Tag Archives: Art

Artist Residencies Evaluation.

Finally someone took on the titanic task of evaluating Artist Residencies. Check it out:

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/best-artist-residencies-europe-1060478

Advertisements

ART IN SITU Context, Lima, Peru. Deadline: Aug. 11, 2017.

This contest is open to Peruvians, as well as residents in Peru. 

Conditions of the contest: https://goo.gl/kvffHP
Event on facebook: https://goo.gl/NFGJzU

Ricardo Palma Cultural Center
Av. Larco 770 – Miraflores

ARTE IN SITU is an artistic intervention contest of the lobby and foyer of the Ricardo Palma Cultural Center of the Municipality of Miraflores, open to all contemporary genres of visual arts. It proposes to encourage the creation of artistic projects for public spaces, as well as consolidate itself as a new showcase of proposals by young artists.

We are looking for innovative proposals that take an integral part of the spaces of the Ricardo Palma Cultural Center, taking into account the multifunctionality of the place and the various publics that pass through its spaces.

Full text (Spanish only): https://goo.gl/kvffHP

Call: From July 3 to August 11
Publication of finalists: August 18
Winners Publication: August 25
Opening: Thursday, October 19

Bauhaus Residence. Deadline: September 6, 2017

 

In the 1920’s the Masters’ Houses in Dessau became the epitome of an artist community of the twentieth century. This is where Walter Gropius, Oskar Schlemmer, Georg Muche, László Moholy-Nagy, Lyonel Feininger, Wassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee and their families lived next door to each other. Here they were joined by their friends and visitors. Artist collectives, artist couples and artist friendships developed here, with everyone working together in the open structure of the model homes located in a park. However, when the Bauhauslers left in 1933 the area became deserted and the work created as a result of the artistic effort was abandoned.

Since February 2016 the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation is enabling young international artists to once again live and work in the Schlemmer house – even if the restrictions of the perseveration of cultural heritage attached to the status of a UNESCO World Heritage Site are very strict. With the new format the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation would like to promote the current focus of attention on the Bauhaus heritage, revitalise the Masters’ Houses and in this context promote artistic and creative work of international significance which will then at the end of the residency period be displayed in the Gropius House until the Bauhaus anniversary in 2019.



Participation conditions

The programme is catering to artists with an overall interest in all those areas that are historically being represented by Bauhaus and that have developed from it until today: painting, design, textile, architecture, sculpture, photography, film.

Please appreciate the fact that the Open Call is not open to students. Teams are welcome.

Application (German or English):
Please apply using the application online form

We require the following information from you:

  • Your career development
  • A list of your previous exhibitions
  • The actual project that you will be working on during your stay at Bauhaus. This should be related to Bauhaus (approx. 2 pages). The project should also be tied to the Foundation’s annual topic in 2018 “Standards”. (Here we are looking at a survey of standards existing in building, living, life and works of art. How do we deal with measurability, rules and standards? How can we get off the beaten track of standards in the field of art? What influence does art have today on how we perceive standards?)
  • A motivation
  • An artist’s portfolio

Applications in paper or other formats will not be accepted and will therefore disqualify the applicant.

! ! ! Closing date for applications ! ! !
6 September 2017, 00 h (CET)


Announcement of the winners

In the autumn of 2017 two artists will be selected for the year 2018 by a jury. The winners will be announced through a press release at the end of October 2017.

Jury

The jury consists of Dr Claudia Perren, director of the Bauhaus Dessau
Foundation; Melanie Roumiguière, curator Hamburger Bahnhof Berlin (requested); Daniel
Herrmann, director of the Werkleitz Gesellschaft e.V.; Markus Hoffmann, guest artist 2017, and Dr Alexia Pooth, research associate of the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation.


The Foundation’s performances

The Bauhaus Dessau Foundation will provide the selected artists with the
following for three months:

  • Living and work space in the Schlemmer House
  • A monthly expense allowance of 1,200 Euros
  • Opportunities for giving presentations and performances and engaging in discussions during their stay
  • Support in their research work, in organising events along with technical assistance and public relations activities
  • Public presentations of their work in the Gropius House at the end of their stay where the work will remain until 2019

The artists‘ obligations

  • Purchase of the material required for their work
  • Medical and indemnity insurance
  • Visa
  • Living expenses, provisions

With the assistance of the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation, the artists are free to apply for additional external funding for their stay.


Artists-in-Residence time period

The three-monthly Artist-in-Residence stays will take place between April and October 2018 in consultation with the Foundation. You are expected to be present in Dessau.


Why The Tate Gallery is right to put on a queer art exhibition: Issues in justifying queer art, by Jonathon Austin

This is a repost of Jonathon Austin’s thesis, for the Master in Art Studies: Museum and Curatorial Studies, at the University of Porto, Faculty of Fine Arts. Thank you for sharing your point of view with us, Jonathon.

 

Why The Tate Gallery is right to put on a queer art exhibition.

Issues in justifying queer art
by Jonathon Austin

Abstract

Queer curating can be thought of as an attempt to dismantle heterosexist and normative concepts of society in contemporaneity embodied by the art museum. This means taking into consideration Art History’s discourse but also how history is being defined by values of present times. Sexual and gender dissidence is not usually taken into account in Art History as art and culture institutions remain rather conservative on the topic. One could even go to the length of saying one could attend a museum exhibition about Andy Warhol without learning about his sexuality. One could also claim that it is one irrelevant piece of information. Is identity irrelevant to the production of art? Are not sexual and gender identity part of one’s self construct? What or who determines its relevance to the production of art to the point of eliminating it from the historical discourse? Given the apparent irrelevance why does this seem to call forth a clash between outrage for censorship measures and free expression in a discussion still kept alive to this day? Queer art attempts to make the point that an alternative history can be told because Art History is generally uninterested in its issues. This is not to say that queer is the only account to be told in history’s discourse but it’s an account that has not been told for institutions keep choosing to maintain it that way. This paper finds its justification on the premise that a queer perspective is inviting to think of the multiple worlds in which art is produced and enjoyed and the difference of artistic expression in private and public forms. This paper is titled with the exact opposite premise of a famous newspaper article intended to perpass a queer art exhibition by The Tate Gallery as wrong and unnecessary. The arguments used here are made in an attempt to contradict the aforementioned article’s arguments while several past queer art exhibitions are brought up as support evidence to justify them.

