This was a letter that was sent to the Washington Pavilion’s Visual Art Director on Monday. I am assuming he received it on Tuesday. I have not heard a response of any kind yet, but I will keep you posted:

 

Mr. Merhib,

I’m going to make one last attempt in requesting the names of the jurors for Arts Night.

When I first requested the names of the jurors in an email, your response was that you would not release the names due to the ‘nature’ of the event (The jurors selected are members of the community and friends of the arts. The jurors are anonymous because of the nature of this fundraising event). I guess I am unclear what the ‘nature’ of the event is and how it justifies secrecy?

There has been this assumption by your organization that there would be retaliation against the jurors. I’m not sure what that means? Since I have participated in juried exhibits in the past as an exhibitor and a juror I have always been under the impression that jurors release their names out of respect to the artists and the artists don’t retaliate out of respect for the jurors.

Some people think I have already retaliated by writing a response to Mr. Schiller. But since I don’t know if Mr. Schiller was a juror, how is that retaliation?

Also, I have never asked that the jurors names be published anywhere, either in a newspaper, on your website or in Arts Night materials. All I have asked was that the information be given to the artists who participated in the selection process.  Pretty simple really.

This isn’t personal, never has been, this is about the policies of The Washington Pavilion, the Visual Arts Center and Arts Night. I have no ill will or vendetta against anybody personally. I think the Arts Center is important to our community, that is why I gave to it for so long.

So I am politely giving you one more opportunity to release the names of the jurors to me and the rest of the Arts Night participating artists.

Policies aside, it is the right thing to do, and I’m sure you won’t make the wrong decision.

Scott L. Ehrisman

 

 

I decided to pull up the original letter that was published in the Argus Leader about Arts Night to see if I was off base in any way with my claims. Let’s review what I wrote:

“It seems the Washington Pavilion Arts Night Committee is taking a page from SculptureWalk when it comes to selecting art. Arts Night’s secret jurors used vague criteria to pick who could donate to Arts Night this year. ”

True. The jury is a secret and continues to be a secret. I stand corrected though on the comment ‘vague criteria’. The criteria isn’t vague but rather exclusive.

“When Arts Night started just six years ago, the Pavilion had no problem with begging local artists to donate. Last year though they started to jury the event because of it’s popularity. ”

True. Arts Night has always been an event that sells donated art. Last year (2006) they decided to jury the event because of all the donations they have received, they wanted to limit them to 60 because of the auction time frame. This was brought up when I was on the committee, I advised against it at the time, and in 2006 when they said it would be ‘juried’ (the language they used in both 2006 and 2007) I decided not to submit a piece, but Howard and Erin personally asked me and told me my piece would not be rejected. I told them at that time I did not agree with the jurying process and they needed to approach it differently, I told them this repeatedly and even sent Erin, Howard and Hoffman an article from the NY Times talking about charity art auctions, where I highlighted suggestions.

“That’s right, the same organization that asks for money from the city every year to subsidize it’s programs rejects donations from local artists. Thirty-four artists were rejected this year which approximately could have brought in over $25,000 in additional funds to the Visual Arts Center. Funds that help keep the VAC free throughout the year.”

As you can see I don’t have a problem with my tax dollars subsidizing the arts center, I’m  just baffled by why they would reject donations. I never once said that I was against funding the facility (even though the AL misquoted me a few weeks ago on that issue).

“I was one of the artists who was rejected. As an artist who has submitted art to many juried shows, I know rejection is common place, I do not take issue with rejection. What makes this show different then other juried shows is that the jury is kept secret and criteria for rejection is kept vague. Each rejected artist received a form letter as to why they were rejected. What also makes this odd is the rejection of a donation. Especially from artists who have been giving to the event for several years. ”

This was the first time I said I don’t have a problem with the rejection, yet the spin doctors defending Arts Night decided to personally attack me by saying I should just shut up and paint and buck up. That wasn’t the issue. I have already come to the conclusion that the jurors are unknowledgeable in the arts, just look at the exhibit. I just want to know who they are so I can PERSONALLY back that conclusion up. For example in the criteria they claim that ‘saleability’ is one of the determining  factors in being selected, yet they picked loads of photography. Sure photography is art, but is not necessarily original art because you can make prints from it. Art auctioneers will tell you that original art such as a painting will bring more $$ then a photo print or giclee.

