Monday night was a treat. Neil (bottom pict) and Daquiri were at Nutty’s North. Though Neil was the headliner and Daquiri was his opener, I’ll have to admit I like Daquiri better. He sings Karoke and made up shit. He also has an old school overhead projector that he put transparency drawings on for backdrops.

Great Show!

Something that has baffled friends and I over the past few years is the great FREE entertainment at the The Front Porch Stage at the SE Fair. Every year they bring in a couple of great acts and the only price is the admission to the fair. This year two notable performers:

– Wednesday, Aug. 8: Paul Renz Quintet, a national jazz guitarist wonder.

– Thursday, Aug. 9 & Friday, Aug. 10: Special guest, Brave Combo, a renown Grammy-award winning polka-rock band that’s been heard on “Prairie Home Companion.” They’ll be featured during a live broadcast from the Front Porch Radio Show.

Brave Combo will be the special treat, trust me on that. I suggest you see them both nights!

First off, I think most people would agree that when minors are exposed to pornography, it isn’t healthy for their psyche, BUT if grown, mature adults want to watch that stuff in their hotel rooms, that is their business. I’m not one to defend Lodgenet or the porn industry, because the porn industry doesn’t have the best reputation, but I am a defender of the 1st Amendment, and when we start policing adults that are LEGALLY viewing this material, I have to say we have gone to far.

What I can’t figure out is why would this organization TruthAboutLodgeNet.com go after a PAY PER VIEW business, when you can see this stuff for free on Primetime, any night of the week? Sure there isn’t any nudity, but the sexual inuendos are there. In fact there is a lot of garbage on TV that doesn’t have to do with sex at all.

People need to realize we live in a FREE society, mind your own f’ckin business.

 

 

I found this info on the Abstinence Clearing House website, in the ‘resource library’ area:

 

LATEST NEWS : OBAMA ON SEX ED: “THE RIGHT THING TO DO”
POSTED: JUL 19, 2007

Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood last week that he supports sex education for kindergarten children, bringing a sharp rebuke from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Without mentioning marriage, Obama quickly added, however, that he didn’t want his own daughters to view sex as a casual activity. Planned Parenthood itself advocates explicit instruction in areas such as terminology and the definition of family for early elementary students that would offend many of their parents.

Romney countered with a strong statement of support for abstinence instruction in the classroom.

Though most of this is TRUE, the statement “Planned Parenthood itself advocates explicit instruction in areas such as terminology” is questionable. That is a very vague statement to make. When I researched my art/grant project about sexuality, I went to PP for research. In their lobby they had many brochures for teens and their parents about sex, guess what was on the first page of these brochures ‘abstinence’. As for explicit terminology, I hardly think words like ‘penis’ and ‘vagina’ are damaging to young kids, and if you are a parent that is offended by those words, maybe you shouldn’t have procreated.

Stop the bullshit.

A few days ago I got a comment on how I needed to update a post I made a year ago about Leslee Unruh’s money mill clearinghouse (you may already be a winnner) being investigated by the IRS. If you read the post I made, you can see she has been cleared of all wrongdoings. But it got me thinking, how the hell did one of her minions find a post I made a year ago? So I went to my magical stats page and found out her peeps googled this:

abstinence clearinghouse 990 image

Talk about paranoid. Kind of like the time Unruh hired a body guard to protect her from a fanatic, she just failed to tell everyone that the fanatic was a pro-lifer and was upset with Unruh because she wouldn’t let them in her twisted camp.

This shit never gets old, thanks for the laughs!

TIMELINE:

– January 11, 2007
Received Arts Night Solicitation letter in the mail

The term ‘volunteer jury’ is used in the letter twice and the term ‘jury process’
is used once. This was CLEARLY a juried exhibit, by jurors, not a selection comittee.

– March 16, 2007
Received rejection letter in the mail

The rejection letter also uses the term jury, not selection committee.

– March 19, 2007
Requested jurors names from David Merhib in an email

I personally requested the names. I did not request them so they can be
printed in any publication or materials. It is out of respect for me as an
artist, period. Since the donating artists were not anonymous or asked to
cover up there names on their pieces, it would seem only fair that the JURORS
not be either.