 

Keywords: queer curatorship; Queer Theory; art; LGBTQI+

 

 

Following the celebration of half a century upon the decriminalization of male homosexuality in England, The Tate Gallery has announced its first LGBTQ-related British art exhibition with artworks ranging from 1867 to 1967. The Tate has given good grounds for the public to expect an exhibition where it will be possible to explore art from a century marked by the evolution of the concepts of gender and sexuality. From political to erotic themes, the artworks to be shown are to reveal a variety of personal stories from individuals whose identity and sense of belonging to a community were still in development as the LGBTQI+ acronym wasn’t yet recognized[1].

Views on why such an exhibition is wrong and unneeded have been expressed, this being a contested position in attempts to underline the necessity of the first exhibition of this kind to be organized by The Tate. The claim that our society has been losing the capacity to react to art freely because of its fixation on sexuality[2] calls indeed for the recognition that the concepts to be dealt with by this exhibition reflect the dominance in our society of the concepts of gender and sexual identity – as these are dominant traits in our thinking. In spite of this, these definitions are a cause for celebration since the decriminalization of male homosexuality (as lesbianism had never really been criminalized by the law) marks an important turning point in the history of LGBTQI+ people.

The Tate exhibition proposes a queer lens through which great art can be experienced by the public. This is a valid analysis perspective of art by artists who might have identified themselves with the recently reclaimed meaning of queer to different degrees. This means a queer lens can uncover lost or hidden meanings and stories in art from a time when queer feelings, desires and thoughts were repressed or hidden for the simple sake of survival. A queer aesthetic might even be exposed since the imagery and self-expression of queer identities were kept out of sight or concealed from normative society, thus allowing the possibility of a new and informed gaze upon issues around gender and identity politics of the 19th and 20th centuries. This is only one way through which art can be examined as different stories can be told according to the lens used to find meaning.

The relevance of grouping artists such as David Hockney, Duncan Grant, Francis Bacon and Keith Vaughan based on their sexual preferences was also questioned. Queer is not equivalent to homosexual as it refers to a much extensive spectrum of identity possibilities through variation of the normative concepts of gender and sexuality. Thus, queer art exhibitions or art queering exhibitions promote a critical standpoint to the institutionalized art exhibition as a symbol of hierarchical power and the ways by which cultural institutions act as education mediators and influence thinking and taste in the making of history’s discourse. This can better be understood if linked to the theories and practices defended by New Institutionalism and Institutional Critique. These theories promote a series of questioning tools to a better understanding of ways art institutions can become more inclusive of the society they fit in and represent – this marks a move from the classical museum towards the new politically and socially engaged art institution which is critical of its own functions and mechanisms of action. These also attempt to analyze the way naturally taken historic discourses are in fact socially and politically constructed to maintain a status quo.

The exhibition “neoqueer” at Seattle’s Center on Contemporary Art (2004) makes an effort to contest the idea that queer art is always regarded in association with sexuality. As stated by the curators, instead of specifically looking for homoerotism and queer content, the show focused on modern art, with quality and originality as key concepts – and not sexual orientation[3]. Although without a defining theme, or at least with an ambiguous one, the show asks the question of what it means to be LGBTQI+ and what role does sexuality play in an artist’s work – a necessary dialogue between queer artists and the public in order to dismantle preconceived ideas about queer art. The show does not portray the usual stories drawn up by queer shows that focus on the political statements of the previous century marked by the sexual revolution, nor does it solely present homoerotic drawings as art. Indeed, the collection of works selected by the curators range from the poetic to the provocative and the explicit. It tries to push queer beyond those boundaries, indicating an ever increasing trend towards “subtlety and individualism”[4].

Looking beyond the issue of whether Tate’s queer art exhibition should have gender and sexuality transgression as a worthy cause for celebration or should solely serve the purpose of reminding us of our obsession with these definitions[5], perhaps it would be more constructive when seen as a particular position or place that allows critical thinking about the paradigm of these issues given the symbolic date. By simply giving viewers a critical lens on why and under what circumstances gender and sexuality have become dominant in our thinking, this exhibition has a plausible reason to exist. Furthermore, it can help the public question the relationship between normative society and transgressive queer identity.

While trying to prove the point that this exhibition is wrong and unnecessary there’s a failure in questioning the definition of queer and the representation of queer in all its extension of identity possibilities. This is a common issue of art exhibitions titled and advertised as queer nowadays resulting in attempts to essentialize queer identity and stripping it down to the white homosexual figure. Queer art exhibitions are a way of depicting queer issues and experiences in an effort that stretches way beyond the necessity of making the institutional art world a more inclusive space. Museum studies and curatorship practice must be informed about Queer Theory in order to not pass on discourses perpetuating the construction of concepts such as gender and sexual identity based on normativity[6]. This is where an intersectional perspective must be adopted in order to fully explore the potential of queer identity without neglecting other categories and dimensions of experience and sensibility.

Categorizing a queer show as gay is biased and reductive. This is not a promotion of the condition of being gay or queer but instead a question of visibility. Being visible means being acknowledged as part of society and thus, requires being given the opportunity to be seen, heard and represented. Being visible means existing. Essentializing queer down to the homosexual figure means omitting a wide range of fleeting self-identification possibilities between the gender and sexuality spectrum.

Attempting to pass through this kind of exhibition as unneeded by arguing that everybody knows there are artists who are queer only adds to the institutional conservatism in the art world that accounts as part of the reason why queer identities still lack representation. A queer exhibition makes a contribution so that queer identities and content aren’t still only tolerated by normative society. Whenever consuming any form of culture people tend to look for signs of themselves and of a community in which they fit. Queer individuals, perhaps to a greater extent than average exhibition visitors who do not identify as queer, seek these spaces that celebrate their community, culture and history.

Exploring and digging up queer content in works of art is different from searching for a queer sensibility hidden behind imagery but a combined approach of the two would be rather interesting in making perceptible to the viewer the intricate complexity of queer identity through its aesthetics, sensibilities and content, and also its difficult relationship with the normative workings of society[7]. The viewer would be prompted to ask himself if some stories are queer in essence despite whether they portray or not queer content, and if some stories are not queer in essence (i.e. heteronormative) despite of whether or not queer content is portrayed. What then is queer content and queer sensibility?

There seems to exist understandable confusion as to what queer stands for in our days, with much prejudice arising from the distortion of its ambiguous meaning. It does not refer to an identity’s specific essence and thus, does not refer specifically and intrinsically to LGBT individuals. Queer can instead be thought of as the corporealization of an experience or sensibility which uses a discourse that intimately connects the personal/intimate and the social/public realms in an attitude of resistance and self-affirmation. Artistic production in this context aims the questioning and challenging of dominant ways of production and representation in art and it can ally itself with the subversion of traditional form, genre, structure and aesthetic in art. This approach consequently results in a form of provoking and experimenting which celebrates at the same time its transgressive characteristics – what keeps it from being absorbed into normative behavior and thinking.

