Clarification & Public Apology

As you've noticed, I've spent the last couple of days writing about the Coversions show at the Ellipse Arts Center. I mentioned in my first post that I thought the show was an installation art show and that I was under that impression due to the call for entry. Well, someone kindly sent me a copy of the call for entry. After re-reading it, it appears that the show was never intended to be all about installation art. For my mischaracterization of the show, I apologize. I will post updates to all the previous posts as a result.

However, I do want to make clear why I felt the show was for installation art, after all, how many installation pieces have you seen me post here? I proposed a site-specific installation piece for a reason.

Here is the call for entry if you'd like to look at it (MS Word doc). And here are the reasons I felt it was an installation art show:

1) The title "Conversions" immediately caused me to think about artwork that converts space. That would best be done by installation art.

2) The subtitle of the show is "An exhibition exploring spatial interpretations juried from three distinct points of view." I think every piece of art deals with interpreting space so I thought this suggested installation art.

3) "This exhibition will be juried from digital images, slides, and site installation proposals..." - I thought the digital images and slides mention was in support of installation proposals.

4) "The Ellipse Arts Center and the WPA\C hope to meld the distinct viewpoints of the jurors as well as offer submitting artists the opportunity to create site-specific installations."

5) "A $250 stipend will be awarded to all finalists who are selected to participate in Conversions." - I thought the stipend was for the purchase of materials specifically for an installation piece. I had budgeted that amount for the purchase of approximately 250 sq. ft. of wood.

6) The option was given to submit images with a site specific proposal or images without a site specific proposal. I thought that meeant the difference between installation art created for the show versus installation art created in the past.

When I was told the show was not specifically for installation art and then read the call for entry, it became clear that never was installation art only requested. Perhaps I was the only one (though I know for a fact I wasn't) who interpreted this incorrectly. Ultimately I think 3 of the 11 artists didn't do an installation piece so I guess that's about right for a show that was open to, well, anything, but with a semi-focus on installations.

I want to apologize to the WPA\C, Ellipse Arts Center, the jurors and the artists, for my incorrect assertions about the show's intentions.

Comments

[adrian]

this is news to me -- that was an installation show.

[Joel D'Orazio]

You are not the only one who thought the 'Conversions' exhibition was about installations. I did not consider entering because it seemed obvious that the intent was to submit ideas for installations.