Evidence #1: The Submission Fee
Gatekeeper is a call for art for a ‘Exhibition-in-Print’, which means the submitting Artists will be essentially part of a book. Being published sound marvellous, yes more people will see your work, but wait let’s think this through. First of all the submission fee is $45. Ouch. Actually, if you look at Vantage’s website, yes it is ugly and amateur for a business, it says $40 (which is the late fee), but if you try to pay on PayPal, it’s $45. Also, if you look at the other books that Vantage has produced, they are $45, not including shipping. Books being the same price as the submission fee, that reminds me of something…
Remember those highly suspect poetry books, the ones where a poet would submit their poetry with around $45 to be considered to be in the book. A prestigious blind jury would select the best poets and Volia! Several months later said poet would receive a book
In summary: The variable quotation of the submission fee and the similarity to a dubious poetry project is scandalous.
Evidence # 2: Lack of Typical or Relevant Submission Information
This is a list of all the Information I could not find on Vantage Art Projects website.
1.What size should the submitted Image be?
2.What Image file format is the text using?
3.Does Vantage Art Projects require a CV?
4.Will my CV/Contact information be printed in the book?
5.Is an Artist Statement required?
6.What is Vantage Point’s Contact Information?
7.Will the Artist receive Royalties from the sale of the book?
8. Is the Artist selling their work to Vantage Art Projects?
9.What is the estimated size of print? (an edition of 25? 100?)
10.What is the estimated amount of editions?
11.What is the estimated price of book after publication? ($45 is a good guess)
12.Will the Artist keep the Image rights of their work?
13.Does the Artist have the right to re-voke their work from Vantage Art Projects?
14.Will Vantage Art Projects have the right to the Artist’s Work?
15.How will Artist work be used?
16.Does the submission fee include a copy of the text?
17.Will there be any marketing for the book? (Actually, they want you to self promote the book)
18.Will the artist’s name appear in the book?
And so on…
Please note that to gain access to the submission form you must first pay the $45 submission fee.
In Summary: When all relevant and typical submission information is not provided on a website, it makes the business in question smell a little fishy.
Evidence #3 The Website
The awful looking Vantage Art Projects website. Would you seriously believe someone with a website that looks like was designed back in 1998? It’s 2010, learn some more code other than basic html.
In Summary: A Cheap shot, yes, but it is a very poorly made website.
This spells a project of a highly suspect nature, let’s say it together, Dubious!
Now, let us critique the curatorial statement for the call for submissions.
Main point – Exclusion
Quoting the curatorial statement found on Akimbo “Negotiating the ever-shifting maze of the art world industry is a Sisyphean task. Its rewards are well known: credibility, status, fame, wealth and (often fleeting) historical significance. The costs of failure are legion: shame, huge art school debts, derision and quite often, low or no income. Many artists have become critical and disinterested in the dominant pathways to ‘success’ and the increasing power of institutions, art schools Biennials, art fairs and market driven blockbusters. In this time of shape shifting economy the view from ‘outside the gates’ may be the more interesting one.”
So after you tell me about the shame of an Artist’s student loan, failure, and their inability to make money, you further insult Artists by asking them for $45 to be part of a dubious book project? Also, you are now excluding Artists by expecting them to pay $45 just to be considered for this exhibition in print?! What really pisses me off is that Vantage Art Projects and Angela Grossmann (the curator) are taking advantage of the very people they are promising to help. You are taking from the very social margins in which you create work about.
The curatorial statement sounds like it’s someone’s realization that just got out of Art school and has now become aware of the sheer amount of debt they are in and potential that they may never be a recognized Artist. It is not a very creative theme indeed, since it is the topic of a reality shows. Is this what the art world has come to? Also another notable example the ‘Untitled Art Project’ out of New York, the American Idol of the art world, stealing ideas from reality shows and taking advantage of Artists in a terrible economic climate.
About the curator – ‘Angela Grossmann has devoted much of her career to examining themes of displacement and social margins.’
Angela Grossman, do you take advantage of everyone in social margins? Or is it just artists? Aren’t you a respected curator? This is the best premise for a ’show’ you can think of, a copy of ‘Till Debt do us Part’ artist/ student debt episode? To create a ’show’ about exclusion, fill in a few buzz words relating to our economic climate and then ask for $45, knowing very well that we are in the worst economic recession which parallels the great depression? This is horrible. People are out of work, their EI has dried up, and you take advantage of them with Vantage Art Projects? Grossmann, you are person that has apparently has devoted their career to the ‘social margins’, and you participating in this project of a dubious nature? Is that not a contradiction of moral interests?
Conclusion:
Quoting the curatorial statement again – “In this time of shape shifting economy the view from ‘outside the gates’ may be the more interesting one.”
Apparently, the ‘interesting’ view is the one that takes advantage of Artists.
I am sickened that is volume II. This is not the first time that Vantage Art Projects has done this. How dare Vantage Art Projects take advantage of people desperate to show their work. How dare you charge a submission fee without explanation, submission requirements or publishing Artist Rights.
Hey – what a goof you are!!!
Why would you go about undermining and maligning
with the thinnest information!
I will make $0.000 on this project –
the people who invited me to curate also live below the poverty line and don’t intend to profit off the backs of artists.
If I wanted to gouge the general public I would not have picked it’s poorest group to prey upon .
It is this kind of rancid, malicious paranoia that makes doing things like this near impossible.
Vantage are about to launch their first book – which has been a labour of love- ( a subject you may not know much about) it has been produced hand- to- mouth with everyone donating their time , energy and goodwill (from the curators to the writers to the printers)- this, by my standards, is an unqualified success .
Thanks very much for spewing your poison and slandering my reputation all over your site.
To think all that negative energy- misspent
Angela Grossmann
Thank you for your response.
Would you or Vantage Art Projects like to comment on why there is a $45 submission fee?
How is that fee being used?
Why is it that for Vantage Art Projects’ ‘labour of love’ an Artist needs to pay $45 to be considered?
Why there is no mention of the 18 items I listed in section 2 on the Vantage Art Projects website?
Artists should be aware of the conditions of project that they are applying for as well how their work will be used. On the Vantage Art Project site, one needs to use paypal first before even getting to the submission guidelines. When producing a book that will be sold, the organizers must address the rights of the Artist, and whether or not the Artists will be making royalties on the sale of the book and essentially the mass-production and sale of the Artists’ work. By neglecting this information it causes myself (as well Artist-friends) to be very suspicious of the motivations of this call for art.
Artist donate their goodwill, time and energy to making work. It is contradiction to tell me this book is a ‘labour of love’ and then to ask the Artists for money even to be considered to be exhibited. We (curators, writers, artists, etc) know how little Artists make, since we, like Artist, also produce work as a labour of love and often do live at the poverty line.
Angela,
A few things bother me about your call for art. You state, ‘Negotiating the ever-shifting maze of the art world industry is a Sisyphean task. Its rewards are well known: credibility, status, fame, wealth and (often fleeting) historical significance. The costs of failure are legion: shame, huge art school debts, derision and quite often, low or no income.’ Then you ask for a rather high submission fee. Asking for a high submission fee of 35-45 dollars is just one way that the art world can exclude one from the possibility of an exhibition. Also, there is no explanation why there is a submission fee, where this money going, and what is it for?
It doesn’t make sense to ask for money from artists, in a call for art about how artists are ridden with debt, poor and filled with shame. Can you not see the contradiction here?!
As an artist, I’m also offended at the idea that you are promoting a negative image of the artist as a shame filled, bankrupt, contemptuous individual, or famous and rich! Is there no middle ground, why are you painting artist as people at such extremes?!
We shouldn’t dwell on the negative through naval gazing exercises, but we should spend our time trying to overcome these issues.
We must not further stereotype ourselves!
Why not posit a positive view of the artist as a creative problem solving individual, which has the ability to overcome adversity in these troubled times.
Andrew MacDonald
Thanks to all for such fertile grounds for discussion and dialogue about honest efforts to create relevant art publications and projects in a time of wide-spread public-sector cuts to arts funding.
The best art always stimulates, provokes and challenges the status quo, shaking up the way that things have always been done. I hope that we artists will always continue to look for ways to create opportunities outside of existing institutions and official channels.
The questions raised about the nature of exclusion vs. inclusion, negativity vs. positivity and the stereotype of the artist are also excellent. Furthermore, the question of artist submission fees is always a “hot topic” – all residencies, school programs and many exhibitions require admin/submission fees, not to mention the ever-rising cost of art tuition in order to gain entrance to a community of fellow artists AND access to influential curators. It’s a basic rule-of-thumb in life that everything cost you something, and at what value? I say vote with your wallet and spend your money on what you think is the best investment for you as a citizen and as an artist.
On a more celebratory note, I would like to extend an open invitation for all to join us for the book launch of “Lateral Learning”, curated by Paul Butler, and our first exhibition-in-print. This celebration is taking place in Vancouver, on Friday Feb. 19th. We are being graciously hosted by the INSTANT COFFEE collective at “The Light Bar”, installed in Blood Alley (Gastown) as part of the Bright Lights Festival (and in conjunction with the 2010 Cultural Olympiad). It’s been an amazing journey to pull this project together and the commissioned writing by Mark Clintberg and Dr. Jeanne Randolph is both amusing and thought provoking. If you can’t make it, we will take pictures and post a “wish you were here” on our blog!