In reply to the question of the validity in jumping to conclusions by labelling something or someone as queer, a queer perspective can be applied even to art produced by artists who do not specifically identify as queer. To queer or queering refers to this method which the institutional art world can apply to be more socially inclusive at least to the length of bringing visibility issues under the spotlight. Assuming this method is only concerned with exploring homosexual individuals and content in art is wrong as it concerns everything and everyone that characterizes as transgressive, as in not corresponding to societal norms in terms of sexual and gender identity and power structures based on that. Queering works of art not only contributes to making visible these individuals but can also provide viewers some initial support for understanding and accepting it. Furthermore, it can uncover hidden information that can be useful for another understanding of these works and artists. This does not mean ignoring already known traits of works as this method can additionally incorporate them into constructions of different interpretative meanings. A queer perspective on art does not neglect a work’s theme and try to replace it with the word queer – usually in association with sexuality. Moreover, it does not obliterate or deny previous values of an artwork but it can add more information to them. This is not to say that a queer lens is the only valid perspective an artist’s work is to be analyzed, interpreted or enjoyed.

A queer perspective can be sustained by drawing up Umberto Eco’s discussion about the open work of art. The notions of completeness and openness refer to the viewer’s reception of a work as an authorial construction of communicative engagement with the viewer[8]. Each individual can participate in dialogue with the piece through stimulus, being that this is dependent on their receptiveness, sensibility and capacity to respond. In this response, the viewer presents an overview of his own being, an amalgamation of beliefs, tastes, and prejudices. The original work’s meaning conceived by the artist is thus later adapted by the receptacle that is each individual with different perspectives formed by personal and cultural backgrounds.

Without invalidating any sense of original significance, these different approaches of viewing and understanding a work’s meaning make a work of art on the one hand open to numerous external susceptibilities of interpretation, and on the other a complete and unique product by the specificity imprinted on it by its maker. Assessing a work of art requires, not necessarily to the same degree, interpretation and performance, resulting in an intricate meeting between the viewer’s personal experience and the artist’s imprinted signifying connotations.

In this sense, a queer analysis of art proposes only one possible different approach which requires a new set of questions in finding meaning behind works. Queering, in a museum context, foresees the questioning of how museums collect. In curatorial practice, it questions the selection of the pieces altogether. In both cases, it makes the viewer wonder which narratives are depicted and which ones are omitted to construct a discourse or stimulate discussion[9].

Subjective perceptions of artworks by the viewer can be seen in parallel to the camp aesthetic. Although it is difficult to pin it down to a specific aesthetic, camp refers to a queer sensibility and sense of humor with its use of the theatrical and kitsch. Its discourse hasn’t always been so out and well integrated into popular culture as it is now with its beginnings reporting to a subversion of the mainstream and queer subjects being both the producers and consumers of this coded language. Camp was about elevating the low culture of the repressed, giving queer individuals opportunity to challenge representations in normative discourses. As dominant culture absorbed the camp aesthetic, a queer sensibility found its way to the core of mass popular entertainment. Although the glitter and diva-icons, as Gordon Hall points out, are essentializing images and direct references to queer, the camp sensibility hasn’t only been present in artistic expressions made by and for queers but extends itself to imagery with not necessarily queer innuendo.

Popular music by David Bowie and Cher – representing androgynous glam-rock and sense of style in the pop/dance music scene -, drag performance with satire and parody and the vogue dance style all make up references to burlesque entertainment and the MGM musical and film scene of the 40’s. Camp embodies this set sumptuosity, elaborate costumes, dazzling dance moves and stars such as Judy Garland – a timeless icon in queer culture. The spectacle element aiming the viewer’s fascination is adopted by camp to engage in dialogue with dominant culture, presenting resistance to normative values and representational systems mainly concerned with sexuality and gender[10]. Androgyny, drag performance and vogueing are praised for the ability to dismantle the gender normative concept while presenting exaggerated forms of both edges of the binary. Theatricality, entertainment and humor are weapons used to show reversed social norms about gender and sexual identity. Drag and camp illustrate and support Judith Butler’s definition of gender as a performance as opposed to a false idea of gender identity based on essence.

Camp is also an open work as its nature is dual, lending its features to products that are not conceived as such by their creators. This sensibility can be either imprinted onto objects when they are consumed by the public – such as Judy Garland’s Dorothee in The Wizard of Oz – or be deliberately created by artists – this being the case of Andy Warhol or drag performers. Camp is thus found in the experience of the viewer and in the object’s traits.

Warhol’s persona adopted the camp extravagant sensibility although contemporary discourses on the artist have often been evasive on the subject of his sexuality, omitting the influence it had in his work and in the queer climate of the 60’s [11]. Surely, a queer reading of Warhol doesn’t seem to be unconvincing if one takes the cover of the Rolling Stones’ Sticky Fingers depicting a crotch in skinny jeans, or the images of drag queens in Ladies and Gentlemen, or even the polaroids in Torsos and Sex Parts of men recruited in gay saunas having sex. Institutional and critical conservatism is rather obvious when works depicting queer content this explicit are not commonly shown and stay hidden in museum archives such as Warhol’s many experimental films – the most explicit being Blow Job showing an act of oral sex between two men and My Hustler with a plot of an intergenerational lust triangle involving three men[12].

Queer speaks of an unstable and precarious position towards dismantling normative constructions of the self[13]. This position is fundamentally a sensibility – not an essence of gender or sexual identity or any kind of essentialism[14] – engaged with the ways of being oneself. The aesthetic of the queer work of art is related to art production in the context of the civil liberation movements of the 70’s, and more prominently to feminist art. This means queer art reclaims experiences that aren’t “historically valued in the white-hetero-masculine system” [15] as a form of attack of political and social structures of gender and sexuality. With its unstable and undefinable nature, queer seeks to destabilize the sense of established natural being, the performance of everyday normative life, queering the status quo instead of reaffirming it[16]. Queer’s refusal to support and perpetuate societal norms and power structures strives for other possibilities to be constructed, which is why queer opens a whole dimension for new perceptions in art[17].

