The following is Louise Merrim's
President's Message in the September 1992 newsletter:
"On September fifteenth
at 1 p.m., the Artists Guild Board is holding a vitally important
meeting and we urge all of you who are interested in the future
of this organization to attend.
A conversation with Steve
L. Brezzo, director of the San Diego Museum of Art has brought to
light that there is a strong possibility that our yearly SDMA exhibit
will NOT be included on the exhibition schedule, at least not in
its present form. We have been challenged to seriously reevaluate
the goals of the Artists Guild, rethink our functions, and explore
other alternatives to our annual juried show. Please give these
matters some serious thought, and attend this all-important meeting."
The minutes of the September
15, 1992 meeting recorded the following:
Report
on Status of Annual Show by Louise Merrim
"Several weeks ago I
met with Steve Brezzo hoping to firm up dates for our All-California
show. I was informed, however, that the show had not been scheduled
because of the following reasons:
Steve Brezzo and the Board
of Trustees have questioned whether Guild Shows, at least in their
present form, are of sufficient quality, relevance, and importance
for continuing museum sponsorship... indicating that both the city
and the museum had grown to a point where a show of local artists'
work was no longer a valid function. I disagreed with this and pointed
out the vital necessity for exhibits that enabled San Diegans to
see current work being produced by serious California artists, without
depending on commercial galleries, and he admitted the validity
of this.
The heart of the problem seems
to be that he and the curators are very resistant to presenting
any work when they have not been involved in the selection process.
He therefore suggested an alternative possibility, an invitational
show of several important San Diego artists to be curated by the
museum. I expressed the opinion that while this might be a most
interesting show it would have little to do with the Guild and would
probably be unacceptable to the membership as it denied them the
opportunity to exhibit at the museum. There is an open slot on the
calendar in July, 1993, which could be ours if we reevaluate our
show format and come up with some innovative, exiting, and mutually
beneficial ideas for future shows that will incorporate the needs
of the museum, the Artists Guild, and the viewing public.
The Artists Guild met in August
to discuss this matter. Some interesting ideas were presented as,
no doubt, there will be additional ones today. I have just received
a letter signed by both Joe Hibben, president of the Board of Trustees,
and Steve Brezzo, which I should like to read to you:"
"Thank you for attending
the Trustee Orientation meeting. It was a pleasure meeting you and
we hope the presentations provided helpful and stimulating information
to you.
As mentioned, the Museum is reassigning its commitment to the ongoing
Artists Guild exhibitions. We believe that we can mutually devise
a more effective and meaningful strategy for the future and we look
forward to discussing a number of options with you in the weeks
ahead.
We will, of course, expect
the Museum to play a key role in the selection of works presented
under any circumstances and we are sure that we can devise an appropriate
means of curating such potential exhibitions in a reasonable, fair
and effective manner….
As always, we appreciate the
Artists Guild's ongoing support of the Museum and we look forward
to working with you in the weeks ahead."
"The purpose of today's
meeting is to present these ideas for show alternatives and hear
from you, the members, as to which you consider acceptable? exciting?
challenging? We understand that the Guild board is responsible for
all decision making, but we represent you and want your valuable
input. In addition we'd like your opinions today regarding a list
of other new functions the Guild might perform, always keeping in
mind the need for ongoing revenue to make our existence possible.
I'd like to read several suggestions
for show alternatives and then have additional ideas presented form
the floor along with your comments and discussion, and perhaps arrive
at some conclusions….
1. An Invitational show of
several important San Diego artists (not necessarily Guild members)
curated by the museum.
2. An Invitational show of
members only, each member submitting a group of slides in order
to be considered for inclusion by the curators.
3. A divided show - Open submission,
and a few mutually agreed upon featured artists, all curated by
the museum.
4. A theme show (the creative
personality?) drawing on Guild talent and curated by the museum.
5. Any other suggestions?"
"Ideas
discussed
1. The same shows selected
by the same curators would end up in a rut and be boring.
2. A juror or jurors from
outside the San Diego area should be selected by the board and approved
by the Museum. (This is not only fair to other California artists,
but also fair to San Diego Artists, and avoids
the 'old boy' system)
3. All local curators could
cause artists to boycott the All California show.
4. Possibly a different curator
each show and that curator would work with the juror.
5. The Guild is losing control
of its position with the Museum.
6. The new president is at
a disadvantage each year when representing the Guild at the Museum
Board Meeting.