With “Gatekeepers” (dependent on the production work for the book and our necessary day jobs) we are aiming for a launch next October during Art Toronto. Diana you have a personal invitation to join us. Perhaps you have some curatorial ideas that we could discuss?
For factual information about both Lateral Learning and Gatekeepers, please look at the following social media releases:
Lateral Learning:
http://www.pitchengine.com/vantageartprojects/lateral-learning-exhibitioninprint-launches-feb-2010/38857/
Gatekeepers:
http://www.pitchengine.com/vantageartprojects/angela-grossmann-invites-artists-to-submit-to-gatekeepers/37851/
New information will be added as the projects develop.
And…if anybody want to help me improve our website please let me know. Like the little engine that could, I am doing the very best I can. (I’ve never claimed to be an coding expert – I’m a painter for crying out loud).
Keep the dialogue coming. Let’s all focus on building community and creating more fresh and timely opportunities for artists to share their work – opportunities that don’t require belonging to the “right” social networks or paying to go to the “right” grad school.
Best,
Jennifer Mawby
a.k.a. the person who had the bright idea to try and do something independent and different in the first place. Check out Toronto-based Magenta Foundation and the now-defunct Portland Oregon-based Visual Codex Project for other examples of what’s been done before and what we thought we could make more interesting from a critical-perspective.
Thank you for the kind invitation.
However, you did not answer a single question.
Mawby’s response appears to be an advertisement.
This is just wrong. If you are printing a book of artwork and recieving 45 dollars per artist let’s say you cobble together a fifity page book. You just made $2250 from just the artists you selected, not to mention the fees from all the artists you don’t select. If 200 artisits submit that brings you to $4500.You spend maybe $25 dollars per book with someone like Lulu or Create Space to put it out there. If you pay for a book to each selected artist that’s what 1250, let’s say 1350 after shipping. You still end up with $3150, plus whatever you make on the sale of the book. All the artist gets is the ability to see their art in print? No royalties? And they are out 45 bucks? Yeah, I can say it smells like a scam to me too, Diana. Or at least, a very bad deal. Thanks for putting a warning on this!
To:
chromium lemonade
Why don’t you print this correspondence larger
so all can see.
I don’t appreciate having to dig for the details
I also don’t appreciate being vilified on your main page
It may be a knee jerk reaction from you but it’s my reputation
I want a retraction
Angela
Angela,
Neither you or Vantage Art Projects has answered any of my questions.
How can I print a retraction when you have not addressed my concerns or disproved my argument?
in u.k its really bad in art and the only way to go is solo frengerola pony art books are a shame in themselves the artists makes hardly nothing for the sake of just showing your work its pointless u may as well have a good website.
to many people do art as well flooding the gates of mass production glossy brochures . or is art becoming a production line. you should look at the real success stories in art such as the artist as myth or even the modest artist. warhol and basquit other avericks the name the legends and why were they because myth carried them and urban legend.
art is to fashionable or people see it as a real easy life far
from it there are people who want to rip u off all the time in one way or another. or someone coming out of a slum making artschoo making a success of their craft under very
differcult circumstances these are realstories people coming
from nothing i mean nothing a dollar or pound in their pocket
painting like angels hitting that zone untouchable electric so
us of a make ur own myth be electric not producing books that warhol would use as firewood and basquit would use as canvas u think about that or i might use in the winter for my fire in the u.k you do the maths
Here’s a thought…Instead of requesting a retraction, you actually address what is being called for in this article?
A rogue, a thief in the night would cover their face from the light…
I want to know, as legitimately as Diana, what it is you’re charging $45.00 for, and whether or not the artists will recoup any or all of that cost in royalties from book sales.
Don’t hide from criticism and accusation, address it professionally and bring the truth to light. Slander is only slander when it’s not a truth.
I have posted a response to the Gatekeepers issue- please read
Angela
[…] https://dianapoulsen.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/gatekeepers-vantage-art-projects-%E2%80%93-scam/ […]
It seems ironic that many of these same questions were asked in comments on Vantage’s blog post that included the curatorial statement, and are also there unanswered, as far back as December 24th. Many of the same criticisms were made there as well, and, again, unanswered.
I was going to link said blog, but thought better of giving them more press than they deserve. Google it. Find it on Akimbo. It’s there.
One should also note that there is a significant differences between this and Magenta/FlashForward, of which Jennifer is citing inspiration – Magenta’s FlashForward is a call for submission for an *exhibition*, of which the book is a significant catalogue, includes cash ‘prizes, and comprises thousands of submissions on three continents. They offer their submission guidelines up front, indicate what the submission fee covers, and generally have their shit together. I have other criticisms of Magenta but that’s an entirely different issue.
And last, but not least: inflamed, hurried, badly-constructed sentence fragments, stunted accusations, defensive slander and irrational demands speak of anything *but* professionalism. This blog entry is anything but knee-jerk or misinformed – it’s a well-thought criticism based on the the “thin” amount of information Vantage/Gatekeepers presents publically on their website and blog. Everything here needed to be said, and I applaud Diana for doing so. An institution looking to establish itself with credibility would do well to listen and respond to these concerns, and those posted on their own blog, than to lash out irrationally in a much more ‘knee jerk’ manner.
(or, for that matter, co-opt this space for self-promotion)
submitted response to the Gatekeepers issue-please read
Angela
I have read all the above comments, and am confused as to why a mature representative from Gatekeeper / Vantage Art Projects hasn’t addressed the questions here or on their own site?
Angela’s comments remind me of a time in my teenage years……
I think if you (Angela) are concerned about your reputation or Gatekeeper/Vantage’s, then you might want to start by apologizing to all artists in general and then answer the questions asked.
jill
I have posted a reply to you and the Gatekeepers issue please read
Points:
I am not nor have I ever been a “co producer” of the Vantage art projects exhibition in print as you stated in the opening paragraph.
Let’s get this straight, I am the curator, that is I was asked to curate it and I said yes.
I receive no fee and will not benefit financially in any way from the production of this book.
I have very little contact until I am called in to view the submissions.
I do not how many submissions there are or have been.
This was also the procedure with the first book.
This is book number two in the Vantage call for submissions.
Book number one ( Lateral Learning) is close to completion and will be launched at Instant Coffee’s Light Bar in Vancouver on Feb 19.
Book number one was curated by Paul Butler with essays commissioned by Mark Clintberg and Dr. Jeanne Randolph.
(Book number one also asked for and received submission fees of $40/45)
As far as I know there was no controversy surrounding it.
*This is not a villains and victims situation- let’s be real here the chances of either book making a profit is so remote that entertaining the notion of it is slightly embarrassing.
However, calling into question the need of the submission fees quite legitimate.
I had my own reservations about the submission fees, initially I suggested waiving the fees for those in financial need. However, how to determine need and create a method of choosing who to waiver seemed too daunting to attempt.
The irony of asking a submission fee for a project on the theme of inclusion/exclusion was not lost on me.
I was not happy to ask fees from artists in the hope that they may be included in a book.
In answer to this conflict I developed a plan to launch a website to post ALL the submissions and open up this site to accompany the book where the posting of work and website would open up dialogue for a wider discussion.
As for the comment that I am” trying to take advantage of the people I am promising to help”
In what way am I trying to take advantage of anyone?
I do not receive one cent for what I am doing. Also please note I am also not “promising to help”.
Curating this exhibition is offering artists who have something to say a forum to say it in.
As for “making money hand over fist at the expense of other artists”, perhaps you are mixing us up with characters from a fairy story.
The theme: I wanted the call to be non-specific
the call to submit for the lateral learning book ( book number one curated by Paul Butler) was quite narrow and a lot of submissions fell outside the parameters.
In response to that I wanted the second call theme to be very open in hope the submissions and the response might itself determine the shape of the project.
However, there is a fairly long second part to this call which, I admit, is late in coming-this would involve extending the extend the submission deadline.
The implication that I intend to take advantage of my fellow artists and that after 25 years of being part of the art community I have decided to turn against them – is just not credible.
*I refuse to be a spokesman for the admission fees.
I know nothing about it- I do trust Jennifer and Sherri to be honorable and I have no reason to doubt their integrity.
As for all the other questions you asked about the submission procedures – I will also leave for Vantage to answer.
I was invited to choose the theme and pick the work – that is all.
Take up the issue of the ugly website with them too.
As for my emotional response, well excuse me Diana for calling you a goof and asking for a retraction, but it’s not everyday I get called a scam artist, a greedy bastard, not to mention being likened to a snake oil salesman.
