• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Does charging artists fees to enter open exhibitions amount to asking them to subsidise the sector? Jack Hutchinson examines the issues.

With finances tighter than ever, arts organisations large and small are exploring different models to create revenue and stay afloat. And in a sea of cafes, gift shops and crowdfunding, another beast is lurking – the open exhibition.

Traditionally, open shows involve artists submitting examples of their artwork to be judged by a panel of industry experts who then select successful applicants for a group exhibition. For a long time this has involved a small group of high-profile opens. For example, the biennial John Moores Painting Prize was founded in 1957 and currently awards £25,000 to the winner, who also features in a group show at Liverpool’s Walker Art Gallery.

Other heavyweights include the BP Portrait Award (previously the John Player Portrait Award) with a first prize of £30,000, and the Jerwood Drawing Prize, which offers £8,000 to the winner and in 2014 celebrated its 20th year.

The most popular UK-based open is still the annual Royal Academy Summer Show, which has been running for nearly 250 years and styles itself as ‘the world’s largest open-submission exhibition’. Each year an average of 10,000 artists apply at a cost of £25 per piece, and the final show features around 1000 practitioners. All work is for sale, with the Academy receiving 30% of the purchase price.

Few would argue that exhibiting in one of these well-established shows is anything but beneficial to the artists involved. Even if you don’t win a prize, participation raises profile, increases the likelihood of sales and ultimately progresses an artist’s career. Nevertheless, open submissions are facing more and more scrutiny as issues around artists’ fees and pay are increasingly under discussion... Keep reading on a-n