What if SiTE:LAB Curated a High-Traffic ArtPrize Venue?
ArtPrize Seven brought some surprises and some things we've come to expect.
SiTE:LAB won the award for Outstanding Venue.
The Public Vote winner came from a venue which is regularly successful with the public.
What if SiTE:LAB curated a major venue?
2015 marked the fourth time SiTE:LAB has won outstanding venue at ArtPrize. They were one of five finalists the year they didn't win.
It's clear that ArtPrize juries love SiTE:LAB. It's also clear that there's a handful of venues that the public likes year after year. 14 of the 20 Public Vote finalists could be found at just three venues this year.
What if SiTE:LAB took over a venue which regularly sees a lot of visitors and a lot of success in the public vote?
It would be a fun experiment. It would also be a challenge for both SiTE:LAB and for the public.
SiTE:LAB excels at taking over large spaces and breathing new life into them. The large spaces give artists a lot of possibilities. It also gives visitors a chance to become immersed in the art. Moving the work to a busier area could make it more challenging for the artists to offer that same experience.
ArtPrize Seven featured 1,550 pieces of art at over 160 venues. It's challenging to see more than just a small fraction of the entries. It's unrealistic to think that the majority of those voting for the public awards will see more than a small portion of the entries and venues.
ArtPrize 2014 proved that the public and jury can find common ground when Anila Quayyum Agha’s "Intersections" won the Grand Prize from both the public and the jury. This year, Emily Kennerk’s “Whisper” was a finalist in the Installation category for both the public and the jury.
The public and jury don't have to agree. It's fine if they don't. However, it would be fun to see if the public and jury would find more common ground with a proven group like SiTE:LAB if more people had the opportunity to see their work.