Wow, I am in awe at the vile attack on a very well renowned and might I add, very well respected artist such as Angela Grossmann. I feel bad for someone who thinks they are doing something for the betterment of an ideal in which they wholeheartedly believe in and in return get attacked with full force. Do people think this book will just produce and print itself? Has anyone else ever experienced the astronomical costs of publishing? There are calls for submissions from artists for all sorts of companies, products etc. They all charge for artists to submit their works. This is no different. Miss Poulsen had a choice when she recieved notification of this call for submissions…click delete. Instead she decided to trample on the backs of some very hardworking people in order to gain some noteriety in the big old world of cyberspace. I think the project has great potential and I admire Angela Grossmann for being brave enough to attach her name to it. I am saddened that she felt the need to back out of it because of the infectious ranting of very few.
Angela,
I respect the fact that you finally decided to respond in a more professional manner, but that being said with your 25 years of being part of the art community you must know that by saying yes to curating a project, means that you are the face of the project and you agree with all it’s aspects. It is after all called ‘Gatekeepers’ Curated by Angela Grossmann. The theme for the book is yours, it is you that will form the tone of the book and it is your name that will be printed on the book.
A curator would know every detail of their project, and would not say yes to something that they did not agree with or fully understand. It would appear that you said yes to this project to further your own career, but you did not take the time to consider everything involved in the production of this project, or maybe you did and decided it was worth it (for you anyway). You put your own reputation in question by saying yes to this kind of project.
Linda
Dear Linda P
The theme of the book, as you say, is definitely mine and
my enthusiasm for this project is genuine and continues to be genuine.
However when you say “this kind of project” what are you implying?
Is there something disreputable about Vantage projects?
Is there something you are think I am aware of – OR is there something you know that I don’t?
What makes you so suspicious of this project.
I can see no evil in Vantage Art Projects wanting make a living as book publishers.
I think it all comes down to the issue of the submission fee.
If there were no submission fee would it be a different kind of project altogether?
I do understand that the mixture of art and commerce is a very sensitive issue.
I fully understand that the charging of submission fees for this project runs counter to it’s theme.
Not being a business person, and finding that submission fees are fairly common in my life, I took the $45 submission fee ,perhaps too lightly.
I am looking into alternatives
When I have figured out this conundrum you will be the first to know.
Taking into account Lateral Learning, book number one- ( still at the printer) I felt confident that Vantage Projects were involved in this project for all the right reasons.
I was very happy to be asked to curate the next book( to me this meant: picking the theme – spreading enthusiasm- picking the work- promoting the book and setting up the website)
I was very happy to have a project that would engage me with the community outside my studio.
I was further buoyed by the idea that I could working outside of the institution and doing something without the usual art world sanctions.
I initiated several projects in the past that have taken place outside of art spaces, these projects were self funded on a shoestring and were highly successful.
I want this project to have the same slightly subversive energy.
As you know I am a practicing artist- my experience working outside my own practice is slight. This is my first curatorial venture and I am learning as I go.
Yes , I did take your point – I am responsible for the how it is positioned. I am feeling this great weight of responsibility fully and for the first time.
Saying yes to curating this project was not a careerist or strategic move on my part , my expectations were extremely low. The first call for submission ( book number one) went out without comment – I expected my project to have the same kind of low- key response.
My intent is to start dialogue – from artist to artist in the spirit of comradery and the collective spirit.
Though I am the curator- I am not the publisher .
Sometimes those who think they have a moral authority and exercise this in the form of checks and balances are really just gatekeepers in disguise.
Angela
Angela, I appreciate your eloquent response.
Angela you asked:
“Is there something disreputable about Vantage projects?
Is there something you are think I am aware of – OR is there something you know that I don’t?
What makes you so suspicious of this project.”
Yes.
I will re-state my argument against Vantage Art Projects.
My quarrel is primarily the lack of information provided to Artists. There is simply a request for money and no explanation why. There is at least 18 pieces of information missing that I mention in section 2 of my article which make Vantage Art Projects disreputable. Not providing the applying artist with proper information about their rights, how their work is going to be used, whether or not they lose their image rights, whether or not they will receive any compensation for the use of their work is highly problematic. Artists need to be made aware of their rights to their work before they submit. All of this information should have been provided with the submission call for the first book.
For example, in the literary industry when an author submits their work to a potential publisher they are not charged with a submission fee. If the author’s work is accepted, the author is made aware of their rights to their work. When the publisher sells the Author’s printed text, the Author makes royalties from the sale of the text. Artists when submitting their work to press (or exhibition) they are compensated or are informed that they will be making nothing (or volunteering). Vantage Art Projects does not address the issue of Artist compensation with the sale of the book or lack there of.
In the Art world when there is a submission fee it is explained. Usually it is listed as an administrative fee (in the case of large festivals) or in the case of Magenta that fee goes towards the numerous prizes they award. Vantage Art Projects does not provide any explanation as to how their business functions or why there is a fee. There is absolutely no information on the Vantage website of the Artist’s rights to their work or how the Artist will be compensated based on the sale of set text. There is simply a submission button which is a PayPal button. Having a submission button as a PayPal button is very dubious. Should the artist simply pay first, then find out what their submission requires? What if after they pay, they find out their submission is ineligible? Pay first, find out submission requirements or Artist rights is very strange and dubious. Organizations which require a submission fee always have submission requirements posted prior to paying set fee, Vantage Art Projects does not.
Even if there was no submission fee, Vantage Art Projects is still selling Artist work without posting submission requirements, Artist’s rights, Artist’s compensation and any other pertinent information which is necessary when dealing with selling work in an organization. Selling work makes it a business and therefore contracts and Image/Artist rights need to be posted prior to submission. When this information is lacking, or when set business does not respond to their own blog or email enquires about these matters, it is a problem. It makes Vantage Art Projects appear highly suspect.
Angela
By “this kind of project” I mean one that ONLY gives you all of the information about the submission AFTER you have paid the $45, that seems backwards and suspicious to me. Would you pay money to submit your art without knowing any of the details such as image rights?
Linda
Linda P and Diana Poulsen
Thanks,
All your points are valid and I take them very seriously
These points apply to every artist including myself.
I will request that Vantage Art Projects address ALL these issues
before I proceed with this project.
I will be in touch shortly
Comments that were placed on a different article while this article was down.
angela grossmann
January 30, 2010 at 2:12 pm
I noticed today that you have taken your “Gatekeepers/Vantage Art Projects – SCAM!” posting down from your site.
However my brother seemed to find it just five minutes ago, so you haven’t completely excoriated it from the system.
The post was up for five days on your site has been re-posted on numerous other sites.
I find your insults “scam artist” are permanently linked to my name in google.
I have suffered and will suffer in the future both personally and professionally from your accusations.
The accusations were false, malicious and damaging.
Your techniques were tyrannical, inquisitorial and and diabolical.
Your insinuations were preposterous and criminal and have left an indelible stain on my reputation.
Your attack was vicious and personal.
J’accuse!
I want a retraction written on your site immediately.
Angela Grossmann
January 30, 2010 at 2:57 pm | Reply mrnormall
Angela,
The article was taken down by WordPress pending a review. It seems someone has made a complaint and CENSORSHIP is in effect.
I guess the GATEKEEPERS have locked the door to freedom of expression!
January 30, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Replyangela grossmann
to mrnormall
Yet another false accusation!
I assure you Gatekeepers ( if that is who I am) did not close the door on anything.
For the record:
I have not made any complaint to anyone other than you.
I have made ALL my discussions public ON THIS SITE.
If anyone has intervened it has been without my knowledge.
I want every piece of information pertaining to this project
public.
Angela Grossmann
January 30, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Replymrnormall
I’ve spoken with and talked to a few artists that were thinking of applying to your call for art.
The conclusion that we came to was that it was too contradictory to pay a fee to merely be considered for this project.
Someone else also posted regarding your projects’ philosophy, ‘I wasn’t convinced, and more importantly felt that attempting to twist my work to present itself as a symptom of disempowered self-pity would do both the work and my professional efforts a huge disservice. I deleted the call, and didn’t think on it again.’ And if I’ve used their words out of context, my apologies. I’ll work to take them down at your request.
The issue is with the projects’ philosophy and Vantage art press, who now have a FAQ page after all of this, yet have deleted comments on their blog dating from December 2009. The same concerns that Diana had posted were left unanswered until a few days ago when Jennifer Mawby decided to reply.
But why then, after posting 5 replies, did they then delete the history of the concerns and Jennifer’s replies, on the Vantage art press blog from December of last year? I guess they needed to hide that fact that this has not been the first time that these issues have come up.
January 30, 2010 at 5:26 pm | ReplyLinda P
Angela,
this was your last post before WordPress censored the blog
January 29, 2010 at 11:46 pm
angela grossmann
“Linda P and Diana Poulsen
Thanks,
All your points are valid and I take them very seriously
These points apply to every artist including myself.
I will request that Vantage Art Projects address ALL these issues
before I proceed with this project.
I will be in touch shortly”
.
Do you remember this?
How can you change your tune so quickly?
It is because Vantage Art Projects finally put up a FAQ pdf that you don’t have to pay to see and has deleted their blog comment history.
The first post on their blog asking about submission details dated back to December 9th 2009. It went unanswered until January 28 2009. Only today January 30 2009, after the site was down for 4 days due to “Hosting Problems” did Vantage Art Projects put a FAQ pdf on their site . For two months (and I actually believe since the call for submissions went up) artists had to pay to see the details of the submission. Are you saying now that this is okay?