Artworks speak a lot about their makers and what significance they have received by their makers’ specificity. What if they could teach us a lesson about the ways we perceive? Gordon Hall claims they show how to see gender and bodies differently in a non-normative way, which means art could be a valuable resource for thinking about sexuality and gender even if imagery of queer experiences is not depicted[18]. Artworks are usually described as queer when portraying LGBTQI+ individuals, when produced by LGBTQI+ artists or when referencing to their culture by including tangible forms of queer aesthetics. Hall references characteristics that immediately refer the viewer’s mind to queer aesthetics, taking this phenomenon as an essentializing issue: “[…] the glitter problem. Or the leather problem. Or the pink-yarn, 1970s-crafts, iconic-diva, glory-hole, pre-AIDS-sexuality, post-AIDS-sexuality, bodies and body-parts, blood-and-bodily-fluids problem”[19]. This calls forward the question if it’s possible to find queer meaning in non-representation or pure formalism without any kind of overt queer context such as “dicks, vaginas, menstrual blood, references to Jean Genet, cum, anuses, bondage, surgery scars, reclaimed pronouns”[20].

Hall takes the difficult example of minimalist sculpture – as objects with no apparent resonance of gender in their form – in relation to queer content. If it’s possible to point out gender constructs in blank, monochrome and consistent objects it means a queer gaze of physicality and psychological associations can be applied to objects that are not queer in essence even when queer content is not portrayed – as minimalist sculpture appears completely devoid of narrative and symbolism. The only communication being made is through their placement in time and space – it’s the physicality of objects what allows intimate interaction with the viewer’s position and architectural setting.

Without wanting to claim that only queer art exhibitions are targets of controversy and censorship, they are no strangers at all to one another, despite this being an era where supposedly queer people are seen as equal. As expected, anything that disturbs the normative functioning and thinking of society always generates some critical backlash. The negative response, coming either from the public, institutions or patrons, seems stronger when political and religious views are put up against a wall to be challenged and objected.

Warhol’s mural 13 Most Wanted Men (1964) for the World’s Fair depicts prison photos of outlaw men in America. The work caused political controversy and was ultimately erased despite the artist’s already established status. The choice of subject challenged norms of taste in society and in the arts, containing coded language reporting to queer desire, thus being dissed by critics and censored by authorities. The images present the double meaning of most-wanted, as in criminals searched by the police and receptacles of desire. Moreover, this represents a form of outlaw desire if the gaze is male.

Three queer art exhibitions illustrate the sort of censorship that lies deep in the art world nowadays as it did back in 1964. The recent “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture” (2010-2011) at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery was targeted by right-wing political and religious figures demanding control over the choice of works to be displayed. It was demanded the removal of Wojnarowicz’s video Fire In My Belly (1987). This piece, an excellent metaphor of the AIDS crisis, showed a crucifix covered in ants. The pressure was felt as the building was threatened to be closed in spite of the exhibition not being funded by public money. The video ended up being removed but the issue gave rise to a necessary discussion about what art was worthy of public funding and what kind of art was really displayed at public art institutions if not one censored within a controlled constructed discourse[21].

The slogan “silence = death”[22] doesn’t seem so far removed from the reality of nowadays as artworks and artists continue to be erased from sight to protect and not offend others[23]. One of the show’s curators, Jonathan Katz, has spoken about the urgency for “queer political advocacy” taking into consideration that this show had been numerous times rejected to be presented at various museums throughout the US[24].

Public funding of art exhibitions has some history of controversy. Regarding the issue of the AIDS crisis, the exhibition curated by Nan Goldin “Witnesses: Against our Vanishing” (1989), in part funded by public money, was caught up in great scandal created by political forces as well as the public. The exhibition catalogue criticized the lack of government and church funding for the AIDS cause, resulting in the cancellation of the grant given the public pressure to cut back on what kind of art should receive federal funds.

In comparison, “Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment” (1990)[25] has also seen a huge proportion of backlash against the homoerotic themed photographs it displayed. The CAC’s director was even legally charged for promoting obscenity in some of the show’s explicit photographs displaying S&M gay sex and child nudity[26]. The show, intended to be a retrospective view on the late openly homosexual artist’s work, ultimately came under the spotlight of the public, resulting in political debates about federal art funding. These debates mainly approached the topic of depiction of gay S&M imagery[27].

The exhibitions, even though different in terms of aim for public audience and location, suffered immense backlash from the public against queer content, resulting in chaos for political forces in managing the issue between funding and explicit content. Both exhibitions from last century, distant in two decades from “Hide/Seek”, show public rage toward queer art funding and is still present nowadays although a dramatic shift has been felt in public opinion with greater acceptance becoming the norm[28].

 

References (APA)

 

Bastos-Stanek, M. (2016). The Contested History of Queer Themes in American Art Exhibitions. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from https://umasshistory.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/the-contested-history-of-queer-themes-in-american-art-exhibitions/

 

Earnest, J. (2013). Contemporary Art and Queer Aesthetics. San Francisco Arts Quarterly. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://sfaq.us/2013/10/contemporary-art-and-queer-aesthetics/

 

Eco, U. (1989). The Poetics of the Open Work. In The Open Work (pp. 1-23). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Hall, G. (2013). Object Lessons: Thinking Gender Variance through Minimalist Sculpture. Art Journal, 72 (4).

 

Hirsch, F. (2011). Hide/Seek Curator Speaks Up at CAA. Art in America. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/caa-jonathan-katz/

 

Jagose, A. (1996). Queer Theory: an introduction. New York: New York University Press.

 

Nguyen, V. T. (2013). Towards a Queer Intersectional Museology (Masters dissertation in Museum Studies). University of Sydney.

 

Prono, L (2007). Encyclopedia of gay and lesbian popular culture. Santa Barbara: Greenwood.

 

Sirkin, H. L. (2016). Why I defended Mapplethorpe’s ‘obscene’ ‘Perfect Moment’. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/10/why-i-defended-mapplethorpes-obscene-perfect-moment/

 

Steorn, P. (2010). Queer in the museum: Methodological reflections on doing queer in museum collections. Lambda Nordica, (3-4), 119-122. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.lambdanordica.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2010-34-Steorn-Museum.pdf.

 

Street-Porter, J. (2016). The Tate Gallery is wrong to put on a ‘queer’ art exhibition. Retrieved December 05, 2016, from http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tate-gallery-wrong-put-on-queer-art-exhibition-a6996351.html

 

Tate (2016). Queer British Art 1861–1967 – Exhibition at Tate Britain | Tate. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/queer-british-art-1861-1967

 

Trescott, J. (2010). After Smithsonian exhibit’s removal, banned ant video still creeps into gallery. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120607328.html

[1] Tate (2016).

