Portfolio Reviews

[Greg Miller]

From what I have read here talking about the concept at some point during the review seems to be an option but I guess it depends on the actual review. Is it worth printing out a summary sheet such as a gallery hand out? I was also wondering if I should present more than one project at a given review, or just concentrate on the one? Again I guess I need to research the review session before hand and try to establish the guidelines.

Julian

It can be a long day for the reviewers, who are usually seeing many portfolios and can be pretty tired towards the end of the day. You should have a 30 second intro where you describe your work and your objectives. Then let your work speak for itself, and listen to the feedback. Expect to get a variety of responses, everything from praise, to zero interest, to suggestions for improvement. What can be difficult is deciding what to take to heart and what to ignore. You never know what a reviewer is tired of seeing or if they just had a fight with their spouse or had a bad trip to the review site.

You should definitely bring "leave behinds" so that if there is some interest the reviewer will have something to remember you by - a small sample of your work, like a postcard, is good. I have had cases where I didn't get great vibes during the time with a specific reviewer but then got contacted later by them. I would not expect a reviewer to read a summary during the actual review time.

It is possible to show 2 bodies of work, but that cuts the time for feedback in half for each portfolio. One strategy is to show samples of both quickly at the beginning and ask the reviewer if they prefer to focus on one or the other. Then you can focus the time spent with that reviewer with the portfolio that they connected with the most.

[John Voss]

... most portfolio reviewers are looking for new and trendy, not for traditional work, no matter how good - or maybe especially not if it is very good. So before you sign up for one, make sure there is some fit with your work.

From my experience, Ed's statement is particularly true of reviewers who are gallerists. If the gallery they are associated with has an on-line presence, or is close enough to visit, do so. You'll be better able to assess the likelihood of a good fit that way. OTOH, I found reviewers who had an academic association to be more open to constructive observations about work without being as judgmental about its' place in the contemporary art scene. If, however, you are certain that your work is unique and original (as one photographer's was at the review I attended), you may find reviewers utterly unable to offer much at all. Too many of them follow the trends they think have been "accepted", and have no idea how to really appraise work they've not already seen some example of given positive critical reaction elsewhere.

[Mark Sawyer]

... most portfolio reviewers are looking for new and trendy, not for traditional work, no matter how good - or maybe especially not if it is very good.

...most critics are from a part of the art world that values most the illusion that art always has a singular and identifiable leading edge that acts as the "engine of culture"... Don't waste your time, unless your ultimate goal is to essentially "card count' the art world and game your way to insider "important" status.

I think this is true of many portfolio reviews, often given by gallery owners and university profesors, but that is as it should be, as many reviews are geared towards aspiring artists coming from university programs and hoping to make it in the fine-art gallery game.

Some have a practical stance, and want to make a living through making their art, which seems a scary proposition at best. Others seek that important status, wanting to achieve some sort of immortallity through their photography. (I'm with Woody Allen on this one, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying.")

The bright side of this sort of review is that if you have (in the eyes of the reviewers),
strong, cutting-edge work, you may be offered a show, publication, or gallery representation.

And there is another type of other review, generally given by accomplished photographers, that concentrate more on the "photographic" side of photography. Here you'll find real appreciation for the traditional photography so often pooh-poohed at the fine arts reviews. Probably the most helpful thing to come out of such reviews is to see your own work through the eyes of someone who's work you respect, and hear how they articulate what they see through your work.

It's fun to get reactions to your photography at either sort of review, and sometimes, maybe, perhaps, if you're lucky, you'll hear something informative, even a little bit helpful. But I've watched and been in a few reviews, and most comments for most participants are cut-and-pasted from the reviewers' templated comments. And in the end, when you go back to making your own images, all the weight is back on your own shoulders.

[Ed Richards]

One good thing that can come from a review is to stamp out any notions you might have about your working being of any interest to a gallery. Once you get past that, you can begin to think about why you are taking pictures. If it is to get into the art world, then you know you have to change dramatically - grab that Diana and some magic mushrooms and find a new vision. If you are gallery material - why are you hanging around here, you need to be on the trendy art forums.:-)

I have done one review and one workshop - the review was useful to adjust my expectations, but the workshop gave me real information that helped my photography. Not so much directly - the teaching part was too slmplistic since it turned out to be aimed at beginners - but seeing the workflow of the instructor and how he ran his studio was invaluable.

[paulr]

I've only been to one portfolio review event and I found the experience incredibly valuable. The tangible benefits all evaporated (shows, publications, etc.), but I learned a ton.

I completely agree that you need to know what you're looking for. And you may be looking for more than one thing (feedback, editing help, representation, show opportunities, etc. etc.). Being open to different benefits helps, because you may not get all your first choice reviewers. Some of the reviewers will only be in a position to offer you feedback, for example.

The most important thing I got it was just experience showing my work. I learned a lot about editing and making short presentations. Mostly I learned how completely and upredictably personal people's reactions are. I got every reaction imaginable, from glowing to scathing to barely comprehensible. And I think they were all honest.

Having these varied experiences, over and over, has completely cured me of any fears associated with showing my work. I now know going in that they may like it or they may hate it, and that's life, and it has nothing to to do with my self worth, and nothing to do with the chances of someone else liking it.

This revelation alone was worth the price of admission.

[paulr]

...most portfolio reviewers are looking for new and trendy, not for traditional work, no matter how good...

Maybe, but it really depends on the reviewer. There are a number of galleries, even in places like NYC, that specialize in traditional or even completely retro kinds of work.

It's important to do your homework ... figure out who the reviewers are, their specialties, etc. etc.. No different than if you're showing work to galleries. You don't want to waste everyone's time by showing your platinum prints to a gallery that's all about video installations, or that only represents famous dead people!

[artworksgallery]

You might find this helpful: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=51256

That was a good read...