Linda
All of a sudden things are happening that I have no idea how or why .
I don’t know what you are talking about anymore
I haven’t been consulted by the Vantage people in days .
I have nothing to do with what is posted ,taken down or put up on their website.
Angela
Angela
In my opinion, your understanding about the role of a curator seems closer to the role of a juror. A curator should be involved in developing the submission procedures and in control of such a procedure. I believe that a curator’s role is to set out the criteria clearer than writing the curatorial call thesis. In earlier points in my curatorial career, I was involved in developing juried exhibitions. I’ve curated projects for artist run centres that have had calls. Such exhibitions selection procedures may be slightly different but publications were involved in these projects as well. I believe that a curator should have control or strong input into how the use of the images published. As a curator, you are there to be the liaison between defending artists’ rights and those interests of the publisher. Both the curator and artists should have a contract outlining reimbursement and areas of responsibilities of the curator.
Since you have decided to associate yourself with a dubious process, you are responsible for what you have received. If you care about artists, then did you insist that there is a CARFAC reproduction fee to the artists whose works are submitted in the book? The fact that you have waived your curator fee is either because you personally support the “cause” or you have little respect for artists making a living wage. I suspect that it was your altruism and not lack of respect for artists. This reads more like a vanity type of press that does not treat artists in a professional manner or understand artists’ rights.
Artists who submit to calls with fees attached are really functioning at a juried show level and not a more professional curatorial project. It seems that you are involved in an amateur project.
As far as copyright, I believe that an artist does not give up copyright unless it is formally written up agreement. Perhaps this publisher will learn more about how to improve their practice or artists should avoid involvement with the publisher.
thanks for being the first person to talk about this issue in reasonable manner.
Angela
Angela
I’m a bit curious as to what plan that you had as to why you would accept images for the book. It would seem to me that you probably would be selecting them on a basis beyond formal aesthetic merit. The overall theme would be playing a factor. If I were in your position, I could see me developing connecting sub themes and I would want them presented in some context. It would be similar to hanging a physical exhibition. One work would work off another to create impact.
I was chatting with an artist programmer friend yesterday about this type of situation. We agreed that it is difficult because far too many of us end up paying to present our ideas even after years of being working professional artists. It is a balance between self promotion and raising our profile versus getting enough money for doing an exhibition, book or whatever.
I feel a bit sorry for you if you have been left hanging out there with your name being smirched but have no control over the final presentation of the book? I don’t know if you are permitted to publicly discuss this aspect. I wish you and the artists involved a peaceful resolution with the publisher.
Jim I have posted a reply to Diana and her gang
My reply is not to you.
Thank you for your kind words.
You can contact me at any time .
I’m easy to get a hold of.
facebook or angelagrossmann.com
Open letter to: Diana Poulsen, Linda Poulsen all of their fiends who have used the internet to verbally attack, vilify, insult, denigrate undermine and call into question my character, ethics and reputation as artist.
I reply, now, not because you or your gang deserve it, not because I have anything to answer to or, as you so crudely frame it, to be “called out” on, but because you are the illustration, par excellence, of ‘gatekeeper’. You are the mother of all gatekeepers and have achieved exactly what my project was designed to bring to light: the myriad (and often occult) ways that artists get ‘shut up’, closed down, and eradicated by those in positions of institutional power.
But let me describe the subject of this project: the subject that has provoked your wrath; that has been the match to your fire; the red flag to your bull;, that you have blasted at me in a scatter attack lasting five days.
In 2009 I was asked by the two women editors of Vantage Art Projects to curate an exhibition in print. I said what I had always wanted to do was to give a voice to the voiceless in the art world and I would do it if I could find a way of ‘making the artist the curator’. We agreed to this and I chose a provocative theme, ‘The Art of Gatekeeping’. This theme I had conceived of as a broad umbrella under which artists could congregate and express individually the diverse meanings of exclusion within the art world that they experience; or how and in which ways the art world, or the structures of 21st century power, denies independent creative expression.
I suppose, although I don’t want to use the ‘D’ word, what I wanted in essence was to find a way that artists could not only democratise access to expression themselves, but also define the meaning of that process. I was interested in the challenge of opening up, or collapsing, the gate keeping role of “curator”. As an artist this was my intent.
I don’t have a fetishistic attachment to the idea of art or the structures of the art world. Maybe what distinguishes art from simple communication is the commitment to the process of creation; the commitment to the need to express or explore meaning through getting involved in creating it.
Artists have creative needs and economic ones, but the economic ones, while essential, don’t dictate the purpose and intent of their work. By focussing on the issue of ‘artists rights’ as the predominant issue, Diana Poulsen has deformed the meaning of the project as I conceived it. Unable to think beyond ‘art products’, she focuses on the individual ‘interests’ of the artist as predominant, as though the first and only interest of an artist is to get into an art market. This vulgar economism of Poulsen is breathtakingly narrow in its vision and highly deformative of the original project intent.
Poulsen’s energetic defence of artist’s rights invite a type of indulgence, (she is, after all, singing the right aria, even if in the wrong opera) because the artistic world needs solidarity. We have a real interest in looking after each other. She could have been indulged, if her public display of heroics weren’t so insufferably arrogant: we as artists are tired of being spoken for and, as a female artist, I know this doubly well.
Diana Poulsen is a gatekeeper. Gatekeeping is not a choice of the art world, it is built into it. The act of gatekeeping unconsciously configures the roles of most people in the art world who are not directly engaged in artistic creation.
And here’s the rub, Diana Poulsen’s real issue could not have been that I, as an artist, was involved in exploitative acts. Knowing something about me, she knew that to be impossible. What she sensed, as someone vitally ensconced in gatekeeping (present art historian, potential future curator), was that I was somehow trespassing in the world she and the institutional power elite, consider as theirs. I was assuming to cross frontiers in the quest to open up a new kind of public space for artistic debate.
So what was this ferocious assault by Chromium lemon really about? Before Chromium lemon began its unrestrained and highly personal attack deforming both the shape and substance of my project, I believe it is safe to say, most people in the art world had never heard of Chromium Lemon- Diana Poulsen. I was asked to create the gatekeeping project because I have a 25 year history in the art community. Linda Poulsen, I call you out, and accuse you of the underhanded game of riding off artists backs in the pursuit of one of the worst forms of gain: political or personal capital.
As an artist, I don‘t know everything there is to know about the publishing world, not do I know all the pitfalls that could befall artists in the process of promoting their work. As an artist, who innocently engaged in an artistic project, I was rudely awakened to the meaning of gatekeeping.
Five days ago I woke to find a Google alert on my computer. It brought me to: Chromium Lemon- Diana Poulsen’s website. This post came without warning and without prior contact. I have never met or heard of Diana Poulsen or her sister Linda Poulsen or her friends. I had never heard of the Chromium Lemon website.
Diana Poulsen is an art history grad student from McMaster University in Ontario. It states on her site that Diana is an art historian and video game reviewer. Her website read:
“Gatekeepers/Vantage Art Projects-SCAM!” Followed by:
“Yes Scam! I am calling you out Angela Grossmann curator of the Gatekeepers project and co-produced by Vantage Art Projects. You both smell of scam, and you should be ashamed. Akimbo should also be ashamed of this scam”.
The essential issue, which I admit, and did openly admit to, was the clumsy omission of the inclusion of standard intellectual property rights language in the website hosting the gamekeepers project. This I could have been alerted to by a friendly email. The other issue, which has caused problems, is the charge of a 45 dollars submission fee. I am not sure how the administrative and other work for such a project would get done without a fee of some kind, but this is open to discussion.
Poulsen goes on to accuse me of “Gouging money from the backs of artists”; Conspiring to steal money artists money by collaborating in “highly suspect scam tactics; Having no social conscience or real interest in art; being” a snake oil salesman; plotting with unscrupulous business partners to rob the art world and pocket the profits; Pretending that the deep problems of artists could be solved or alleviated by this project.
All of the posts that were made over a period of five days are available on the Chromium lemon website. The original site was up for five days – by day five, when I Googled my own name –” Scam artist” Chromium Lemon came up as the second posting under my name.
You don’t have to be an artist to anticipate the implications of such an attack. It was a real shock to realise that this gatekeeper was capable of attempting to ruin my reputation in order to develop her own.
But I am not writing from a place of personal outrage about this personal attack, I have nothing to defend. I am writing from a place of emotional despair about the place of the artist in the ‘art world’. The ‘art world’, which from within itself, suffocates the voice and the expression of those who have not been mandated to speak by the powers that be.
After much soul searching I have decided to resign as curator from the Gatekeepers project. I am resigning for the following reasons.
First, the sustained attack by chromium Lemon has illustrated that you cannot break into the curating world. You cannot, in fact, “ungate” the keepers, at least not alone.
I am committed, more than ever to the call, but I have no appetite for the kind of fight I have been embroiled in. My vision of curating is more collective than individual. Chromium lemon bangs on about intellectual property. We have many lawyers who create mechanism to protect the individual rights of artists and this is valid. What I was exploring, however, was the broader cultural rights that come from being included in the definition of the meaning of an artistic space.
