Today, or at least slightly before I started writing this, I received an email from one of the world’s most significant biennial photography festivals, which awards a substantial financial prize. There are two awards, in fact. One is a general photography award to develop a new project, and the other is a book award. I have been to this festival and think it is brilliant. I have also served as a shortlist jury member in the past, in full disclosure. This year, I chose not to be part of that jury as I wanted to submit to the book award. I think it would be a conflict of interest for me to both submit to their prize and serve on their shortlist jury. To be clear, I do not want to encounter ethical complications on a personal level, however significant, if possible.
This year, the jury comprises a well-heeled team of five international photography experts, three of whom are institutional figureheads and curators, one is a photobook publisher, and a well-received artist holds the presidential position. This year, the major development award is worth approximately 40,000 Euros, a substantial amount and perhaps one of the highest awards in photography. The award is fee-structured, meaning that to enter, one must pay a small fee, which I would hazard a guess is used to fund the winning prize, along with other subsidized money from corporate sponsors and so forth. This is conjecture on my side. I cannot be certain how the money is raised, but it is worth noting that this entry fee helps supplement some of the expenses.
The entry fee is approximately 60 euros, with concessions available to artists from the Global South and those with a low economic status. This year, I was given several vouchers in complete transparency. I gave nine of these vouchers to people I knew would otherwise skip registration due to cost, with the majority being women. I do not advertise it outside of this post, as I am not virtue signaling; instead, I emphasize the spirit of the festival through my actions.
This year, the festival, between the significant development award and the book award, received a total of 975 applications, of which 616 were for the development award. Thirty-five of these were selected for the shortlist by the larger jury. I am unsure if the festival organizers also participated in this, but I believe the final jury was not involved. I could be wrong. This shortlist was then narrowed down to a winner of the main prize and one winner of the book award, with two honorable mentions in each category, as determined by the jury. If I understand things right, there is a process for how the final international jury votes on the work. They review the work independently, take notes, and compile their shortlists before convening with the Vevey director to discuss the development and book projects before narrowing it down to a winner.
This afternoon, I was sent the winning names of the competition as a press contact. There is an embargo on the information until July 9th, after the award is publicly announced, so you will be pleased to read this accordingly. Of the award winners, I am not completely surprised by the book award. For various reasons, the artist who won is quite deserving. Her work has recently won another prestigious award this past year, and I believe it is of exceptionally high caliber. I have never met her, but I’m pretty happy to see her win the book award.
Regarding the honorable mentions for the development and book awards, I am familiar with both the winners and the honorable mentions, and I think they are all decent choices. In my opinion, the honorable mention for the development award is a more potent force than the winner, but that’s just my taste. From this point, I find uncomfortable questions arising regarding potential conflicts of interest. I am genuinely curious whether other people share this view or if, given the due process of the jury system and the formidable scope of the festival itself, there is anything to be concerned about at all.
I should preface this scenario with what I believe to be a minor trend in the contemporary photography economy. I approach my questions through a series of first-person observations and from speaking with many people through the Nearest Truth podcast, a lot of which, on this subject, is off-mic. Although I realize that sounding overly sanctimonious can be a problem, I am sometimes left wondering what we are doing with the current state of photography. This is not a reflection of the prize above but rather a general series of concerns regarding conflicts of interest and, in greater measure, the problems associated with nepotism in the small republic of photography in which we operate.
One might argue that nepotism, or the favoring of friends and loved ones over others, is embedded in most human activities. For example, and again, not an insinuation about the festival above, I would find it very unethical to nepotistically put my girlfriend’s, boyfriend’s, friend’s, or family member’s photography on the cover of an exhibition catalog that I was curating. It would be problematic for me to do this with any of my intimates. For another example of nepotism, I believe it would be an abuse of my power to put forward any of my intimates into singular book deals and well-placed galleries or to artificially prop up their careers so that they could gain access to exhibitions, markets, and publications based on my associations or influence, especially in cases where they were not deserving. This would be particularly galling if I held a position in an institution and if my reputation in the community was built on trust and merit.
Photography is a small pool of people. People do notice when these things happen, and behind closed doors, lots of talk does occur off-mic about the injustices of using one’s position or proximity to swing favors toward friends, family, lovers, or business partners, especially if there are potential saleable/commercial goods or wins involved, such as artwork, book deals, and other lucrative enterprises to benefit from. From my perspective, using any leverage, whether institutional or otherwise, is corrosive to the fabric of our small photography community and should be disavowed more openly.