[2] Street-Porter, J. (2016).

[3] Potterf, T. (2004).

[4] Potterf, T. (2004).

[5] Street-Porter, J. (2016).

[6] Nguyen, V. T. (2013).

[7] Hall, G. (2013).

[8] Eco, U. (1989).

[9] Steorn, P. (2010).

[10] Prono, L (2007). P. 52

[11] Prono, L (2007). P. 278.

[12] Prono, L. (2007). Pp. 276-277.

[13] Jagose, A. (1996). Pp. 76-77.

[14] Attribution to each gender of a fixed essence taken as natural, which is determined by biological, physical and psychological traits.

[15] Earnest, J. (2013).

[16] Earnest, J. (2013). Reference to Judith Butler’s theory of performance of gender in which gender is seen as a performance and thus, an exteriorization of identity through behavior and physical appearance. This performance of gender can perpetuate societal constraints that support the gender binary system – as in taking on a role from the binary to reproduce and reaffirm it.

[17] Jagose, A. (1996). P. 76-77.

[18] Hall, G. (2013). Pp. 46-57.

[19] Hall, G. (2013). P. 47.

[20] Hall, G. (2013). P. 47.

[21] Trescott, J. (2010).

[22] Reference to ACT UP’s 1987 activist project that draws a parallel between the governmental indifference toward the AIDS crisis and the Nazi period concerning the oppression the homosexual community has suffered.

[23] Bastos-Stanek, M. (2016).

[24] Hirsch, F. (2011).

[25] Contemporary Arts Center Cincinnati.

[26] Sirkin, H. L. (2016).

[27] Bastos-Stanek, M. (2016).

[28] Bastos-Stanek, M. (2016)

Technology and Arts Prize. Deadline: March 3, 2017

STARTS Prize 2017 – Grand prize of the European Commission honoring Innovation in Technology, Industry and Society stimulated by the Arts

Appointed by the European Commission, Ars Electronica, BOZAR and Waag Society are launching a prize to select the most pioneering collaborations and results in the field of creativity and innovation at the crossings of science and technology with the arts. This follows the launch of a new activity in the European Commission named STARTS: Innovation at the nexus of Science, Technology, and the ARTS.

Science, Technology and Arts (=STARTS) form a nexus with an extraordinarily high potential for creative innovation. And such innovation is considered to be precisely what’s called for if we’re to master the social, ecological and economic challenges that Europe will be facing in the near future. The role of artists thus is no longer seen to be just about propagating scientific and technological knowledge and skills among the general public but much more as a kind of catalyst that can inspire and trigger innovative processes. The artistic practice of creative exploration and experimental appropriation of new technologies has a wide reaching potential to contribute to the development of new products and new economic, social and business models. Accordingly, the STARTS Prize focuses on artistic works that influence or change the way we look at technology, and on innovative forms of collaboration between the ICT sector and the world of art and culture.

Two prizes, each with €20,000 prize money, are offered to honor innovative projects at the intersection of science, technology and the arts: one for artistic exploration, and thus projects with the potential to influence or change the way technology is deployed, developed or perceived, and one for innovative collaboration between industry/technology and art/culture in ways that open up new paths for innovation.

Grand Prize—Artistic Exploration
Awarded for artistic exploration and art works where appropriation by the arts has a strong potential to influence or alter the use, deployment or perception of technology.

Grand Prize—Innovative Collaboration
Awarded for innovative collaboration between industry or technology and the arts that opens new pathways for innovation.

Submit now! The STARTS prize open call will end on March 3rd, 2017.

Entry details
Rights
Evaluation

Fellowship Program for Art and Theory in Austria. Deadline: Jan 27, 2017

FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM AT KÜNSLERHAUS BÜCHSENHAUSEN, AUSTRIA.

—German version below—

Call For Applications

Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen invites visual and media artists, art critics, theorists, and curators to apply for a fellowship in 2017–2018. Candidates can apply for one semester (October 2, 2017 – February 11, 2018 or February 12, 2018 – June 24, 2018). The fellowship can be split across two semesters.

The closing date for submissions is 27 January 2017 (postmark).
For details regarding the application procedure please scroll down.

Institution

Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen is a post-graduate center for production, research, exchange in the fields of visual arts and art theory. Within the framework of the Fellowship Program for Art and Theory, the Künstlerhaus provides a platform that facilitates the development and production of artistic and art-theoretical projects in a critical context. At the same time, Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen offers a forum for direct exchange between professionals – artists, theoreticians, critics, and curators – from the region and abroad, as well as a point of interaction with local interested audiences. Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen is affiliated with the Tyrolean Artists’ Association, the major association of visual artists from the region.

Büchsenhausen brings together two programs under one roof. On the one hand, it is the site of the Fellowship Program for Art and Theory. On the other hand, it is the location of several studios for artists based in Tyrol who require space for working in a professionally interesting environment. Three apartment studios are used by the participants in the fellowship program. The other six studios are available to artists based in Tyrol. The project and presentation space is equipped with multimedia facilities and is at the fellows’ disposal. The space was designed by Atelier van Lieshout.

Fellowship Program

With its Fellowship Program for Art and Theory, Büchsenhausen promotes internationally relevant artistic production, research, and discussion in the region of Tyrol. The program is based on the idea of generating and maintaining a context for production and discussion, in which artists and theorists can connect and reflect on international art and societal discourses in relation to local topics and issues. At the same time, it affords the opportunity for an artistic laboratory of experimentation, where new artistic practices and strategies may be tried out.

The program’s aims are:

  • to promote and relay a critical, socially relevant production of knowledge in art and art theory;
  • to produce, through the fellowship projects, qualified discourses on art and society within the local and global contexts;
  • to enable the transfer of knowledge between the field of art and other publics outside the art context;
  • to facilitate the exchange between cultural producers in the visual arts and beyond (creating a network of experts).

The program combines the advantages of a residency with the possibilities of a postgraduate, non-university lectureship on the basis of an open, non-formalized structure. In terms of content, the program addresses a worldwide public made up of professionals in the fields of contemporary art, architecture, art and media theory, and criticism.

The fellows are selected by a jury of experts following an open call for applications. They come to Büchsenhausen for one or two semesters to work on realizing their proposed undertaking, and accompany this process with public events. For this purpose, Büchsenhausen assigns a monetary award and provides a production budget, working spaces, free lodging, and artistic and technical advice.

