Photos courtesy Smithsonian Craft Show

This screen shot of JoAnne Russo’s baskets typifies the view jurors had at this year’s Smithsonian Craft Show all-digital jury session

In early November, I attended the final day of jurying for the 2002 Smithsonian Craft Show, to be held April 25-28 at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. Since the inception of the show in 1983, the Women’s Committee has enlisted nationally known craft and studio arts experts to painstakingly view each of the over 1,300 submissions and select just 120 to represent the finest of their media. This year was no different. … Except that for the first time, the three jurors viewed and scored images electronically. No slides, no projection screens, and no counting votes by hand; just monitors and images, and a variety of new capabilities that not only made the process faster, but better.

“I was very impressed by the process and by the [Women’s Committee] for paving the way,” says juror Heather Lineberry, senior curator of the Arizona State University Museum. Instead of using slide carousels with images projected onto one screen, each of the three jurors had their own computer and monitor. Each could scroll through the images and vote at their own pace with just the click of the mouse. “For artists with whom I was already familiar, I could spend less time, for those whose work I needed to study more, I could take more time,” says juror Bruce Pepich, director of the Charles A. Wustum Museum of Fine Arts in Wisconsin. “In this way, I believe I really saw each applicant’s work to the best degree of understanding, facilitating a more thoughtful selection.”

Unlike in years past, information about materials used in each piece could be accessed on the screen. Jurors were also able to click on an image and zoom in or out instantly. Jurors could view all five images from each applicant on one screen, or click each individual image and have it appear alone on the screen. Once they voted, the jurors could move forward to the next
submission, or back, if needed. At the end of the jury session, the computer tallied the votes in seconds. “I think this is actually a better way to jury a show,” says juror Beth Ann Gerstein, executive director of The Society of Arts and Crafts in Boston, “since each juror can score at their own speed, get detailed information on each piece by clicking on it, and can spend more time looking at an artist’s work.”

While the process went off without a hitch, the jury admits to having been skeptical. Of particular concern was the task of having to judge from an image on a computer monitor, and any limitations in image size and quality it would entail. “I had some concerns about the quality of the image on the computer screen … and not being able to see the very large projected image that we are all used to seeing in a standard jury process,” says Gerstein. However, all said they were pleased and impressed by the end result.

In fact, the images were impressive. On each of the three computer monitors, I expected to see a variance in color and clarity. But this was not the case. Each image was crisp and clear, and looked virtually identical on all three monitors. Even when the images were clicked on and enlarged, they still retained sharp colors and lines.

A look at this year’s jury session.

Another concern that Lineberry expressed was that of jury interaction. Because of the importance of this, particularly in the final round of voting in which jurors had to narrow the field from 262 applicants to 150, 30 of whom are selected as alternates, Lineberry was concerned that with the capability to vote at one’s own pace, jurors would have less discussion. However, I observed a great deal of conversation and was impressed at how much thought and consideration each piece was given in the final round. Although the jurors could move at their own speed, they stayed at the same pace and commented on nearly every piece.

Behind the scenes

Of course, none of this would have been possible without the direction and on-site support of a very knowledgeable technical team. Paul Fisher of FASTAC/World Art Group, based in Florida, developed the browser-based jury selection process. “A team of designers and programmers, led by Ryan Van Ryzin, worked closely with the [Smithsonian’s Women’s Committee],” says Fisher, “and took the existing process from a seven-day event of viewing thousands and thousands of slides, writing down and counting the votes, to three days.”

The jury “site” was self-contained on a CD and run through FASTAC’s own portable server. Once the jurors viewed the images and voted electronically, a software program instantly recorded them in a database and produced a final tally in seconds.

What the future holds

Fisher says that the electronic jury process, which cost the Smithsonian $16,500, can be shortened even more by allowing jurors to vote by remote in the first round, only having to be on site for the final rounds. He also hopes to add an online application option for next year, allowing entrants to submit their applications and
digital images online.

As for the future of this new system, it may be cost-prohibitive for every show to use it just yet, but the concept is definitely here to stay. According to Heidi Austreng, Smithsonian Women’s Committee program coordinator, the Smithsonian Craft Show can say goodbye to slide carousels and projectors for good.