Even amounts of winners, 1/2 men and 1/2 women.
Restructure how the judges are selected. Selecting women as judges
doesn't always help. Women are trained in an art world influenced and
mostly controlled by men. Give the judges rules they must conform to
when selecting winners.
Is someone teaching in academia full time, how can they list themselves
as an established artist-when they are supporting themselves from
teaching?
Have the art, both in the application and in the show, reflect Ms. Nohl's
art-she did a wide sweep of art. Look hard at films and photographs.
Consider eliminating them as entry possibilities.
We have a rich pool of outsider art from the JMKAC and from this prize.
Why are we rewarding the same old, academic, conceptual art?
Good luck and thanks for trying to bring a groundswell. Even jsonline,
mjs, cited the Fellowship today-finally.
Thank you,
Carolyn Snow
Jennifer Geigel Mikulah writes:
I just finished reading your essay about the Nohl grants and I wanted to
thank you for the care you put into it. I especially appreciate that you
drew upon your master's research to offer broader context for Nohl's
legacy. I'm always surprised by how little people here know about Nohl
even though, as you say, she is quite a remarkable, inspiring figure.
Jennifer Geigel Mikulay
Jesus Ali clarifies Nohl jurying issue
Hello Ms. Brehmer,
I just read your "Nohl Dilemma" essay on the STI website and I have to
take an important issue with one particular element of it.
In the essay you state: "In 2004, Lampert had invited curator Nato
Thompson of MASS MoCA to Milwaukee as a visiting lecturer at UWM
where Lampert teaches. Subsequently, Lampert was included in a show
at Mass MOCA. The next year Thompson was brought to UWM as a
juror and Lampert was one of the three winners in the top category..."
While the chronology you present may be factually accurate, I consider
your use of the word "subsequently" to be intentionally misleading.
A far more accurate reading of the situation is to understand that
Nicolas had been accepted to the MASS MoCA "Becoming Animal"
show far in advance of Thompson's campus visit (it takes a great deal
of time and planning to utilize the football field long MASS MoCA gallery
space). It is also imperative to note that Thompson was a "very hot
draw" on the national arts scene for his incredible curatorial work on
MASS MoCA's "The Interventionists" show. It wasn't as if Lampert
forced him onto the standing room only Curtain Hall auditorium at UWM.
Any hand Lampert may have had in helping to facilitate Thompson's
visit to UWM was not any form of payola, on the contrary, it was likely
the only way such a popular curator could have been convinced to visit
and present in an arts community as small as Milwaukee at such a point
in his career.
Additionally, I have learned from multiple sources that Thompson did
indeed purposefully and obviously recuse himself from considering
Lampert's work during the juroring process, clearly explaining his past
relation to Lampert to the other jurors. Only the two other jurors voted
over Lampert's work. I learned this because of my own admitted
curiosity [skepticism] over the propriety of the selection.
The chronology and delivery in your piece does an unnecessary
disservice to the true facts of the situation and to the reputations of
Lampert, Thompson, Morris and the Nohl Fellowship. I do hope you
would consider revising it.
Thank you, Jesus Ali
And in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a 3rd year visual arts grad
student at UWM and Lampert's web designer. However, neither position
changes my objectivity in this matter.
Jesus Ali
Susan Barnett writes:
Thank you for the thoughtful articles about the gender issues the Nohl
Fund selection process raised. I enjoyed reading Polly Morris’s
explanation of the jurying process. Giving the money exclusively to
women artists is an interesting and appropriate idea given Mary Nohl’s
background, but then the work would not be taken seriously - it would
be seen as Women’s Art rather than The Region’s Best Art. I really like
the idea of having the first part of the jurying process contain no text --
great art should stand on its own visually, while the worst “academic” art
often serves as an illustration for a statement or manifesto. Most of the
work in this year’s show could not stand on its own without a written
statement.
As an undergraduate I asked an art history professor why there were
no great women in art history and he said, “That’s easy, there are no
great women artists!” In 1983 the popular textbook by Janson did not
feature a single women artist, though Lee Krasner and Elaine
DeKooning were listed as wives. It was only after taking a graduate-
level course on women in art that I began to notice their absence in
history, and that all of my tenured professors were male. Why don’t
women ever make the short list of greats? Is our work inferior? Are we
more self-effacing? Are we lacking the machinery for success in a male-
dominated art world?