The conveyance and discussion of the fellow’s own work occurs parallel to the development of the individual proposals. The focus of the public events is determined by the respective emphases of the various fellows’ works. Within the framework of these discursive formats, the fellows (or their guests) can present various points in their investigations, open up their works-in-progress to critical discussion, interact with experts who they invite, work through content with the public, and/or try out new ways of working. The fellowship year ends with a group exhibition curated by the director of the Fellowship Program.

For former and current fellows and their realized work please go to buchsenhausen.at/fellows.

Fellowship

  • a money award of EUR 3,200;
  • an individual studio for working and living, furnished with a large shared kitchen;
  • a production budget for the realization of the submitted proposal;
  • a budget for inviting experts to Büchsenhausen for the purpose of professional exchange;
  • the opportunity of a group exhibition at the end of the fellowship;

Facilities

  • free access to the ‘Lab’, the project/gallery space;
  • free use of the available multimedia production equipment in the ‘Lab’;
  • free Highspeed-DSL/WLAN Internet access;
  • professional artistic advice;
  • technical advice if required.

Eligibility

Professional visual/media artists, art theorists, art critics, and curators from all over the world are eligible for the fellowship.

Requirements

The application must include a concrete work proposition. Work on the submitted proposal forms the core of each fellow’s activities during his/her stay in Büchsenhausen. A description of a series of public events intended to accompany the individual work during the duration of the fellowship (up to three events) is also an integral part of the working proposal. If the application is successful, the fellows are required to specify the details of the presentation series and carry out the proposed program.

The fellows declare themselves willing to be present at Büchsenhausen for the duration of the fellowship. Working knowledge of English is required.

Selection

The selection of fellows is made by a jury of experts and based on the quality, originality, and relevance of the proposed undertaking and the work samples submitted by the applicants. The jury includes the director of Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen, a member of the advisory board at Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen and one external expert.

The selection procedure occurs in two stages.

In the first stage, the submitted applications are evaluated and the jury makes a shortlist of candidates who will be invited to Büchsenhausen for personal interviews.

The personal interview with the jury forms the second stage. For the interview, the applicants have to come to Innsbruck to personally present their working plans and aims during the fellowship.

Büchsenhausen will pay for accommodation in Innsbruck for one night, but cannot cover the costs for travel to Innsbruck. Alternatively, a video conference (for instance via Skype) is also possible.

There is no legal right to be awarded a fellowship at Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen. The jury is therefore under no obligation to justify decisions. The jury’s decision will be communicated in written form in March 2017 (first stage) and April 2017 (second stage).

Application procedure

Applications are to be written in English or German. Applications must include the following printed documents:

  • the working proposal (max 2,000 words, 3 copies);
  • a visual portfolio/documentation of recent works:
    • artists: The artistic portfolio can be submitted in paper form (max. 2 catalogs, max. 10 photos), on DVD, CD or USB stick (max. 1 DVD/CD/USB stick), or digitally via a permanent link (no time-limited download links like WeTransfer!);
    • theorists/art critics: 1 recent writing sample (3 copies);
  • a curriculum vitae (3 copies);
  • the printed and signed confirmation e-mail of the filled electronic application form (1 copy).

Please note that all documents except the visual artists’ portfolios have to be sent in paper form by post.

The electronic application form can be completed in English or German language. By submitting the online form you will get a confirmation e-mail with the completed data. A copy will be sent to our office too.
Please print the confirmation e-mail, sign it and send it together with the required material to the address given below.
If you have problems with the online application form or need any additional information please contact us via email: office@buchsenhausen.at

The address to which the applications must be posted is:

  • Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen
    Ref.: “Fellowship 2017–18”
    Weiherburggasse 13
    6020 Innsbruck
    Austria

Closing date for submissions (postmark): Friday 27 January 2017

Please note that only submissions sent by post are accepted.
Too late received and incomplete applications will not be included in the selection process.

» Click here for the electronic application form

—English version above—

CALL FOR APPLICATION

Ausschreibung

Das Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen lädt bildende Künstler_innen, Kritiker_innen, Theoretiker_innen und Kurator_innen ein, Arbeitsvorhaben für ein Fellowship im Jahr 2017/18 einzureichen. Die Bewerber_innen können um ein Fellowship für ein Semester ansuchen (2. Oktober 2017 – 11. Februar 2018 oder 12. Februar 2018 – 24. Juni 2018). Das Fellowship kann auf zwei Semester aufgeteilt werden.

Einsendeschluss ist Freitag 27. Januar 2017 (es gilt das Datum des Poststempels).
Um Einzelheiten zum Bewerbungsablauf zu erfahren, bitte hinunter scrollen.

Institution

Das Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen ist ein postgraduales Zentrum für Produktion, Forschung und Vermittlung im Bereich der visuellen Künste und der Kunsttheorie. Im Rahmen des hier stattfindenden Fellowship-Programms stellt das Künstlerhaus eine Plattform zur Verfügung, die die Entwicklung und die Produktion künstlerischer und kunsttheoretischer Projekte in einem kritischen Kontext ermöglicht. Das Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen bildet gleichzeitig ein Forum für den direkten Austausch zwischen lokal und überregional tätigen Fachleuten – Künstler_innen, Theoretiker_innen, Kritiker_innen und Kurator_innen sowie eine Schnittstelle zu unterschiedlichen Öffentlichkeiten vor Ort. Das Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen ist eine Einrichtung der Tiroler Künstlerschaft, der wichtigsten Vereinigung bildender Künstler_innen in der Region.

Das Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen vereint zwei Förderprogramme unter einem Dach: Es ist einerseits Austragungsort des Fellowship-Programms für Kunst und Theorie. Andererseits ist es ein Atelierhaus für in Tirol lebende Künstler_innen, die einen Arbeitsraum in einer künstlerisch interessanten Umgebung suchen. Drei Ateliers stehen den Fellows als Wohnstudios zur Verfügung. Sechs weitere Ateliers werden mehrjährig an Künstler_innen aus Tirol vergeben. Neben den Ateliers verfügt das Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen über einen großen Projekt- und Präsentationsraum, der den Fellows zur Verfügung steht. Der Raum wurde vom Künstler_innen-Kollektiv Atelier van Lieshout gestaltet.

Fellowship-Programm

Mit dem Fellowship-Programm für Kunst und Theorie fördert das Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen in Tirol eine künstlerische Produktion, Forschung und Diskussion von internationaler und regionaler Relevanz. Dem Programm liegt die Idee zugrunde, einen Produktions- und Diskussionskontext zu generieren, in dem Künstler_innen und Theoretiker_innen überregionale Kunst- und Gesellschaftsdiskurse mit lokalen Themen in Zusammenhang bringen und reflektieren. Gleichzeitig wird die Möglichkeit eines künstlerischen Experimentierlabors gewahrt, wodurch Neues ausprobiert werden kann.