March 20, 2007
– David Merhib rejects my request in an email He did not say there would be a discussion, he did not say
I would get them in the near future. He rejected my request. Period. (see below)

April 8, 2007
– First letter to the editor explaining my situation

May 5, 2007
– Paul Schiller’s response to my letter:

Art judged openly, fairly
By Paul K. Schiller

I would like to disagree with our troubled artisans who feel that they need crystal clear governance in the judging of art for Arts Night at the Washington Pavilion. This is the same argument and noise they put forth in the judging of SculptureWalk.

Arts Night is a fundraiser for the Visual Arts Center, and submissions of art are voluntary. When an artist submits work into these “competitions,” you do so knowing that it’s a credible organization that has a fair and qualified selection process. That is the case with both the Washington Pavilion’s Arts Night and our ever-popular SculptureWalk.

A funny thing happened on the way to Arts Night this year. Ninety artists submitted work for a fundraising auction that had room for about 60 pieces. In past years the Arts Night committee was lucky to receive 50 to 60 pieces of art. The event is growing in popularity with both artists and art buyers. The result is a sold-out event with a great selection of quality art. The uneventful result of this year’s success was the fact that some pieces had to be rejected.

So we’re back to openness and fairness. I find the art-judging process open and fair. Have I had my art rejected in other competitions? Yes. Does it feel good? No. But rejection results in one of two things: You go around and complain about the process not being open and fair, or you go back and create better art for next year’s competition.

If that’s not satisfactory, then I suggest if you want absolute clarity in all forms of life, you could partner with the Argus Leader and take on their quest for total transparency in city and state government!
May 5, 2007
– My first post on the Argus Leader Forum about the situation.

46 days AFTER I requested the jurors names was when I finally responded on the FORUMS.  I was responding to a Washington Pavilion’s Board member’s personal
attack on on me, I have the right to defend myself, the First Amendment gives me that right. Hardly ‘antagonistic’.

The Pavilion will NEVER give me those names, and they know it. They continue to make up excuses, back peddle
and flat out LIE to me and the public.  I find it laughable that they won’t release the jurors names to me because
I might retalitate (an assumption and excuse on their part). Yet they haven’t released them to the other over 90 artists who submitted
to Arts Night, including some who have also requested those names. I suppose they think they will retaliate to. I have received so much bologna from their side of the argument I
could have opened a sandwich shop or fertilizer business by now.

The Washington Pavilion’s policies have further proven that the art establishment in this community has zero
respect for local artists and there contributions to this city and it’s people.

Pathetic.

The Washington Pavilion responded to my letter (if you scroll down you can read what I sent to them originally in an earlier post). I will respond to this in length tommorrow, but a couple of quick things I want to point out:

1) I have never asked the Argus to be involved

2) This is about policies not people

3) If the donating artists ARE NOT anon, the judges shouldn’t be either

4) If they are scared of my retaliation, why not release the names to the other artists?

This letter is packed full of excuses, but no solutions or answers. Once again the local art establishment has proven they have NO respect for local artists or the taxpayers that fund them.

It’s time to take the gloves off. I hit hard.

This was a letter that was sent to the Washington Pavilion’s Visual Art Director on Monday. I am assuming he received it on Tuesday. I have not heard a response of any kind yet, but I will keep you posted:

 

Mr. Merhib,

I’m going to make one last attempt in requesting the names of the jurors for Arts Night.

When I first requested the names of the jurors in an email, your response was that you would not release the names due to the ‘nature’ of the event (The jurors selected are members of the community and friends of the arts. The jurors are anonymous because of the nature of this fundraising event). I guess I am unclear what the ‘nature’ of the event is and how it justifies secrecy?

There has been this assumption by your organization that there would be retaliation against the jurors. I’m not sure what that means? Since I have participated in juried exhibits in the past as an exhibitor and a juror I have always been under the impression that jurors release their names out of respect to the artists and the artists don’t retaliate out of respect for the jurors.

Some people think I have already retaliated by writing a response to Mr. Schiller. But since I don’t know if Mr. Schiller was a juror, how is that retaliation?

Also, I have never asked that the jurors names be published anywhere, either in a newspaper, on your website or in Arts Night materials. All I have asked was that the information be given to the artists who participated in the selection process.  Pretty simple really.

This isn’t personal, never has been, this is about the policies of The Washington Pavilion, the Visual Arts Center and Arts Night. I have no ill will or vendetta against anybody personally. I think the Arts Center is important to our community, that is why I gave to it for so long.

So I am politely giving you one more opportunity to release the names of the jurors to me and the rest of the Arts Night participating artists.

