Author Topic: Ethical question (Read 459 times)

Leslie · « **on:** January 18, 2006, 04:13:34 AM »

Without going into dtail, was wondering if you paid $35.00 to enter a juried show and had one painting entered in (total of three possible). And then a couple days later were told the accepted piece was now rejected because it had 1993 signature instead of the two-year rule (completed within the last two years.)

Question is, once accepted it becomes juried in, and cannot be later rejected because of an oversight on the date completed? And does the jury, once accepting the artwork, later have the right to refuse it, after going through stringent registration proceedures? (Where they should have examined the piece before accepting it.) Should the artist recieve back $15.00 for the price of entry of one piece.

Seems like paying $35 and having one entry accepted out of three, and then having that one piece rejected is not ethical and the artist is owed the fee of one entry. Getting something for your money, so to speak.

Not going to raise a stink about it, but in your opinion, would it be wise to let them know? I'm not the artist, but am asking to get your perspective.

Thank you.

Les

Airscrew · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:26:01 AM »

Les, everything depends on the entry rules/guidelines for the show.
If the entry rule was the piece had to have been completed within the last two years (2005 or 2004) and after entry the judges reviewed and discovered the fact that the piece was done in 1993 then they can still reject it. I've seen where a piece has won a prize and reviewed and rejected because it violated an entry rule and prize is forfieted.

As far as the entry price goes, $35 per entry and up to 3 pieces can be entered. getting the entry price refunded would also depend on the entry rules/guidlines. I would think that if the someone talked to the show director or the judges they could probably get their entry fee back.

Ghosth · « **Reply #2 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:44:24 AM »

If they have a 2 year rule, then the painting should not be judged. If you knew about it obviously it should not have been entered. If you didn't know about it, why not? So it must be at least partly your fault for entering a painting that was not qualified.

If they offered you back 15 out of the 35, well, I'd take it. Chalk the 20$ up to the cost of higher education sir. Learn your lession, say thank you, and move on.

Leslie · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2006, 08:48:28 AM »

Thank you for your responce Airscrew. The damning thing about it is you are right. I was astounded about it. It 's none of my business but I can't help it. I feel it's an injustice..

But I tell ya what, if that happened to me I would be very hurt and disgraced. At least the guy has 45 years of experience as an artist under his belt. I'm a newbie at 27 years. I wonder if I could take it.

You are a good man Airscrew. Thank you for being a friend and responding..

Les

And you too Ghosth

Seagoon · « **Reply #4 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:08:04 AM »

Leslie,

I have no idea what the law is on this question, but you asked about the ethics of the thing. i.e. is it right or wrong? Here's my answer:

1) If the artist knew that the contest was for artwork completed within the last two years and knowingly entered a thirteen year old piece hoping it would not be noticed, then his intention was clearly to deceive and thus he knowingly violated the 9th commandment "You shall not bear false witness" so it was wrong. The committee is also right to reject the piece whenever it is discovered to have been submitted in violation of the rules. The entry fee should be forfeited under those circumstances if only to deter people from similar attempts in the future.

This is rather like someone knowingly selling cubic zirconia as a genuine diamond, flying out to show the "diamond" to a prospective purchaser, entering into a contract with the purchaser and then being offended when the purchaser later breaks the contract to purchase the item after he discovers it is a CZ. Under such circumstances, the seller demanding that the propspective purchaser refund the price of the plane ticket, because they initially "signed a contract" would be cheeky to say the least.

2) Now if the committee, on the other hand, somehow hid or concealed or made it impossible to find out what the rules of the contest regarding the acceptable age of pieces submitted, then the artist in question would be right to be offended when his artwork was rejected and his entry fee forfeited under a rule he had no means of knowing. In that case it was the committee that acted deceptively. Under that circumstance the artist would have a strong argument for his money being returned.

- SEAGOON

Leslie · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:17:31 AM »

They called and said the piece was in, and then later called and said it was out.

Les

Leslie · « **Reply #6 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:52:44 AM »

Bearing false witness doesn't apply here Seagoon. We're talking about a beautiful painting that's probably never been shown before. Only problem with that was, it wasn't done within the past two years...unless you count the cost of the framing and transportation and trouble it took to get the paintings to the show.

Alas, they're not professionals.

Les

Airscrew · « **Reply #7 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:31:39 AM »

Les, the best thing to remember about all this is read the entry guidelines, and then read them again. And when your done reading, read em again:)

If the rules arent acceptable then dont enter. I dont specifically setup or judge art contests but I do enter a lot of bowling tournaments and I help run a few tournaments and I have judged some scale model contests. And in almost all cases rules and entry guidelines are very specific about whats allowed and what's not allowed. (some you would swear you need a lawyer to unravel)
If all else fails contact the contest directors and ask questions if there are rules you dont understand before you submit entries to prevent problems or misunderstandings.

Leslie · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:09:54 AM »

Yep, putting a date on a painting is for historical archive purposes. Would be better to not sign a date of completion if getting into shows is all it's about.

~~Les~~

Curval · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:42:05 AM »

Leslie · « **Reply #10 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:56:43 AM »

Pic of what Curval?

Les

Airscrew · « **Reply #11 on:** January 18, 2006, 12:21:53 PM »

I believe he is wondering if you have a digitally rendered artifact that closely replicates the submitted then subsequently rejected artistic material.

A pic of the Pic

Curval · « **Reply #12 on:** January 18, 2006, 12:22:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airscrew
I believe he is wondering if you have a digitally rendered artifact that closely replicates the submitted then subsequently rejected artistic material.

A pic of the Pic

Correctamundo.

Stringer · « **Reply #13 on:** January 18, 2006, 12:27:03 PM »

Whew,
I thought Curv wanted a pic of Leslie in his birthday suit

That's for clearing that up

Flit · « **Reply #14 on:** January 18, 2006, 09:17:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Leslie
Bearing false witness doesn't apply here Seagoon. We're talking about a beautiful painting that's probably never been shown before. Only problem with that was, it wasn't done within the past two years...unless you count the cost of the framing and transportation and trouble it took to get the paintings to the show.

Alas, they're not professionals.
Les

I disagree with that. If you know the rules beforehand, and put the painting in anyway, then you were trying to get away with breaking the rules.
I 'm guessing that you have to sign something saying "I agree to abide by the rules blah blah, but even if your not you are still "bearing false witness" when you enter a contest with the intention of breaking the rules, especially for your own gain.