Suzanne O'Callaghan
Suzanne O'Callaghan
Local artist condemns capricious peer jury awards in arts
By Suzanne O’Callaghan, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada, June 15, 2009
Rejection is something most artists, unfortunately, kind of get used to experiencing.
I have been a professional artist for more than 35 years and have managed to do that without my home province (PE) ever endorsing, in any way shape or form, my work as a visual artist.
Today, once again and for 16th?, 17th?, 20th? year in a row I have been refused the financial support of the PEICA (Prince Edward Island Council of the Arts) in the bi-annual grant process (sorry, I have lost track and some years I applied twice so the rejection numbers are more like 30, 35, 40 times in a row) for a project called “Soft Summer Hard Labour” exploring (in paintings) the women who work in the fish plants, factories, farm fields, etc of Prince Edward Island in the season when the middle and upper-middle classes are enjoying the Eden-like qualities of the Island in the summer.
Apparently, my “peers” did not score my work, my achievements, my relentless and dedicated pursuit of growth as visual artist and the concept of my giving a face/voice to the people (read: poor, often middle-aged and older, females) who REALLY WORK on the Island as being valuable enough to merit PEICA support. Better to go with “world’s biggest” something or other.
I have to say that after remaining, in the main, silent on the subject (the almost bi-annual rejection of my work and me, frankly, as an artist) all this time, it is starting to seem ridiculous given the quality of my art, the respect it garners from knowledgeable individuals across North America, the contribution I have made and continue to make in my areas of discipline (as an artist, an arts educator and an arts advocate) and how prolific I have managed to be even under sometimes dire circumstances.
Is it because my work is “womens” or “feminist” work? Who knows?
There does sometimes seem, at least on the surface, to be an idea that “senior” artist means a chronologically old artist, not necessarily an experienced and/or established professional artist. And because of this choice of word/description, there is real confusion among artists as to the defining elements of the term “senior artist”.
I am also concerned about the seeming proliferation (in this and other grant rounds) of the idea that “bigger is better”, as I mention above. That is true at Ringling Brothers’ events, but not in art, and any statement announcing that an artwork is the “world’s biggest” to me at least lacks curatorial merit and shouldn’t be used as the description of the piece. Nobody cares how big your “cultural member” is. The term smacks of the egocentric and capitalistic patriarchy that arguably owns, among other things, art history.
I also want to make mention of the fact that, while I agree w/the concept of peer assessment, I do not understand why it appears to work and be effective at the Canada Arts Council level but somehow renders itself not much more than a popularity/clique vote on the Island? Maybe it would be better if we all just got together over a chicken supper in Vernon River and divided up the spoils from the coffers that belong to tax payers – which group, incidentally, includes this artist.
Finally, why do artistic couples living in the same dwelling always seem to get grants in the same grant round? Should not the idea of per household factor in/be a consideration when we are living amid such a small population and funds are so limited/scarce? Maybe not? I don’t know. But I kind of think it should.
The PEICA specifically states that grants are not awarded based on need, but the fact is that a Margaret Atwood, for example, doesn’t “need” (and in her case is honourable enough not to apply for) grant monies – whereas there are TALENTED artists who REALLY do need financial support and deserve same based on the merit of their work – and they deserve it even more when you factor in need and the fact that if they do not have the funds to make art, something WILL be lost in our culture.
I don’t think I will bother applying for any more PEICA grants – and it is not because of anyone in the PEICA office, per se. It costs a great deal of money to put together a proposal and the supporting collaterals necessary to introduce oneself as a professional artist to a committee of my so-called peers. Over the many years that I have been a member of the PEICA the bi-annual grant rounds have been a VERY expensive waste of my time and money – particularly when you consider that approximately one in three artists is given, they say, financial support. The awards seem to go to the same group of people all the time.
I could have bought myself more paint. And brushes. I should have.
Suzanne O’Callaghan, CARFAC, visual artist
Painter
Sometimes it really just is because you’re not good enough.
just another reader
That painting looks like one of Red Skelton’s rejected clown paintings.
In my opinion as an international art critic, of course.
yet just another reader
When one lies on one’s application that one has a show coming up at the National Gallery of Canada, it is difficult for a jury to take the application seriously.