I wonder if there is a different aesthetic between men and women. For
centuries subjects that relate to women’s lives were categorized as
“genre painting”, and considered inferior to “history painting”. Portraits
of women and children in everyday activities, still-lives and household
scenes were used as household decoration, while paintings of semi-
nude women, dramatic landscapes and violent scenes from the bible
and history were regarded as serious art, commissioned by powerful
patrons and collected by museums. Does the interest in relationships
versus action that differentiate men’s and women’s tastes in movies
also affect their tastes in art? Why is it that from a pool of
undergraduate students who are primarily women; the managers,
curators, critics, professors and directors who are appointed and
tenured are disproportionately men - especially as salary and influence
rise? Do men sustain a “male” aesthetic; inadvertantly promoting those
who look and think like themselves and thus perpetuating their own
influence? Do women contribute somehow to their own lesser influence?
There are more prominent men in the arts, so more exhibit jurors are
likely to be men, but even with equal appointments there might still be
barriers to women’s influence. Men are more comfortable using the
“voice of authority,” presenting their opinions as facts in a way that
stifles discussion, collaboration and compromise. Because women tend
to be less assertive, within a group of jurors women may have less
weight in the final outcome. Another problem in achieving equity is that
many women who break through the glass ceiling achieve their success
by emulating men and fail to bring gender differences to their
judgments; in fact women in power are often more critical and
unaccepting of other women. If there are no gender-based differences
in aesthetics why do a greater percentage of men than women find
televised sports, action movies and porn appealing?
Women need to learn to promote themselves, to serve as mentors, and
to speak their heart-felt aesthetic judgments with confidence. Women
who support arts and publishing institutions are in the position to
demand equal hiring practices as well as balanced view points in
exhibition judging and published art criticism. Simply asking curators,
publishers, grantors, and managers to consider how women are
represented in their organizations can only help bring more equity to
the ongoing conversation about the nature and quality of art. Keep up
the great work!
Susan Barnett
Melanie Jane writes:
Thank you for such an insightful, well-researched and thought
provoking article!
You do a great job and I am a regular visitor to the site! I look forward
to what you have next in store!
Thanks again.... and congratulations!
Melanie Jane
Larry Hamlin writes:
Hi. Terrific piece. I have seen every Nohl winner’s show so far and after
this last one I was thinking that if these were the best submissions out
there it might be possible that the foundation would run out of artists
before it ran out of $$$$.
Larry Hamlin
Lindsay Lochmann writes:
As a long-time applicant, I appreciated your complex and enlightening
(and hackle-raising) discussion of the Nohl Fellowship. I had heard
about the "juror chemistry" being problematic, but now I know it is a
more complicated dilemma. As I've compiled the application artists'
statements over the years, I wondered if the dialogue with women's
history and art history has just gone out of style. Thanks for taking the
time to notice, analyze and suggest.
Lindsay
Ariana Huggett writes:
I'm glad that you're addressing this issue. Over the past 4 years 23
men have won awards and 5 women have won awards. 3 women have
won established awards and 2 have won emerging artists awards.
To your questions, I doubt that having them administered through UWM
makes much difference. I think the selection of judges is probably the
key. In 2004, 4 women won awards. What was different about that
year from the others?
I believe that Polly Morris is doing an exceptional job in administering
this process. I feel that it's important that outside jurors continue to be
brought in. Maybe the process should not be blind. We live in a
gender biased culture, and it will not go away unless we address it.
Ariana Huggett
Michael Julian writes:
The selection panel for this year's Nohl Fellowship awards was
comprised of two women and one man. As a fellow, I was allowed to sit
in on the jurying process but only as an observer. For the 9 hours that I
was there none of the jurors ever asked any of our opinions, nor did
any of us voice any of our opinions one way or another regarding the
images being viewed. As far as I could tell there was little or no
interaction going on at all.
It is my recollection that no less than 60 people applied for each
category. I seem to remember the number being more in the range of
80 per category but when it comes to my memory and numbers I prefer
to err on the conservative side.
