<<Members

ATB5 Juror’s Statement

By Wlodek Cygan

     During the past few years there have been several important initiatives attempting to revitalize the community of creators and lovers of tapestry art. “The American Tapestry Biennial 5” is one of them. Another is the young conception of Hungarian Exhibit, “Karpit”, which will have a second exhibit in 2005. In addition, the European Tapestry Forum, a society of professional European tapestry artist-weavers, has been developing activities [for] promoting our medium since 2001. These are very valuable initiatives. Let us hope they will bring great results. I would gladly play a part in that collaboration.

     But what are my expectations? My hope is that through consecutive tapestry exhibitions with rigorous pre-selecting, and considering the peculiarities of the tapestry medium, it will be possible to elevate this ancient medium of artistic expression to a contemporary setting. In that setting, tapestry would not just be the technique used in building an image, but a specific idea, a group of characteristics that direct the creation of genetically autonomous art. This may also help to see tapestry weavers as a very select group of artists who possess a specific kind of creativity - as well as celebrating knowledge of the technique of weaving.

     The marvellous weaving skills of the classical French and Flemish masters are today merely an interesting curiosity, undoubtedly worthy of admiration. A focus on technique may over shadow clarity of meaning. The method by which an art object is created should not become more valuable than its reason for being created.

     I was honoured to receive the invitation to participate in jurying ATB5 and felt a great sense of responsibility. It was a good idea to select a jury which represented museum curators, architects and working artists. As an artist myself, I feel that the weaver/artists expect fairness and truthfulness from me as well as criticism. I trust my remarks and opinions will not be received as unkind, but as constructive criticism.

     The entries which I viewed represented a great diversity in subject matter. I studied them numerous times. There were some that I will remember for a long time, and others that I have already forgotten. Some artists submitted multiple entries and I would have chosen both (which was against the regulations of the competition) as, in my opinion, they were simply outstanding. When I would have chosen either entry of a given artist, I agreed with the other jurors and chose the entry they favoured.

o f

t h e

A m e r i c a n

T a p e s t r y

A l l i a n c e

<< Members