“The Pavilion has oodles of excuses as to why they limit their submissions, and some of them are acceptable: quality, saleability etc. What is unacceptable is keeping jurors secret and criteria vague – especially in a publicly funded facility.”

This is the real issue, like I have said from the beginning. If the artists submitting CANNOT be anonymous in their submissions, then the jury cannot be either, especially in a publicly funded facility.

“I questioned David Merhib, the Visual Arts Center Director, for specifics on why I was rejected and who the jurors were. He denied me the information. “

Everyone has jumped to the conclusion that I went running to the AL right away crying, but that is not the case at all. I tried to work with the Pavilion in 2006 contacting three people then, and this year contacting David Merhib himself.  Both times they have refused to work on a solution or answer questions.

”It is important that jurors are made known for several reasons, and retaliation is not one of them, that assertion is ridiculous. Commonly it is out of respect for the artist. Being judged by unknowns is unusual in juried shows. “

No where have I said I would retaliate against the jurors. This is about the policies at the Pavilion, it has NOTHING to do with the volunteer jurors or ethics for that matter. Hoffman has already admitted to another Arts Night artist that calling it a ‘juried’ exhibit is flawed, yet there has been no admission publicly and not solution put forward.

”Rejecting art on it’s own merits is fair. Rejecting art because you disagree with an artist’s personal beliefs is shallow. When will the art organizations in Sioux Falls learn that secrecy only creates suspicion?”

I want to conclude by saying that I have never personally attacked anyone, just the Pavilion’s policies, Mr. Schiller chose to defend those policies by personally attacking me instead explaining or justifying their policies.

Now who’s the bad guy?

 

I’ve lost track after the personal attacks from Paul Schiller, James Mathis and Micheal Williamson. I find it funny that only one employee, the Public Relations Director, defended the Big Purple Building, even if he didn’t tell people he worked there, I’ll give him credit (it’s kind of his job).

Besides Joy Crane I have only had artists privately support me on this crusade, which is unfortunate, because if the 34 rejected artists spoke out publicly, instead of privately they could add some pressure. I know several of them have had words with the Pavilion.

I have determined that our local newspaper doesn’t support individual artists, and only protects the establishment, even misleading the public with some questionable accounting interpretations and misquoting me in an article praising the executive director.

I have a pretty good idea who two of the jurors are, and one of them is a little nervous since she displayed in arts night this year to.

I will have an update tommorrow on where we are at with the situation.

Conflicts of interest can cast doubt on art shows
By Joy E. Crane
Sioux Falls
Published: June 28, 2007 – ARGUS LEADER

I read the letter from James Mathis in which he portrays Scott Ehrisman’s earlier letter as a personal attack against Paul Schiller. I think Ehrisman is frustrated with secrecy and also has a lack of trust in the basic fairness of the system. It is common practice for a juried show to publicize who its judge and/or jurors are. If that information is withheld, it’s only natural to become suspicious.

I have been reading the book “Ethics and the Visual Arts,” which is a collection of essays on various problematic aspects of the art world. One chapter talks about conflict of interest policies for museum professionals and trustees. An excerpt taken from the handbook of the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization states, “Artists who are trustees may not … be considered for an exhibition of their work, either solo, group or juried.”