Chromium Lemon accuses me of being naïve. Maybe so. But I have a predilection for optimism and I feel this project could have been cobbled together to become something quite meaningful. I believe this, even if it were done in an amateurish sort of way. There was no top-down funding, but because artists like to communicate, in whatever way they can, it could have grown from an inner dynamic. As with all bottom up affairs it’s always up to the artist whether to participate or not. The important question is always why someone would engage in a project like this. My deep belief is that they would have done so because the project is authentic. But to get off the ground it needs a broader forum than one. A broader forum would disable people like Chromium Lemon from launching a personal attack.
I resign, but not wholly. I stand ready to engage at a future date in a future project, which has greater human collateral to carry it forward.
Maybe one day it will. I apologize to all who have submitted to “Gatekeepers”. I apologize to all those who were planning to.
Angela Grossmann
angelagrossmann.com
Hmm; Diana Poulsen’s CV, which is accessible right on this blog, says she went to York, and then Western – not Mcmaster University. McMaster doesn’t even have a grad art history program.
Also, it’s Chromium Lemonade, not lemon. Apparently there’s a difference between being able to read, and literacy.
You’re right
Sorry for the mistake I will fix it
There are also several typos
“Diana and her fiends”- should read Diana and her friends
Freudian slip
Please note in paragraph 10I refer to Linda Poulsen – it should read Diana Poulsen.
my apologies.
Angela Grossmann
The fact that Vantage Art Projects used this forum to plug their
upcoming book makes me shake my head….then one hears nothing from them and poor Angela is left to defend herself
as well as them. I’m sure they are hoping all of this will just disappear. I’m giving my $45 to the Red Cross for Haiti thank you very much….
[…] it happens, art historian and fellow blogger Diana Poulsen did a fair bit more digging. And starting from the inflated submissions fee – $40 on the website, […]
submitting a revised letter
(typos fixed – mistakes corrected)
Gatekeepers-art of exclusion. Curated by Angela Grossmann
Open letter to:
Diana Poulsen, Linda Poulsen all of their friends who have used the internet to verbally attack, vilify, insult, denigrate undermine and call into question my character, ethics and reputation as artist.
I reply, now, not because you or your gang deserve it, not because I have anything to answer to or, as you so crudely frame it, to be “called out” on, but because you are the illustration, par excellence, of ‘gatekeeper’. You are the mother of all gatekeepers and have achieved exactly what my project was designed to bring to light: the myriad (and often occult) ways that artists get ‘shut up’, closed down, and eradicated by those in positions of institutional power.
But let me describe the subject of this project: the subject that has provoked your wrath; that has been the match to your fire; the red flag to your bull; that you have blasted at me in a scatter attack lasting five days.
Gatekeepers Project
In 2009 I was asked by the two women editors of Vantage Art Projects to curate an exhibition in print. I said what I had always wanted to do was to give a voice to the voiceless in the art world and I would do it if I could find a way of ‘making the artist the curator’. We agreed to this and I chose a provocative theme, ‘The Art of Gatekeeping’. This theme I had conceived of as a broad umbrella under which artists could congregate and express individually the diverse meanings of exclusion within the art world that they experience; or how and in which ways the art world, or the structures of 21st century power, denies independent creative expression.
I suppose, although I don’t want to use the ‘D’ word, what I wanted in essence was to find a way that artists could not only democratize access to expression themselves, but also define the meaning of that process. I was interested in the challenge of opening up, or collapsing, the gate keeping role of “curator”. As an artist this was my intent.
I don’t have a fetishistic attachment to the idea of art or the structures of the art world. Maybe what distinguishes art from simple communication is the commitment to the process of creation; the commitment to the need to express or explore meaning through getting involved in creating it.
Cultural rights
Artists have creative needs and economic ones, but the economic ones, while essential, don’t dictate the purpose and intent of their work. By focusing on the issue of ‘artists rights’ as the predominant issue, Diana Poulsen has deformed the meaning of the project as I conceived it. Unable to think beyond ‘art products’, she focuses on the individual ‘interests’ of the artist as predominant, as though the first and only interest of an artist is to get into an art market. This vulgar economism of Poulsen is breathtakingly narrow in its vision and highly deformative of the original project intent.
Poulsen’s energetic defence of artist’s rights invites a type of indulgence, (she is, after all, singing the right aria, even if in the wrong opera) because the artistic world needs solidarity. We have a real interest in looking after each other. She could have been indulged, if her public display of heroics weren’t so insufferably arrogant: we as artists are tired of being spoken for and, as a female artist, I know this doubly well.
Gatekeeper of Gatekeepers
Diana Poulsen is a gatekeeper. Gatekeeping is not a choice of the art world, it is built into it. The act of gatekeeping unconsciously configures the roles of most people in the art world who are not directly engaged in artistic creation.
And here’s the rub, Diana Poulsen’s real issue could not have been that I, as an artist, was involved in exploitative acts. Knowing something about me, she knew that to be impossible. What she sensed, as someone vitally ensconced in gatekeeping (present art historian, potential future curator), was that I was somehow trespassing in the world she and the institutional power elite, consider as theirs. I was assuming to cross-frontiers in the quest to open up a new kind of public space for artistic debate.
So what was this ferocious assault by Chromium Lemonade really about? Before Chromium Lemonade began its unrestrained and highly personal attack deforming both the shape and substance of my project, I believe it is safe to say, most people in the art world had never heard of Chromium Lemonade- Diana Poulsen. I was asked to create the gatekeeping project because I have a 25-year history in the art community. Diana Poulsen, I call you out, and accuse you of the underhanded game of riding off artists backs in the pursuit of one of the worst forms of gain: political or personal capital.
Diana Poulsen’s ‘scam” accusations:
Five days ago I woke to find a Google alert on my computer. It brought me to: Chromium Lemonade- Diana Poulsen’s website. This post came without warning and without prior contact. I have never met or heard of Diana Poulsen or her sister Linda Poulsen or her friends. I had never heard of the Chromium Lemonade website.
Diana Poulsen is an art history grad student from Western University in Ontario. It states on her site that Diana is an art historian and video game reviewer. Her website read:
“Gatekeepers/Vantage Art Projects-SCAM!” Followed by:
“Yes Scam! I am calling you out Angela Grossmann curator of the Gatekeepers project and co-produced by Vantage Art Projects. You both smell of scam, and you should be ashamed. Akimbo should also be ashamed of this scam”.
The essential issue, which I admit, and did openly admit to, was the clumsy omission of the inclusion of standard intellectual property rights language in the website hosting the gamekeepers project. This I could have been alerted to by a friendly email. The other issue, which has caused problems, is the charge of a 45 dollars submission fee. I am not sure how the administrative and other work for such a project would get done without a fee of some kind, but this is open to discussion.
Poulsen goes on to accuse me of “Gouging money from the backs of artists”; Conspiring to steal money artists money by collaborating in “highly suspect scam tactics; Having no social conscience or real interest in art; being” a snake oil salesman; plotting with unscrupulous business partners to rob the art world and pocket the profits; Pretending that the deep problems of artists could be solved or alleviated by this project.
All of the posts that were made over a period of five days are available on the Chromium Lemonade website. The original site was up for five days – by day five, when I Googled my own name –” Scam artist” Chromium Lemonade came up as the second posting under my name.
You don’t have to be an artist to anticipate the implications of such an attack. It was a real shock to realise that this gatekeeper was capable of attempting to ruin my reputation in order to develop her own.
Resignation:
After much soul searching I have decided to resign as curator from the Gatekeepers project. I am resigning for the following reasons.
I have no appetite for the kind of fight I have been embroiled in. You cannot, in fact, “ungate” the keepers, at least not alone. My vision of curating is more collective than individual. Chromium Lemonade bangs on about intellectual property. We have many lawyers who create mechanism to protect the individual rights of artists and this is valid. What I was exploring, however, was the broader cultural rights that come from being included in the definition of the meaning of an artistic space.
Chromium Lemonade accuses me of being naïve. Maybe so. But I have a predilection for optimism and I feel this project could have been cobbled together to become something quite meaningful. I believe this, even if it were done in an amateurish sort of way. There was no top-down funding, but because artists like to communicate, in whatever way they can, it could have grown from an inner dynamic. As with all bottom up affairs it’s always up to the artist whether to participate or not. The important question is always why someone would engage in a project like this. My deep belief is that they would have done so because the project is authentic.
Future of Gatekeepers – the art of exclusion Project
I resign, but not wholly. I stand ready to engage at a future date in a future project, which has greater human collateral to carry it forward.
I would only participate in this project in the future if:
there was no submission fee.
there were Carfac fees.
all matters pertaining to artist’s rights were addressed clearly.
all artists involved in the project share in the benefits of the project.
the project had a strong open and ongoing web based component.
Maybe one day it will.
I apologize to all who have submitted to “Gatekeepers”. I apologize to all those who were planning to.
Angela Grossmann
Angela,
You have fiercely posted about how you think I am wrong about Vantage Art Projects as well as the Gatekeeper project. You tell me several times how wrong I am, without any facts or even a counter-argument other than stating your own ignorance about curating or my obscurity. Being obscure does not make me lack reason or critical thinking skills.