Whereas I do not genuinely like call-out culture, I do believe it is on us as an audience or participant to nurture the world we are involved in and signal the very least, the abuse of authority, which in many cases does not happen when the abuser has powerful access or allies that may deny us further personal development in the republic. We do not signal most of the time, as it is a risk vs reward scenario. Not wanting to be left out (you’re probably already left out even without a signal) is a concern for many artists, and crossing paths with someone in power takes nerve to confront. It is a David vs Goliath or Goliath vs David scenario, depending on how you rate the power of the public body as Goliath or the abusing body as the singular David casting small stones destined to blind.
There are blatant instances when I see outright nepotism at work from people that I would have otherwise thought were ethical people in high positions within our republic. I did not know what to do with the information, nor did I want to jeopardize someone’s career over their myopic ethical stance. That said, the problem of nepotism in our field, apart from the success of the unearned acclamation on behalf of the beneficiary, is that in the day and age in which we are meant to be examining equality, we are instead doubling down on cronyism. I see it in institutions, festivals, and prizes. It behooves one to remember, if in a position of authority, that such actions are unacceptable and that if one cannot check their actions, they are under scrutiny, which is worth pointing out even more clearly than I am doing in this conversation. There will not be shots fired here, but one should know how shameful their actions are, and more importantly, should know that we know that they know better.
In terms of this particular festival and its prizes, I will not say outright that I see nepotism at work. The jury process appears to be well-controlled, and I happen to have a high regard for the team. In this case, I believe they made a mistake in bringing in someone from the commercial world to serve as a jury member, specifically the publisher of photobooks. To be clear, the publisher is very knowledgeable and part of a team that I consider to be some of the best designers in the field. That said, both the development award and the honorable mention for the development award went to artists whom this jury member publishes. The winner has one book within the past year or so, and the honorable mention has two over the last few years, both of which are superb. Whereas those artists have every right to apply and should, the problem arises when we see the conflict of interest form with the proximity to a jury member who has business with these two artists.
To suggest that there is no gain in commercial sales or cultural capital for the publisher is disingenuous. For example, if the development award winner goes on to produce the work and chooses to publish the resulting material with the publisher/juror, then is the juror not making a wise financial decision to vote for their artist, and likewise, with the money gained in the prize (with so many publishers including this one asking money to publish for some projects) then could it not be conceivable that there might be a financial motivation for the publisher/juror to vote for artists in their stable?
It is worth noting again that this is the only juror on the team who works in the commercial sector. This is a conflict of interest. Now, it is complicated because the artists’ projects have undergone a vetting process previously and have been screened; however, at what point in the process should a red flag be raised? I would have suggested that, ethically, this juror should have removed themselves at some point along the way, considering how this would be perceived. Furthermore, I believe this is a mistake on the part of the festival organizers, and I think that jurors with commercial interests should be excluded from the jury process in the future. In this case, despite the team’s assurances that this was all ethical, I find it problematic. The best solution is to have a jury system in which commercial vested interests are eliminated.
Is this an example of nepotism? I am uncertain, as I cannot know how the last steps of the voting process were handled in situ. I would argue that it is not an example, but it does remain problematic and suggests that conflicts of interest may have arisen or been part of the process. For instance, even subconscious programming before the final vote can easily sway opinion if outright lobbying does not occur. Suppose I have previously published one or two of the artist’s books. Simply acknowledging that out loud is a passive form of lobbying. It shows an affinity for the artist’s work, and if my fellow jurors trust my judgment on matters (youthful or otherwise), it could swing a decision.
It does not even have to be outward. Even mentioning it in the context of judging, such as “Hey, I published these two previously, thought I should mention that,” does not absolve the conflict of interest, but rather, it exacerbates it. At this stage of the game, the only completely ethical option would be to walk away. Other possibilities preceding the final vote would be to have the jurors meet only after the decision by count (and also consider it, including an added public vote) and not announce who they are beforehand, but that would mean fewer appeals to your submission numbers. Regrettably, this did not happen, and in due accordance, I do not think it was ethical. That is my stance on the matter, and in many ways, I do not believe it is by far the worst example in the Republic of Photography at present. I think the model needs to be retooled to prevent such an incident from happening again. All commercial jurors must be eliminated. There are plenty of other people who can fill these shoes, and to be clear, I would also have too many conflicts to serve on this jury. I want that to be clear; my motivation is not to be a part of the process at that level.
I am curious what you think. Perhaps I am being a reactionary. Perhaps there isn’t an issue here. I hope that I have defined things fairly. I could only use so much of the direct communication with the festival/prize team in this, most of which you can find on the Picter page or in the festival’s press information. Where do you stand with this? Am I overreacting? Do we have some significant nepo issues in photography, or is this just what passes for regular ethical engagement in a medium riddled with ethical questions?