One easily can see how a museum trustee entering his art in a juried show for the same museum on which he sits as a trustee would present a likely conflict of interest. Can you imagine the pressure felt by the jurors to accept the trustee’s art, possibly in place of work by another artist without official ties to the museum but whose work is deemed to have more merit? Bring the chance for the prestige and personal gain of winning Curator’s Choice, People’s Choice or Artist’s Choice, which could include cash, gifts and/or solo exhibit awards, into the picture, and the potential ethical breach looks even more serious.

The Washington Pavilion’s Arts Night exhibits the juried art for more than a month in its main gallery before the auction and also has a “Meet the Artists” reception a couple of weeks before the big auction event itself so artists can show other examples of their art and offer them for sale to the public without the Pavilion taking any commission. Many artists don’t have much money, so this is very nice.

The Arts Night 2007 brochure lists Schiller as a member of the Washington Pavilion Management Inc. Board of Trustees. His successful advertising firm, Lawrence and Schiller, is listed under “Event Sponsor Silver” and “Sp cial People to Thank,” and one of his photos is on the auction list along with the Web address of his photography business, Acts of Nature.

In view of the above, I would recommend that Schiller not involve his photography in any Pavilion exhibitions or juried competitions (art, marketplace or otherwise) as long as he sits on any Pavilion board.

We probably will never know if he sat on the Arts Night jury, but if he did, it’s just another reason that he never should have entered his photo in Arts Night.

Nothing personal.

So far we have had an unethical board member, his BFF, an anonymous public relations director/employee and a high school student defend the Pavilion’s Arts Night. Oh, and a misquoting, establishment loving arts reporter. Seems the well is gonna run dry here pretty soon, then what? The juror’s names might be released?

I couldn’t agree more with Ms. Beck’s letter, it is an honor to show in Arts Night, but don’t cloud the issue. I suggest Ms. Beck do some reading on ethics in juried shows. I also hope that here parents taught her something about respect, it is a two way street. Even though it was an ‘Honor’ to display my work at the Washington Pavilion (even if they stifled my marketing) it should also be an honor for them to have so many talented local artists in our community contributing to the place.

It is simple, respect the donating artists by telling them who their judge and jury was. Art is just not about honor, it is about respect and integrity to.

Determination, passion rewarded at Arts Night
By Kelsey A. Beck
Published Argus Leader: July 17, 2007

As a typical teenager, I spend my summer sleeping until noon, working at my first job and going on road trips every now and then. However, this spring I was given an experience not many people my age can say they have received: the chance to hang a piece of art in the same gallery as the most prominent artists in the city.

It was an honor being one of the select few chosen for Arts Night 2007 because it meant I took the place of someone who worked equally hard and invested just as much.

For the event I chose a photograph of the lit marquee on the Orpheum Theater downtown. I chose it because it won the grand prize of the Archeology and Historic Preservation Month photo contest.

I brought my piece to the Washington Pavilion in hopes it would be well-received, and to my luck, it was. I was extremely excited to get my acceptance letter because I had gone through the process start to finish the previous year with my dad and knew the fun of the events to come.

First up was Meet the Artists Night, where the public meets the faces behind the paint, ink, camera, etc. I met many wonderful people who loved my piece and couldn’t believe I still was in high school.

While the art was shown, various family members visited the Everist Gallery to vote for me for the People’s Choice award. One of the gallery workers voted for me as well. Even though I had no chance of winning and didn’t expect to, it was amazing to know that I got at least one vote that wasn’t biased.

Fast forward to Arts Night 2007. The auction is held on the stage of the Great Hall with all of the art as a backdrop. All I could say to my dad from the time I was accepted to the time we left the stage after the auction was that I was so pumped to be there.

One of the things I was looking forward to most was the meal. Leonardo’s Cafe always does a fabulous job, and this year was no different. At around 8 p.m., the awards were given, and the auction began. I can’t express how exciting it was to watch some of my personal favorites go as well as my own.

Looking back on all of the events makes me realize it didn’t come without work. I recently dug up some of my first pictures and laughed to myself because the majority were out of focus. It was funny because I remember at the time that I loved taking pictures no matter what came out of the camera.

