By Sarah Douglas
Published: June 2, 2008
While dealers are acquainted with the general guidelines for participation, the fact that so many rejections lack explanations is galling. Most fairs have a “don’t tell” policy, since it’s nearly impossible to capture the nuances of the decision-making process. “People seem to come up with different rationales to explain to themselves why they didn’t get in, and of course lots of them would like to discuss it,” says Sharp. “But it’s very hard, with a decision that has been made over hours-long discussions and gone through a process of eight people talking and reaching a consensus, to give an accurate line-by-line reading of the argument.” Initially, Frieze was more apt to disclose to rejected dealers the rationale behind the decision. But, says Sharp, “I realized that other fairs had a policy not to tell anyone, and I began to understand why.” “No one in the management organization takes accountability,” Cohan objects. “They refer back to the committee. This is big, important business, and if you leave it up to a committee you have chosen, don’t you have the responsibility to look over how these decisions are being made?” Rabinowitz counters that Art Basel’s procedure is thorough and that “the commitment to making it a democratic process is astounding. For almost 30 days, morning to night, each application is reviewed three times.” Basel and Frieze have appeals systems: Basel’s is overseen by a separate, nondealer panel; at Frieze, an applicant’s materials are resubmitted to the selection committee. It is rare, however, that a gallery wins entry on the basis of an appeal. And there is little to gain from hounding the directors, although de Backer has taken calls that she describes as “heartbreaking.” Because the committee has final say, the most directors can do is listen. Having dealers judged by their peers often invites accusations of conflict of interest. De Backer says she is aware of the potential for such conflicts. “When galleries come to me and say their exclusion is unfair because the committee members have personal interests, I think that whatever kind of committee you are dealing with, there will always be that personal aspect.” This issue led to a crackdown on Art Cologne. Under Germany’s antitrust laws, galleries are allowed to sue for admission, and have done so. The suits have become less frequent as organizers have tightened their process and included in selection meetings a lawyer who can provide detailed explanations to every German gallery that applies. But some market observers say the threat of legal action has made Cologne too regional and will ultimately lead to its becoming a second-tier fair. In fact, Art Cologne came under fire last fall when a group of local dealers, including Christian Nagel and Daniel Buchholz, complained about its “bitter loss of status.” This past January its director, Gérard Goodrow, announced his departure. To circumvent such problems, some smaller fairs, like Zoo, in London, and Volta and Liste, in Basel, do not include gallerists on their committees, turning instead to curators and critics. “Dealers I’ve spoken to who have been asked to be on panels hate it—they hate to choose their peers, who take it personally,” says the Zoo fair director, Soraya Rodriguez. “But for critics and curators, that is their job. They have an independence that people will respect.” The former Art Basel director Samuel Keller, however, believes even their independence is limited: “Whoever is an important member of the art world has alliances and networks.”
|
advertisements
|