Policies aside, it is the right thing to do, and I’m sure you won’t make the wrong decision.

Scott L. Ehrisman

 

 

I decided to pull up the original letter that was published in the Argus Leader about Arts Night to see if I was off base in any way with my claims. Let’s review what I wrote:

“It seems the Washington Pavilion Arts Night Committee is taking a page from SculptureWalk when it comes to selecting art. Arts Night’s secret jurors used vague criteria to pick who could donate to Arts Night this year. ”

True. The jury is a secret and continues to be a secret. I stand corrected though on the comment ‘vague criteria’. The criteria isn’t vague but rather exclusive.

“When Arts Night started just six years ago, the Pavilion had no problem with begging local artists to donate. Last year though they started to jury the event because of it’s popularity. ”

True. Arts Night has always been an event that sells donated art. Last year (2006) they decided to jury the event because of all the donations they have received, they wanted to limit them to 60 because of the auction time frame. This was brought up when I was on the committee, I advised against it at the time, and in 2006 when they said it would be ‘juried’ (the language they used in both 2006 and 2007) I decided not to submit a piece, but Howard and Erin personally asked me and told me my piece would not be rejected. I told them at that time I did not agree with the jurying process and they needed to approach it differently, I told them this repeatedly and even sent Erin, Howard and Hoffman an article from the NY Times talking about charity art auctions, where I highlighted suggestions.

“That’s right, the same organization that asks for money from the city every year to subsidize it’s programs rejects donations from local artists. Thirty-four artists were rejected this year which approximately could have brought in over $25,000 in additional funds to the Visual Arts Center. Funds that help keep the VAC free throughout the year.”

As you can see I don’t have a problem with my tax dollars subsidizing the arts center, I’m  just baffled by why they would reject donations. I never once said that I was against funding the facility (even though the AL misquoted me a few weeks ago on that issue).

“I was one of the artists who was rejected. As an artist who has submitted art to many juried shows, I know rejection is common place, I do not take issue with rejection. What makes this show different then other juried shows is that the jury is kept secret and criteria for rejection is kept vague. Each rejected artist received a form letter as to why they were rejected. What also makes this odd is the rejection of a donation. Especially from artists who have been giving to the event for several years. ”

This was the first time I said I don’t have a problem with the rejection, yet the spin doctors defending Arts Night decided to personally attack me by saying I should just shut up and paint and buck up. That wasn’t the issue. I have already come to the conclusion that the jurors are unknowledgeable in the arts, just look at the exhibit. I just want to know who they are so I can PERSONALLY back that conclusion up. For example in the criteria they claim that ‘saleability’ is one of the determining  factors in being selected, yet they picked loads of photography. Sure photography is art, but is not necessarily original art because you can make prints from it. Art auctioneers will tell you that original art such as a painting will bring more $$ then a photo print or giclee.

“The Pavilion has oodles of excuses as to why they limit their submissions, and some of them are acceptable: quality, saleability etc. What is unacceptable is keeping jurors secret and criteria vague – especially in a publicly funded facility.”

This is the real issue, like I have said from the beginning. If the artists submitting CANNOT be anonymous in their submissions, then the jury cannot be either, especially in a publicly funded facility.

“I questioned David Merhib, the Visual Arts Center Director, for specifics on why I was rejected and who the jurors were. He denied me the information. “

Everyone has jumped to the conclusion that I went running to the AL right away crying, but that is not the case at all. I tried to work with the Pavilion in 2006 contacting three people then, and this year contacting David Merhib himself.  Both times they have refused to work on a solution or answer questions.

”It is important that jurors are made known for several reasons, and retaliation is not one of them, that assertion is ridiculous. Commonly it is out of respect for the artist. Being judged by unknowns is unusual in juried shows. “

No where have I said I would retaliate against the jurors. This is about the policies at the Pavilion, it has NOTHING to do with the volunteer jurors or ethics for that matter. Hoffman has already admitted to another Arts Night artist that calling it a ‘juried’ exhibit is flawed, yet there has been no admission publicly and not solution put forward.

”Rejecting art on it’s own merits is fair. Rejecting art because you disagree with an artist’s personal beliefs is shallow. When will the art organizations in Sioux Falls learn that secrecy only creates suspicion?”

I want to conclude by saying that I have never personally attacked anyone, just the Pavilion’s policies, Mr. Schiller chose to defend those policies by personally attacking me instead explaining or justifying their policies.

Now who’s the bad guy?