Those first shots were taken seven years ago, and to this day I love photography just as much, if not more. Throughout my life I have been interested in many different things, but photography stuck. I believe that’s how I got to have a piece at the Pavilion: failure, determination and passion.

I want to thank the Washington Pavilion. I know Arts Night is a fundraiser for the Visual Arts
Center, but in return, the event gave me so many life lessons. For instance, by the end of the night, I was accustomed to shaking the hands and talking to some of the biggest professional business people in town. For someone who used to live comfortably in a box, that was quite an accomplishment.

I wish there were other words beside “thank you” because it seems I’ve overused that. I want anyone who helped put Arts Night together to know that I am truly grateful and can’t wait for next year.

UPDATE: Unruh was investigated and no wrongdoing was found. Thank you to the NICE Abstinence Clearinghouse employee who found this original post. I’m no longer miserable.

July 27, 2006 POST

 CREW, a Washington, DC watchdog group has filed a formal complaint about the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and the Alpha Center to the IRS.  The two ‘supposed’ non-profits in Sioux Falls, SD have been accused of breaking non-profit tax laws because the organization‘s president and founder has been lobbying congress and endorsing political candidates.

Of course none of this surprises me. Leslee pays herself over $150,000 a year to run the organizations.  Women like Leslee who use the abortion issue for financial gain are pathetic and hypocritical. If they are investigated and found guilty a number of things could happen: Non-profit status revoked, heavy fines and penalties and possible jail time for Leslee (I’m pushing for the jail time). Of course, none of this can happen unless the IRS takes action, which could take years. Of course officials from the NAC and Alpha Center called the action from Crew “false and mean-spirited.” I guess we didn’t expect them to admit it was true, but mean-spirited? I guess watchdog groups like CREW are assholes because they expect people like Leslee to uphold the law? Go figure. Of course our conservative local newspaper (the one that has been called a liberal-rag by locals) said that CREW was a ‘liberal-leaning’ organization. Again, what is so liberal or conservative about expecting Leslee to uphold the law. The label ‘liberal’ was unnecessary in the column to describe CREW. Of course this is the same paper that endorsed Bush in the 2004 election and has written many articles that were blatantly anti-union. Yeah, liberal-rag . . . give me a break!
Here is details from CREW’s complaint about how much Leslee got paid in 2003-2004:

According to NAC’s Form 990s, Ms. Unruh received $57,547 in 2003 and $109,920 in 2004 from NAC for an average of 40 hours of work per week. See Exhibit A. According to Alpha Center’s Form 990s, Ms. Unruh received $45,272 in 2003 and $42,456 in 2004 from Alpha Center for an average of 30 hours of work per week. See Exhibit B. It is difficult to believe that Ms. Unruh would have had the opportunity to lobby as an individual when she was being compensated for two full-time jobs, working an average of 70 hours per week. 3 Neither NAC nor Alpha Center has elected to have their lobbying activity measured under IRC ‘ 501(h), therefore their lobbying is measured under the “no substantial part” test. Public charities that operate under this measurement have functionally less legal lobbying capacity that those that operate under the 501(h) expenditure test. See CPE Lobbying Text at 280. In addition, public charities that operate under the “no substantial part” test may not rely on the definitions of lobbying under the 501(h) regulations. See 26 C.F.R. 1.501(h)-2(a). It is worth noting that NAC listed in the Projects and Accomplishments section of its 2003 Form 990, that it “Traveled to Washington, DC to Lobby for Abstinence for Africa in the Global AIDS Initiatives” See Exhibit A. Although this type of activity may not be lobbying under the 501(h) definitions of lobbying, it likely nonetheless counts as lobbying under the “no substantial part” test.

This from a strip titled ‘the 9 types of Boyfriends’

 

 

My new Cartoonist website is up and running. I will be posting ALL of my cartoons on there over the next few days. Enjoy!

www.southdacola.com