PROJECT COMPETITION JUROR’S STATEMENTS
Tina Kukielski, Senior Curatorial Assistant, Whitney Museum of American Art
Nion McEvoy, CEO, Chronicle Books
Markus Seewald, Photo Editor, GEO magazine
TINA KUKIELSKI
If the submissions to the 2010 Project Competition might be taken as a barometer of our age, then these projects warn of a fragile moment. I saw this fragility manifest in views of foreclosed buildings due to the economic crisis; glimpses of vanishing natural phenomena due to global warming; and portraits of violence against and neglect of peoples across the globe due to complex networks of socio-political factors. We live in an emotional time teeming with reminders of our own mortality. But it is not without hope.
In selecting stand-out projects, we reckoned with similarities in subject, paying attention to what distinguished the eye of one photographer from the next. We saw an incredible uniqueness of vision such that our jobs were challenging and our discussions enlivening. Uniqueness was on our minds, however this is not the only criteria relevant in distinguishing future potential. We relied on the variety of our backgrounds as editor, publisher, and curator and shared those sometimes diverging and sometimes overlapping perspectives. Between the three of us we covered a lot of ground, as much as we could in the time allowed, and with the inevitable limits of own blind spots.
Most of all, what I took away from this experience as a juror was a rare chance to see what rests on the minds of artists working today across a broad spectrum of influence and interest. The documentary impulse was undeniable. Our surrounding environments are mesmerizing, albeit sobering at times. Yet to my surprise--through this veil of fragility--we identified signs of growth and recovery. A return to the basics of life: food, housing developments, and the repurposing of trash offered potentials and hope in our minds. The narrative of our age informed the backdrop for this jury. But in the end, we did what we had to do knowing all that we knew: we went with our gut.
NION MCEVOY
Our world is getting more awful and more amazing all the time--or at least it is now, which is all we really know. And part of the way we know it is through the remarkable images submitted by the photographers whose work we had the privilege to review.
Looking at several hundred portfolios is a daunting task. One has to adopt certain criteria so as not to be swept away on a remarkable tide of talent. This year, for example, there were a number of powerful stories of suffering, conflict, oppression and environmental catastrophe. How to rank one above the other? Social significance--the powerful truths of poverty, injustice, the environment and human rights--became one criterion, but not the only one.
The craftsmanship with which these and other stories were told was another, as was the artistic vision that elevates any subject above the predictable or the merely accomplished. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, the ability to communicate, to connect, to show us and allow us to experience the quieter pleasures of domestic life or spiritual dedication, of natty clothes in humble surroundings, of the puzzle of family heirlooms and heritage, and other ordinary moments transformed by an artist and a lens. We praised those works that took us deeply into worlds we did not know before, and those which we had passed by heedlessly, but now saw fresh and new.
MARKUS SEEWALD
Within two days we reviewed 671 entries, making a total of approximately 12,000 individual images. In general, I was impressed by the high quality of the work, which included conceptual, documentary, reportage, and art photography. Despite our different backgrounds, Tina, Nion, and I were all drawn mostly to those images that were about people and their destinies.
Stories that strike me most have a coherent concept, a clear focus, strong images, and a personal approach. During our two days of serving on the jury, our judgment was often immediate and clear, but there were some cases that I found difficult to evaluate. Sometimes a first favorite received a No, because the images couldn’t withstand a second viewing, and in other cases entries became stronger each time I looked at them.
Dana Popa’s winning work “Not Natasha” is a very personal view of young women who have been forced into prostitution and who have no rights. While this phenomenon is not new, Dana had the ability to tell their stories with much empathy.
Three other entries were selected as Juror’s Choice. I picked Toni Greaves’ work “Radical Love”. Not expecting so much joy behind the walls of a monastery, I find the images surprisingly fresh and positive. Toni also states that the young nun was encouraged to join the order by watching films on YouTube; I found her story overall complex and intense.
To view the winning project by Dana Popa, click here.
To view the Juror's Choice project by Hector Mediavilla, click here.
To view the Juror's Choice project by Justine Reyes, click here.
To view the Juror's Choice project by Toni Greaves, click here.