You said in your latest comment:
“I would only participate in this project in the future if:
there was no submission fee.
there were Carfac fees.
all matters pertaining to artist’s rights were addressed clearly.
all artists involved in the project share in the benefits of the project.
the project had a strong open and ongoing web based component.”
This list, which you have generated, are items amongst the 18 issues that I address in my original post as well as in the eloquent version. My ‘aria’, which was according to you at the wrong opera is now the argument that you are using to resign. Angela, by stating this list as a reason and as resigning as curator all of your posts about your belief in the Gatekeeper project are null and void. By resigning and providing reasons inspired by my own discrepancies about Vantage Art Projects you are agreeing with me. You have now officially, in your open letters, agreed with me and my “fiends” about the dubious nature of Vantage Art Projects and Gatekeepers.
You point out that after you googled yourself:
“It brought me to: Chromium Lemonade- Diana Poulsen’s website. This post came without warning and without prior contact. I have never met or heard of Diana Poulsen or her sister Linda Poulsen or her friends. I had never heard of the Chromium Lemonade website.”
Angela, you tell me that I am trivial and yet you decide to resign as a curator of Gatekeepers, a project which you for the past several days fought so violently in its favour, in light of my argument. This diminutive person, Diana Poulsen, in the end has caused you to change.
Diana I have said in all but one of my posts that you have valid points – I maintain this
You quote ” I had never heard of Diana…” this comment was not meant to insult your status- I was pointing out that I don’t know you and that you have never contacted me either professionally or socially.
I will never understand why you never tried to contact me personally ahead of your vicious attacks.
I will have my own blog up by sometime today.
I will link your site to it.
I want all discussions to be transparent.
Angela
[…] there have been numerous developments as a consequence of Diana Poulsen’s criticism of Vantage Art Projects, I have been content to let Diana report those updates on her own follow-up post. Even at the […]
good lord. I think between two drafts of your ‘open letter’ and the remaining verging-on-nonsensical rambling you’ve splattered over the comments section here, you’ve far exceeded the wordcount of the original post … and likely the responses combined.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of monopolizing this discussion space for your irrational crusade, you might consider getting your own blog?
Let’s not bring God into this.
I sent the second letter as the first one has been revised.
I’m confused- I thought everyone was demanding I explain myself.
Your point about my own blog is well taken.
I will let you know when it’s up.
Angela
ironically, I don’t think anyone was really demanding you explain yourself, so much as the criticism was of the project in general, and it’s horrific, glaring discreprancies, lack of up-front information, and general sense of suspicious intent. A significant chunk of that is aimed at Vantage, who made one post here to self-promote themselves then dicked off to let you do … whatever you did … here …
a long list of euphemisms might be blurted out here, among which, mountains out of molehills, forest for the trees, not just the wrong game, the wrong playing field, blah blah blah blah blahblahblah blah.
I dunno, this whole running, rambling, endless diatribe speaks more to displaced, obsessive anxiety/insecurity than anything remotely rational. You’re doing yourself no favours by spouting this persistent circular argument here, that, quite honestly, just vindicates the original post.
Hmm. not to mention I’ve now noticed you and your associates (oh! oh! “your gang”?) chasing after other people on other blogs for everything from defamation to copyright and fair-use laws regarding images. This is a special kind of insanity. You yourself have argued the diminutive position of Diana’s blog and yet the unbelievable amount of energy you’ve wasted chasing after her and everyone connected is disturbing to say the least.
Stop while you’re ahead. I think you’re damaging yourself more on your own than anything else that’s been written by other people. I’d even argue you’re damaging the reputation of organizations you associate yourself with now. When does it end? Haven’t you lost enough sleep over this already? I highly doubt anyone else has. Playing out personal drama on the internet is completely infantile. Surely there must be better things to do with your time.
I wanted to check out the artists in book number 1.
I may be wrong but it appears that one of the directors
of Vantage Art Projects is one of the artists chosen
(Jennifer Mawby) to be in the Paul Butler “Exhibition in Print”??
Isn’t this a clear conflict of interest? That spot in the book has been taken by someone who is organizing the project and most likely privy to the submissions as they were coming in.
Some poor artist that paid their entry fee got bumped out because of this. This is self serving!! Better to have the show
entirely curated by Paul Butler then to call for submissions and money and then put in your friends!!! OMG this just keeps getting worse and worse…..
Angela,
I find it interesting that what you seem to be most angry about is the so-called slander of your own name, and yet you do the same to Linda Poulsen. As far as I could read through these posts no one by that name posted. A Linda P posted, not Linda Poulsen. You claim you don’t know Diana, but assume alot about her and her family, which by the way is extremely unprofessional to drag the blog author’s family into your quarrel.
Just a note, go back and read through Jim R’s first post again, he pretty much stated the exact same thing as Linda P, and yet you call him reasonable.
You might want to re-read your own posts too, possibly the whole thing again, because if you actually thought Diana’s points were valid, why has this gone as far as it has.
Henry C
point taken
I am sorry for involving Diana Poulsen. I assumed it was Diana’s sister- but I certainly could be wrong – I will remove her name from my letter.
I am using my full first and last name.
Most of the criticism has come from people who use only faint reference to their own name. I find that I am at a complete disadvantage.
I don’t know who I am talking to but you do.
If Diana had not used bullying tactics toward me this conversation would not be happening.
I have asked for a retraction many times
If Diana formally retracts her personal comments about me and her references to me being a “scam artist” perhaps this conversation could carry on without anger and acrimony.
Angela
Angela,
I don’t know if you noticed, but, Diana printed a retraction to you on January 31st in her article “An eloquent Vantage Art Projects rant”
Diana did not use bullying tactics in these conversations, she was very professional and head strong. She just wanted answers to her initial questions. Her initial article was critically harsh, yes, but from what I can see it was an issue that needed light drawn to it. Vantage Art Projects has changed their site, so good did come of this. Diana seems very concerned with protecting the artist. I really don’t think that this was meant to be a personal attack on you, at least that is not how I have read it.
Pick, pick, pick. As an observer reading these postings from the beginning to this point here, I can’t help but feel there’s some sort of personal vendetta against Angela Grossmann.
I should first mention that I didn’t submit to VAP, in part due to the submission process which seemed to ask for money first, give details later strategy but I personally found the Gatekeepers artspeak too vague and difficult to grasp. However, Angela’s position as curator was an enticing factor for me because I not only respect her work but also the fact she has worked to live out her life as an artist–a working artist. You know, one who supports themselves based on the work they produce? That lifestyle is a near-to-impossible dream in this day and age. For some reason there’s two camps coming out of art schools: the first believes they can have a career as an artist with a diploma in hand, like they’ve just applied for a job and got it. The other –– well the other seems to believe that art should free and accessible to everyone and no one should have to go without it. In a perfect world, sure, that’d be great. There’s another camp of working artists in there but they’re few and far between. But that’s beside the point…
I believe Angela underestimated her role as curator in a publishing platform as there are very different things to consider rather than a physical exhibition where the artist has a tangible piece of art to sell. Publishing has much to do with who has the rights to publish and who financially benefits–if any. Please take note of those last two words. I’m well aware of the costs involved with publishing, in particular coffee-table styles of books. It’s not cheap and the only people who make any money off of it are folks like Taschen (only an example) because they print large quantities and outsource to the cheapest of printing houses. But that’s beside the point…
My point is that Angela was dragged through the mud in this forum. She appeared, defended herself, got slammed again and again, then she took your points of contention and answered them, then she got slammed, then she admitted defeat, and big surprise, got slammed again. What the heck is wrong with you people? Do you live on such a high moral ground that you feel it’s your right to put someone through this?
I’ve read all this with great interest because I’m an artist who cares deeply about the future of art in Canada. Some of my work responds to the frustrations of trying to make a living in the Arts. I write letters to parliament, city councils and local MP’s venting my frustration at recent cuts to funding. I support other artists and their projects as best I can, although rarely financially as it’s not within my means. A voice is a very powerful thing in the Arts because many artists choose to be observers only. So posters, take heart to the fact your voice here has been heard (read). It was vicious, targeted and taken to an extreme that was vindictive and without any compassion.
Pick, pick, pick…there’ll be a lot to pick apart from the above but there’s also much I’ve left unwritten because I actually do support myself as a working artist and need to get back to it. Support the Arts but also, support the Artists.
well said….what is saddest is that the Vantage Art Projects
people seem to have left Angela “to the wolves here”….
I have started my own blog :
http://www.artofexclusion.com
I have made reference to your link- just to keep everything transparent.
Angela
In reference to personal remarks:
I am sorry – I thought Linda P was Diana’s sister.
I had no right to make that assumption.
I don’t want this conversation to be personal at all or ever.
I don’t want revenge- and I don’t intend to be spiteful.
I’d like to elevate this discussion .
Angela
to Henry C
When I Google : Angela Grossmann Gatekeepers project – the first post refers to me as a “scam artist”
the second uses a euphemism but it’s just as damaging.
As a working artist – you are your name – It’s all you’ve got.