7. There is also very poor
publicity for the Guild Shows. This is also controlled by the Museum.
8. The history of the Museum
and the Guild's beginning was brought up and will be followed up
by Betty Riis and Louise Merrim and Earl Saunders.
New
Directions for the Guild
1. Networking of artists;
exchange of information
2. Detailed information on
current shows, gallery opportunities, and exhibition spaces
3. Newsletter critiques on
current shows
4. Panel discussions by member
artists? gallery owners? curators?
5. Social activities, including
pot-lucks, visits to studios, other opportunities to view other
artists' work
6. Information on new materials
7. Summaries of important
shows around the country"
(Note: The author attended
that meeting and made a suggestion in answer to new directions for
the Guild, specifically to address and improve the financial situation
and political strength of the organization. Using his prior experience
with the Boston Visual Artists Union, he stated: "Why don't
we grow to 800 members and allow illustrators to enter the Guild."
He felt that by growing in numbers and diversity the organization
would be strengthened. The polite reply, which came from one of
the board members was: "We can't do that, we are an exclusive
club.")
At the SDMA Trustee meeting
later that month Louise spoke up and Joe Hibben, longtime friend
of art and artists, enthusiastically announced that all possible
support should be accorded the Artists Guild by the Museum. From
then on many of the problems were ironed out. The Guild was given
the large American wing for our exhibition, included in the "Calendar"
an invitation to the Museum members to attend the festive opening;
and over 1,100 members and friends showed up. The following years
were equally successful.
On September 26, 1992, Louise
Merrim sent this letter to the Guild Board:
"I am delighted to be
able to inform you that YES - we are going to have an Artists Guild
All-California Juried Exhibition this spring/summer. Steve Brezzo
had informed me that he had gone before the Board after our first
talk and expressed our point of view, stressing the need for a broad-spectrum
show of current work of California artists, and had secured their
approval subject to several contingencies….
1. The Museum
will assume responsibility for the selection of the juror or jurors
for the exhibition project. The jury may include: representatives
of the Artists Guild, or an outside juror. The Museum will retain
the right to appoint jurors in any number or configurations and
may choose to create the show internally without representation
from the Artists Guild or outside jurors. Response: Apparently the
insistence that the show be curated by the Museum has been dropped,
and there is an agreement that an outside juror picked by Steve
Brezzo would be acceptable. He would ask for the Guild's approval
of his choice. I expressed the opinion that a juror from outside
San Diego would be best. He saw no problem with this.
2. The Museum will determine
the size and scope of the exhibition and will assign exhibition
spaces on an available basis. The Museum will retain the right to
present the exhibition outside the confines of the Art Museum at
an appropriate site to be determined. Response: I rejected the latter
part of this immediately, as he knew I would. He feels that we can
negotiate with the Board about this. We must be firm in our insistence
that the show be at the Museum. As to size - we'll have to accept
his assurance of fair play.
3. The Museum will retain
the right to publish a supporting listing only as financial support
of the exhibition permits. No formal commitment will be made to
the publishing of a supporting document until such time as the financing
of the exhibition is secured and approved in the Museum's annual
budget. Response: I'm a bit confused about this. He didn't seem
to feel that this represented any kind of problem. We will, of course,
need to discuss financing in detail.
4. The exhibition will be
juried from slides and upon request of the juror or jurors through
physical review of the works. Response: O.K.
5. In an exhibition which
surveys the submitted work of artists throughout California, the
Museum is unable to make a firm commitment in advance regarding
the number of Artists Guild members who might be represented in
the exhibition. Response: The Board thought we'd object to this,
but I assured him that we understand how a juried show works.
6. As in all of its exhibitions
projects, the Museum will attempt to assign a presentation slot
on a timely basis but retains the right to alter and adjust the
scheduling of this exhibition according o the needs of the institution.
Response: For various reasons we need exact dates well in advance.
He understands this and does not think there will be a problem.
It is necessary that I contact
Steve within two weeks. He pointed out there is room for negotiation
on the important items. (I don't think that we should nit-pick).
He stressed that he's not making a commitment to future shows, but
agreed that an excellent show this year would create a favorable
climate for future discussions. I took this opportunity to request
that we be permitted to do some creative publicity on our own, subject
to approval, and he agreed.
It is vital that you get back
to me immediately with your reactions and comments. Have I missed
something? Do you agree or disagree with my assessment? We've a
lot of work ahead but we've achieved our main objective. I'm very
pleased and hope that you feel the same!"
back
to top