Ziele des Programms sind:

  • Förderung und Verbreitung einer kritischen, gesellschaftsrelevanten künstlerischen bzw. kunsttheoretischen Wissensproduktion;
  • Die Produktion qualifizierter Diskurse zu Kunst und Gesellschaft im lokalen und globalen Kontext durch die Umsetzung der Arbeitsvorhaben im Rahmen der Fellowships;
  • Die Ermöglichung des Wissenstransfers zwischen dem Kunstfeld und anderen Öffentlichkeiten außerhalb des Kunstkontextes;
  • Der Austausch zwischen Kulturproduzent_innen im Bereich der visuellen Künste und darüber hinaus (Vernetzung von Expert_innen).

Das Programm verbindet die Vorteile einer Residenz mit den Möglichkeiten einer außeruniversitären Dozentur auf Grundlage einer offenen, nicht formalisierten Struktur. Inhaltlich richtet sich das Programm an eine weltweite Fachöffentlichkeit in den Bereichen zeitgenössischer Kunst, Architektur, Kunst- bzw. Medientheorie und -kritik.

Die Fellows werden nach einem offenen Bewerbungsverfahren von einer Fachjury ausgewählt. Sie kommen für einen Zeitraum von ein bis zwei Semestern nach Büchsenhausen, wo sie am eingereichten Arbeitsvorhaben arbeiten und diesen Prozess in öffentlichen Veranstaltungen diskursiv begleiten. Büchsenhausen vergibt hierfür einen Geldpreis und stellt ein Produktionsbudget, Arbeitsräume, eine kostenlose Wohnmöglichkeit sowie fachliche und technische Beratung zur Verfügung.

Die Vermittlung und Diskussion der Inhalte erfolgt parallel zur Entwicklung der einzelnen Vorhaben. Die Inhalte der öffentlichen Veranstaltungen werden von dem jeweiligen Arbeitsschwerpunkt der Fellows vorgegeben. Im Rahmen dieser diskursiven Formate präsentieren die Fellows (oder ihre Gäste) unterschiedliche Schwerpunkte ihrer Investigationen, können aber auch ihre laufende Arbeit einer kritischen Diskussion stellen, sich in Interaktion mit eingeladenen Expert_innen und dem Publikum Inhalte erarbeiten und neue Arbeitsweisen erproben. Das Fellowship-Jahr endet mit einer Gruppenausstellung, die vom Leiter des Fellowship-Programms kuratiert wird.

Beispiele für Arbeitsvorhaben, die im Rahmen des Programms realisiert wurden, finden sich auf dieser Website unter dem Menü-Punkt buchsenhausen.at/fellows.

Fellowship

  • ein Geldpreis in der Höhe von EUR 3.200,–
  • ein Wohnstudio mit einer großen gemeinsamen Küche und Sanitäranlagen;
  • ein Produktionsbudget zur Realisierung des eingereichten Vorhabens;
  • ein Budget, um Expert_innen zwecks fachlichem Austausch nach Büchsenhausen einzuladen;
  • die Möglichkeit der Teilnahme in einer kuratierten Gruppenausstellung am Ende des Fellowshipjahres.

Leistungen

  • freier Zugang zum „Labor“, dem Projekt- und Ausstellungsraum in Büchsenhausen;
  • freie Nutzung der Multimedia-Produktionsgeräte im „Labor“;
  • freier Internetzugang via Highspeed-DSL/WLAN;
  • künstlerische Beratung;
  • technische Beratung auf Anfrage.

Teilnahmeberechtigung

Hauptberuflich tätige bildende Künstler_innen, Medienkünstler_innen, Theoretiker_innen, Kritiker_innen und Kurator_innen aus der ganzen Welt können sich um ein Fellowship bewerben.

Bewerbungsvoraussetzungen

Die Bewerbung muss ein konkretes Arbeitsvorhaben beinhalten. Die Arbeit an der Realisierung des eingereichten Vorhabens steht im Mittelpunkt der Tätigkeit während des Fellowships im Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen. Ebenfalls verpflichtend ist die Einreichung eines Vorschlags für maximal drei öffentliche Veranstaltungen die die Arbeit am eingereichten Vorhaben über die Dauer des Fellowships begleitet. Erfolgreiche Bewerber_innen müssen in einem zweiten Schritt konkrete Details der Veranstaltungen formulieren und das Veranstaltungsprogramm durchführen.

Die Fellows erklären sich bereit, während der Fellowshipdauer in Büchsenhausen anwesend zu sein. Gute Englischkenntnisse werden vorausgesetzt.

Auswahl

Die Fellows werden von einer Fachjury ausgewählt. Grundsätzliche Auswahlkriterien sind die Qualität, Originalität und Relevanz des eingereichten Arbeitsvorhabens und des Portfolios. Die dreiköpfige Fachjury besteht aus dem künstlerischen Leiter des Künstlerhauses Büchsenhausen, einem Mitglied des Fachbeirats im Künstlerhaus und einer externen Fachperson.

Das Auswahlverfahren ist zweistufig.

In der ersten Stufe werden die schriftlichen Bewerbungen beurteilt. Die Jury erstellt eine engere Auswahlliste von Kandidat_innen. Diese Kandidat_innen werden zu einem persönlichen Interview nach Büchsenhausen eingeladen.

Die zweite Auswahlstufe besteht aus persönlichen Bewerbungsgesprächen. Die eingeladenen Kandidat_innen müssen nach Innsbruck kommen, um sich und ihr Arbeitsvorhaben der Fachjury vorzustellen. Im Rahmen der zweiten Bewerbungsstufe übernimmt Büchsenhausen die Kosten einer Übernachtung in Innsbruck. Die Reisekosten selbst müssen von den Kandidat_innen getragen werden. Falls die Anreise nicht möglich ist, kann das persönliche Bewerbungsgespräch auch im Rahmen einer Videokonferenz (z.B. über Skype) erfolgen.

Auf die Gewährung eines Fellowships im Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen besteht kein Rechtsanspruch. Die Jury ist nicht verpflichtet, eine Begründung der Zuerkennung oder Ablehnung eines Antrags abzugeben. Die Entscheidung der Jury wird schriftlich mitgeteilt, für die erste Stufe im März 2017, für die zweite Stufe im April 2017.