I also believe in artist’s right’s -I am one.
Angela
Angela,
I don’t mean to come off rude or disrespectful to you, I understand that your name is all you’ve got and it must have been hard seeing yourself described in that way, but there was cause for Diana’s article. After you read the initial article did you check out how the Vantage Art Projects site was being run? You could have turned this whole thing around in your favour right from the start, if you had addressed her concerns professionally. I am sure you did not intend to get yourself tied up with a project that took money before they gave out information. Your trust of Vantage Art Projects, and lack of curatorial experience seems to be your mistake.
I am afraid to tell you that the constant posting on this site is what is making your name and this article appear as one of the first google listings. But hey what is it they say “there is no such thing as bad press”
Note: when I google Angela Grossmann, none of this comes up, and since you have resigned from Gatekeepers, I guess the point is moot.
Angela,
On Jan 30 2010 I posted
In this article at the bottom there is a retraction and an apology to you Angela.
On a formal writing note, you are misquoting my article several times. There is no such post where I say the exact words “the word that must not be named artist”. If you wish to paraphrase me please use single quotes as ‘the word that must not be named artist’.
Also on your website artofexclusion it would be helpful to your readers if you linked either of my posts:
Rather than my review of Lucky’s World: Beyond the Wizard’s Threshold by Loretta Sylvestre, which has nothing to do with Vantage Art Projects. To assist you I have added a comment to my book review to lead your readers to my posts.
First off
it is the Google link to my name: ‘Angela Grossmann Gatekeepers’
Last weekend it was simply the link to : Angela Grossmann – that lasted five days.
Diana I am sorry for misquoting you. I will fix it.
I must admit that I was surprised that during this whole thing you use a reference to the fictional character Voldemort.
During these last nine days I have taken ever accusation very seriously, and you quote Harry Potter!
Please feel free to tag and link me to your website- I look forward to a wider conversation.
Actually, Henry C, I wrote quite a few things that Linda P did not point out and in fact Linda did not realize that Angela is not the curator, except in name only. One key element is that Angela was using the term curator when in fact it appears more likely that she is the “juror” This is key to understanding how this situation as become a bit of a nightmare for Angela. If it had been announced that she was the juror, would artists understand the difference? If they did, they should not be attacking the juror because a juror is not responsible for anything beyond attending a meeting to examine the work and make a selection based upon whatever criteria that they wish.
I’m sure that Angela has learned a sad lesson. Derek, I like your thoughts and agree with them.
One interesting aspect is that this conversations is actually dealing with her Gatekeeping concept. The artists must be their own gatekeeper and decide what they will involve themselves with.
Opps! Oh, gee…lol
This blog needs an edit button so that a guy might correct his typos…
Sorry Jim but the Vantage At Press web site states “OUR LATEST CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS IS “GATEKEEPERS”, AN EXHIBITION-IN-PRINT PROJECT CURATED BY ANGELA GROSSMANN.” Copy and pasted from their website.
Not sure how you missed the glaring oversight, but it seems the overall theme of the original blog post is one of oversights and responsibility. Vantage should be assuming more responsibility for the oversights on their part.
Angela agreeing to be ‘curator’ of the project, then assumes all responsibility of the oversights as well.
It seems clear that Ms. Poulson’s work history has provided her with many of the skills used to eviscerate the GateKeeper’s call for submissions. Her resume states that while employed at S and G Manufacturing she “…checked parts for flaws and to insure (sic) the measurements were within tight tolerances.” Obviously she has a clerical eye for detail, something the organizers of Gatekeepers had missed. If she approached this subject with same cool detachment she applied to checking out flaws on small automotive parts she might have initiated a discussion that dealt with the subject at hand, not personalities.
Seriously S.Lart, have you actually read Ms.Poulsen’s article?
She is one of the few dealing with the issue at hand, and not personalities, it would seem that you yourself are trying to make this about personalities.
S. Lart you take the time to point out Ms. Poulsen’s spelling mistake, but you cannot seem to spell her name or the factory’s name correctly. Essentially making you look like an idiot for your inability to read and for making an assumption about a person’s personality based on their place of work. That is a stereotype. S. Lart, you may want to read Grossmann vs Poulsen’s responses again to see these ‘personalities’.
Miss Poulsen actually does deal with the subject at hand; all of her responses have dealt with the subject. Ms. Poulsen has not invested a ‘personality’ in the dialogue, nor has she essentially created a ‘hate website’ as Grossmann has done with artofexclusion. On artofexclusion Grossmann viciously attacks Poulsen as well as several commenters from Chromium Lemonade. If Grossmann disagrees with Poulsen, she may write about her disagreement, but attacking all the commenters is unnecessary and unprofessional. After Grossmann’s attack on Poulsen, Grossmann essentially agrees with Poulsen and quits the project. Grossmann agrees with Poulsen, therefore Grossmann’s attack and hate-site dedicated to Poulsen was also unnecessary.
I believe it is Grossmann’s personality and not Poulsen’s which is the problem. Yes, Poulsen’s first article was very harsh, but Poulsen has asked hard questions which has resulted in Vantage Art Projects changing their website. Poulsen caused the former Curator Grossmann to re-consider her project. All of these changes are good things. Poulsen has caused change for the better. On the other hand, Grossmann has shown why art criticism no longer occurs in Canada. I bet some Canadian Artist has a dismembered art critic buried in their basement somewhere.
Day ten
In regards to my ‘hatesite’ as Alexander Hennessey calls it.
I think I am allowed to state my views first on my site- ( course I may be wrong again).
The site contains: my letter dated Feb 2, which is also posted on this site ( see above), a link to Chromium Lemonade and an invitation for anyone that wants to to leave comments. It seems none does want to leave a comment- except for Joe Elliot whose eloquent and thorough condemnation of me stands alone.
The conversation seems to be happening right here- I’m actually just fine with that.
Just to set the record straight- I did not choose the term curator. The term ‘curator’ was used for the first ‘curator’ of the first book and was repeated for my call.
Maybe there is another term for someone who is invited to pick the theme, and the work for a book(‘ idiot’ comes to mind).
As I have mentioned in earlier posts I was NOT in favour of asking for a submission fee- I was informed it was there to cover the administrative costs and that it was standard procedure in a call for book projects.
Since the call went out in November- I have had almost no contact with VAP.
I have now become aware that there were complaints from artists,( in book one and in book two-) the complaints were made to VAP – they were never passed on to me.
I was not aware of their submission procedures ( throw the noose over the tree) until last week, I hadn’t gone on their site and looked into it.
I resigned from the role of….whatever it was – in order to NOT continue the project of Gatekeepers as administrated by Vantage Art Projects. However, as I state in my letter, more committed than ever to examining the role of Gatekeeping in the artworld.
Diana I am happy to pull the letter off my site if it is offensive to you.
Angela
Derek, it’s too bad that biting criticism in Canada is reduced to blog posts and it’s not headlining the major art mags and newspapers. I wonder why that is?
Perhaps another oversight? Or is it that artist can’t deal with it and should develop a tougher skin. The best art comes out of passion and persistence, but it seems Angela has bowed out of the project and isn’t holding her ground. Too bad it could have developed into something interesting. But I guess we’ll never know.
We should never be too comfortable in our position as an artist and take for granted that what we do will be accepted and loved. Make your decisions on the basis that this could be that last thing that you’ll be remembered for and that it should stand on its own, because sometimes that’s what actually happens.
Having looked at the Vantage Art Projects site it appears
that there is an attempt on the part of the directors of this
thing to twist terminology to appear to be fresh. Tell me if I’m wrong but I thought a curated show meant that a curator is funded to choose artists that fit their concept directed by their knowledge of who is out there. If a curator wanted to find
unknown work they would then search on their own by perhaps putting out their own call ( without a fee!!). Jurying
as stated above is something entirely different.
From what I can see Vantage Art Projects is mostly about
trying to find a way to make money without doing what the rest of us have done for years; fund raising, grant writing,
sticking by the fact that artists should be paid first and foremost, finding sponsors etc. To put out an open and endless call for submissions that doesn’t appear to be limited by anything else smacks of a money grab.
The fact that they have tagged Angela with the term curator
now puts her in the position of overseer and she
seems to be taking all the hits because of this.
Vantage Arts Projects doesn’t have their shit together and they better if you’re going to start asking people to hand them money for not even looking at the real work and just hoping
that they might do an exhibition some day.
An exhibition in print????? It’s a book!
The fact that Angela stated that she wasn’t taking a dime for
curating doesn’t jive with the fact that Vantage states
they need money to pay for a curator???
There are just too many smiling sharks in middle management.
By the way, it appears that you can still submit to this project
even though Angela has resigned.Will you get your money back? Who knows. Young artists in particular beware.
Alexander Hennessey
I believe that both Poulsen and Grossman have used emotion in their comments. Although Poulsen did a good deed by raising the questions, she did use language that was inappropriate. Since Poulsen used a term applying it to Grossman first, she threw down the rudeness glove.
Having written that, what good has come from this article and its reaction? Well, it has generated several issues about artists and the presentation of their works. It raises questions about ethics in the art world.