Having applied to a lot of juried competitions over the years I have
learned how much luck is involved in conjunction with the presentation
of awards and even the acceptance into certain shows. Who the jurors
are, where in the long sequence of viewing slides your images fall,
whose work is viewed right before your own, what the viewing conditions
in the room are like, all have a lot to do with the final selections. I had
guessed at all of this before. However, what I was incapable of
understanding before having such a privileged opportunity was just how
mind numbing the process can become. As depressing as this may
sound (as depressing as it felt) it was without a doubt a revelation.
Here are some of the conclusions I have come to, having witnessed the
process.
1. I didn't win a fellowship as much as I was awarded one. There is a
difference. To believe that I won an award would imply a belief that I
defeated all of those that didn't - that I had conquered them somehow.
On the contrary, I know that there were many other artists just as
capable and deserving of the award, but who, quite simply, didn't have
the good fortune of being awarded one of them that year.
2. Even though I felt really confident about the conceptual and technical
nature of my work when I applied for the fellowship, I knew that there
was going to be a lot of stiff competition. I felt very fortunate, then, when
I first received word of the award, and now, after having witnessed the
jurying process, I feel really, really lucky to have been recipient of one!
3. I was witness to a lot of really fabulous painters, abstract and
figurative alike, being passed over without even a moment’s
consideration. Good painting, and/or beautiful images, aren’t going to
cut it, nor will paintings as singular events. If there isn't the appearance
of a larger concept driving the work, that is to say, a concept larger
than the personal exploration of design, technique, and a personally
favored motif, you don't have much of a chance (as a painter anyway).
4. I can only hope/imagine that the quiet simplicity of my works must
have seemed like a welcome, if not puzzling, respite to the long
endured, rapid-fire viewing of so much slick, casual, indifferent,
contemporary hyper-intensity. Well, other than luck, and maybe the
conceptual and installational aspects of my work, this is the only way my
ego can rationalize being chosen for the award.
5. It would be really great if, in addition to the Nohl Fellowships,
Milwaukee could put together major awards for the individual disciplines
- painting, photography, sculpture, textiles, etc. Sorry, I know that
seems really old fashion. Passé tendencies aside, it would most
certainly bring a lot of media attention to the visual arts in Milwaukee
and that would most definitely be a welcome event. Americans love to
view competition and scandal.
I hope that you find some of this useful, if not mildly reassuring. I would
be glad to answer any questions that you might have regarding my
experience of the fellowship.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Julian
2005 recipient of the Nohl Fellowship for Emerging Artists.
Pat Hidson writes:
I was interested in the questions and comments as a woman and
Milwaukee-based painter. I have felt very strongly that the fellowship
awards have been an extension of the university milieu. When I go to
the opening it just seems like there is no art scene in Milwaukee beyond
the campus, and that "the academy" has once more co-opted the
definition of art. It is all very controlled.
I suppose that once outsider art became the in-thing and formaldehyde
an acceptable medium those looking for originality and yet reassurance
would simply incorporate the idea that anything is meaningful art if the
academy says it is. Of course it goes without saying that it is the written
and spoken explanation, in properly didactic terms, that then lends the
imprimatur of desirability to the art for the marketplace and museum
curator alike. I have absolutely no problem with any of it, in and of itself,
except that I thought the awards were supposed to support people who
do not necessarily fit the academic mold.
Artists who are not verbally gifted or who do not pay close attention to
how their resume looks, or choices based on how they will look on
paper; are going to be left out of the process before their work is seen.
Since the university already has plenty of exhibition space for its faculty
and students, and is already in the business of promoting its
achievements as an institution, it seems that an opportunity to reflect
the art community at large is being missed.
The art world can be a cold and lonely place. It is natural for people to
try to organize it, however all the controls and gate-keeping somehow
seem hostile to the wonderful originality that Mary Nohl herself
exemplified. I am not suggesting that standards be lowered, but I would
like to know what they are, and why it looks so much like the same ones
that would apply if one was going for their BFA or MFA. Perhaps my
sensibilities are not in tune, maybe so many years in the studio have
made me out of sync with current fashion, but I still believe in the
inherent creative possibilities in artists doing what Mary did. Creative
drive does not need awards per se, but recognition comes so rarely,
and is so precious to every artist. It can allay years of discouragement
and keep someone going for a long time. The fellowship winners do not
look as though they need that kind of encouragement because it looks
as though they have the game well under control.
Pat Hidson
Comments? Email comments@susceptibletoimages.com
<<<<<Back to contents page
Copyright 2007 Art History Chicks LLC