Bewerbungsablauf

Die Bewerbungen erfolgen schriftlich in englischer oder deutscher Sprache und müssen zwingend folgende Dokumente beinhalten:

  • ein Arbeitsvorhaben (max. 2.000 Wörter, in dreifacher Ausfertigung);
  • ein Portfolio bzw. eine Dokumentation der Arbeit der letzten Jahre:
    • Künstler_innen: Das Portfolio kann in Papierform (max. 2. Kataloge, max. 10 Fotos), auf DVD bzw. CD oder USB-Stick (max. 1 DVD/CD/USB-Stick) oder digital mit einem Permalink eingereicht werden (es werden KEINE temporären Download Links wie etwa WeTransfer akzeptiert!);
    • Theoretiker_innen: ein aktuelles Textbeispiel in dreifacher Ausfertigung;
  • einen Lebenslauf (in dreifacher Ausfertigung);
  • den unterschriebenen Ausdruck der Bestätigungs-E-Mails (einfache Ausfertigung).

Hinweis: Mit Ausnahme des Portfolios bei Künstler_innen müssen alle Dokumente in Papierform in der jeweiligen Ausfertigung postalisch versandt werden.

Das Online-Bewerbungsformular kann in deutscher oder englischer Sprache ausgefüllt werden. Durch Bestätigung des Bewerbungsformulars wird eine E-Mail mit den eingegebenen Daten an Sie und eine Kopie an das Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen gesandt. Bitte drucken Sie die Bestätigungs-E-Mail des Bewerbungsformulars aus (einfache Ausfertigung ist vollkommen ausreichend) und schicken Sie diese unterzeichnet und mit den geforderten Dokumenten an folgende Adresse:

  • Künstlerhaus Büchsenhausen
    Ref.: „Fellowship 2017-18“
    Weiherburggasse 13
    6020 Innsbruck
    Austria

Falls Fragen zum Bewerbungsformular auftreten, kontaktieren Sie uns bitte per Mail: office@buchsenhausen.at

Einsendeschluss ist Freitag 27. Januar 2017 (es gilt das Datum des Poststempels).

Nur Einreichungen per Post werden berücksichtigt!
Zu spät eingegangene bzw. unvollständige Bewerbungen werden nicht in den Auswahlprozess aufgenommen.

» Weiter zum Bewerbungsformular

Propuestas Vegap. Deadline: Octubre 17, 2016

——–>English Version (Spanish below)<———

This call is only for residents in Spain and the Call is in Spanish. But it does not say you cannot send your materials in another language, so you might try.

The documentation provided (less than 15 pages, in digital form) should be a pdf with a total weight of 14 MB, maximum.

Projects must be included in any of the following categories:

Plastic arts
Photograph
Design
Illustration
New Forms of Artistic Expression

More information on: http://www.propuestasvegap.com

 

——–> En español (English above)<———

Objeto de la convocatoria:

Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP), convocan la XX edición del Concurso Propuestas de Ayudas a la Creación Visual.

El propósito de nuestras ayudas es la promoción de la creación artística a través de la financiación económica de los proyectos de aquellos autores que se expresan a través de la creación visual, posibilitando el desarrollo de su trabajo, al hilo de su proceso de investigación y la creación de nuevas obras.

Podrán participar en esta convocatoria los creadores visuales residentes en España que no hayan recibido ayudas de la Fundación Arte y Derecho o de VEGAP en las tres últimas convocatorias de Propuestas.

Presentación de los proyectos:

El plazo de presentación de los proyectos se abrirá el 3 de mayo de 2016 y finalizará el 17 de octubre de 2016.

Para hacer llegar los proyectos puede procederse de la siguiente forma:

Los proyectos se enviarán digitalmente a través de la página web: http://www.propuestasvegap.com, completando la información solicitada en cada uno de los campos del formulario de inscripción alojado y adjuntando la documentación que a continuación se indica:

1.- Fotocopia del DNI o de la tarjeta o permiso de residencia (1 página)
2.- Currículum vitae (1 página).
3.- Una memoria descriptiva de la obra o proyecto creativo que se quiere realizar (1 página).
4.- Calendario de trabajo y presupuesto total del proyecto, con indicación de la ayuda económica que se solicita, adjuntando en 1 página el desglose en el que se indique cada uno de los gastos que se precisen efectuar.
5.- Dossier gráfico con un máximo de 10 imágenes de obra reciente, bocetos o trabajos personales realizados por el autor (hasta un máximo de 10 páginas. Los proyectos de nuevas tecnologías podrán ir acompañados, además, de una url a un link externo).

La extensión de la documentación aportada en el archivo que se adjunte no superará las 15 páginas, incluido el formulario digital. La documentación deberá aportarse en el orden indicado y en ningún caso podrá consistir en el envío de originales de las obras. El formato del archivo deberá ser un pdf con un peso total de 14 megas.

Los proyectos deberán incluirse en alguna de las siguientes categorías:

Artes Plásticas
Fotografía
Diseño
Ilustración
Nuevas Formas de Expresión Artística

Los proyectos se integrarán en la categoría seleccionada por sus autores en el campo correspondiente del formulario de inscripción digital de la página web: http://www.propuestasvegap.com

Podrán presentarse varios proyectos diferentes del mismo autor en una misma categoría, pero no en categorías diferentes. La inclusión de un mismo proyecto en una categoría determinará su exclusión de las restantes.

El cumplimiento de estos requisitos es condición “sine qua non” para la aceptación de los autores que deseen participar, por lo que la contravención de esta obligación conllevará la pérdida del derecho a participar en la convocatoria.

Asignación

La asignación total de la convocatoria asciende a 70.000 euros.

Cada una de las cinco categorías: Artes Plásticas, Fotografía, Diseño, Ilustración y Nuevas Formas de Expresión Artística, contará con una asignación de 14.000 euros, correspondiendo 7.000 euros a cada uno de los 2 ganadores que resulten seleccionados en cada categoría.

En el supuesto de que alguna categoría quedase desierta o no se agotase la cantidad destinada, el importe excedente se repartirá entre las categorías restantes, mejorando la asignación de cada categoría en forma proporcional.

Resolución:

La resolución de concesión de las ayudas será decidida por un Jurado formado únicamente por artistas de reconocido prestigio, nombrado por el Consejo de Administración de VEGAP. La decisión del Jurado será inapelable.

VEGAP comunicará el fallo del Jurado el día 3 de noviembre de 2016 a través de la página web de VEGAP, y de http://www.propuestasvegap.com

PARA PARTICIPAR EN ESTA XX EDICIÓN VEGAP ENTRA AQUÍ:

http://propuestasvegap.com/category/bases/