The premise of the call was vague but brings to light the plight of those that would control the artist’s voices. How much credibility does one have to have paid to get your image in a book? Does it really raise your profile?
I read part of the explanation by Vantage and find that they are still incredibly disrespectful towards artists. They write about how in the future after the book is published and makes some sales that they will begin to negotiate with the artists about obtaining a reproduction fee or royalty. No, Vantage is still planning questionable art administrative practices. They are still planning on using artists money to create a publication. They seem to have no financial backing of their own.
I’m starting to wonder if this whole disagreement/debate is in actual fact a submission to Gatekeepers. If so, will it be edited to fit on one page in the book or maybe a 2-page spread? How will it be credited?
Hi Angela
Believe me when I write that you were not the curator. You were to be the “juror”. Sorry, but the text of your call was far too vague to be a curatorial call. Vantage misused the term, curator, and gave you the title that you have learned was far more than you agreed to do for free.
I urge you to check daily on the Vantage website because as of yesterday, February 4th, I still saw your name down as the curator of Gatekeepers. If it is still there today, I would email Vantage insisting that they remove your name from the website. Otherwise, this nightmare may continue for you as new people send in their fees. Don’t let Vantage use you anymore.
Here here, Jim.
For all the fallout from this debacle, the biggest mess still lies with Vantage. Regardless of what has occurred here, Angela, it would be in your best interest to make your position clear with the Vantage people such that no further confusion might jeopardize any and all parties.
I have sent several emails advising VAP that I have resigned.
I have asked them to take down the call from their site.
I have asked them to link their site to this website.
So far no movement.
I don’t know how else to make my resignation public.
No one is going to my blog where my resignation is posted.
I announced it on my facebook page and I even twittered it.
I have stated the reasons for my resignation in my Day ten- Feb.5th posting (above)
Angela
I am sorry! Truly I am. In my ignorance I didn’t realize it was appropriate behavior in the Canadian art world to attack people believed to be related to the critic. I sincerely hope when another author writes about you Grossmann, that you will also buy a domain name and attack their family or people you believe to be related to them as well, since that is ‘proper’ in the Canadian art world. I will learn from this conversation. If I ‘enjoy’ work you do Grossmann, I will be sure to buy a domain name and write ‘love letters’ to your family. Since that is ‘normal’ and acceptable Canadian Art world practice. After 25 years in the art world, you would know. My mistake.
Sorry – I totally agree- I thought I fixed that.
I’ve fixed it now- my profound apologies to Diana and family.
PLEASE NOTE: when I refer to Diana as “the mother of all gatekeepers” I was not referring to Diana’s mother or mothers in general.
Angela
Writers typically have to pay a submission fee when entering writing competitions, whether hosted by small presses or major broadcasters, such as CBC’s annual contest: http://www.radio-canada.ca/prixlitteraires/english/submit.shtml
It’s also not unheard of for writers and journalists to be required to pay publications in order to submit entries to annual industry awards.
I strongly believe that the art world needs watchdogs, but I think it’s unfortunate that you targeted Angela Grossmann and used bullying tactics and personal attacks that were bound to wrangle nerves and cause push-back. Wouldn’t it have been much more productive to first contact her directly, offline, with your issues with Vantage? In which case, I suspect that you would have made a great ally. In the process, Vantage might have improved upon an interesting project for artists. Hey, and with more collaboration, the art world might not seem quite so dangerous. This kind of misdirected swiping actually just benefits the gatekeepers.
As far as the CBC literary contest goes they have a significant number of accomplished judges lined up, a publishing deal set up with EnRoute Magazine, a top CBC literary scout behind the project etc. This is the CBC for crying out loud! “Danielle” sounds like she works for Vantage Art Projects. The fee for the CBC is only $20 and everything is clear, upfront and stamped with the CBC’s already proven reputation. They have far more people to pay.
I just went to see if the Gatekeeper’s call for submissions
is still up. It is. Unbelievable. I assume that Angela Grossmann is retaining the curatorial rights to her project as it appears it was her original concept (even though she resigned). Maybe you need a lawyer Angela. Did you sign anything?
I do invite anyone who wants to participate or continue discussions on my website: http://www.artofexclusion.com
I acknowledge that the discussion has become much bigger
than I first expected, I’m happy to be part of it.
It’s vital subject matter for artists entering a time where more and more we will need to interact with the private sector.
I also invite artists to post images if they want.
Angela
[…] explosion of debate around Vantage Art Projects’ Gatekeepers call continue to bother me. The tone of the discussion often ignored its own rationality in favour of kneejerk name-calling, and the lessons learned seem […]
Two short comments:
1.
I wonder if this entire exchange is not actually part of the artwork…
2.
Artists, please, NEVER pay to show your art, please! Treat yourself with dignity. An artist never ever needs to pay to get a show or anything else. Paying will actually not get you any respect, to the contrary. There are grants for publishers adn art projects. if they are at all serious, they will get money. They don’t need artists’ money.
I’m one of those artists that declined to enter Gatekeepers because of the sloppy/suspect lack of details in the call and the explicit and clumsy ‘money first’ strategy. I applaud Poulsen’s original assault against soul-stealing artistic exploitation. Her extremely well-crafted, astute and organized list of questions should have been answered immediately if Vantage was savvy, smart or legitimately concerned with the community they pretend to align themselves with. Our 2.0 era demands transparency and collaboration not obfuscation – even the biggest ‘for profit’ endeavors know this.
Having just received Angela’s AKIMBO resignation blast and reading through this entire tail its clear that Vantage and Jennifer Mawby deserve to go down – the sooner the better – not Angela who, even if naive, is certainly earnest and sincere. She is a talented artist and seems an authentic victim. Please instead let’s all turn our backs, refuse to pander or participate, and ignore Vantage – eternally.
And, if this is all just a performance piece/project, regardless of authorship, we have all been patronized – if not exploited – entirely anyway. No more of our money, time or energy should be spent stoking the flames of anyone’s celebrity or empire building strategy. Capiche?
I wish these two sites were linked.
Since my resignation went out on akimbo today there are 8 new comments on http://www.artofexclusion.com
You may want to post comments on both sites – or at least check them out.
Angela
It would TOTALLY be like Vantage Art Projects to try and steal the idea to spin this site reaction into a project of their own ( as mentioned above) to save their reputation. Please PLEASE do not let this happen!!
They have already gleaned a lot of valuable information from all of this in regards to how they should conduct business. They also now realize that their website is really crappy and seem to have hopped on that critique already by announcing a new website
to come. They are thankless, self serving people. I’m sure they are also reveling in the number of times their name has been mentioned on the net and the old adage “better to be talked about then not at all”. All they care about is money and the fact that people will remember their name.
Let this shit go already. I lost interest after the 3rd comment. A lot of talk. Not much said (from either side, really).
Angela, learn how to curate a show before trying to do so.
Diana, mind your own business and go back to surfing the net on your MacBook in your pyjamas.
Everyone else; you’d never say this shit in a 1-on-1 discussion. Grow a pair and shut your pieholes.
well said Ozzy, except that I’m glad Diana took this on. Angela, your reputation, which was and I hope still is excellent, was used by VAP, whoever that really is, to try to sucker artists into what is just one of many similar ‘ pay to exhibit’ schemes. Somebody mentioned 200 artists possibly paying up front; check your math; that would be $9K, not $4500, possibly a reason why artists don’t make much money…anyway, I live in Vancouver and it’s a tough art world here, but DON’T get sucked into paying for a chance to see your name on somebody’s coffee table. Scam may be too tough a word, but the ethics of these projects should be of concern to every artist. Besides, $45 buys quite a few pints, which, if you have it to piss away in the first place, is likely to offer a better, more immediate, and more satisfying return on the initial investment. Plus, you know what you’re going to get up front! If you want to respond, I’ll be in The Candahar.
Actually I was planning on going for Rodney’s band
and/or Feb 28th.
See you there
I have moved this comment from
to here
Edith Dora Rey
Re: The Gatekeepers gatekeepers….
There are a multitude of submission sites for artists online. Some cost. Some a little, some too much. Some are free. Some clearly specify the requirements. Some don’t. Some are obvious scams. Some are legitimate. Some reek of nepotism. Some are geographically specific. Many are ageist. Some just really, really suck.
But here’s the thing. As a functioning adult artist, I can pick or choose which submission I decide to get involved with. As a functioning adult artist, I can decide to open a PayPal account to make online transactions simpler. As a functioning adult artist, I can write to the people responsible + ask them specific questions, or for more information should I be confused by any submission requirements
It is exceedingly noble of you, Diana Poulsen, art history student, to take the rights of artists everywhere to heart + to campaign + fight on our behalf with your mighty pixels, but I assure we somehow managed to survive before you started your blog (some of us, before you were born) and we will continue to survive should you decide to discontinue your blog for other pressing matters –- for example, leaving the cocoon of graduate school + joining the real world.
By the way, have you read Atonement by Ian McEwan?
[…] the mood for some schadenfreude? Don’t miss blogger Diana Poulsen up against Artist/Curator Angela Grossmann re: Grossmann’s call for submissions at Vantage […]