ASA Adjudication on Glynn Vivian Art Gallery

Ad

An art competition run by a local gallery. The terms and conditions of the competition stated "Performances, installations and architectural glass are not permitted ... Video and DVD works will be displayed on monitor only, and they should be no longer than 10 minutes".

Issue

The complainant, who noted the submission that won second prize had initially been described as an installation and the video which formed part of the installation was over 15 minutes long, challenged whether the competition had been run fairly and in accordance with the terms and conditions.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

The Glynn Vivian Art Gallery (The Gallery) said the Swansea open competition was an annual exhibition specially devised in 1998 for the inclusion and participation of local communities. They said they had received hundreds of applications over the years but had only ever received complaints from one person.

The Gallery said, within the art industry, the term 'installation' was a generally understood term to describe "either the hanging of pictures or the arrangement of objects in an exhibition, or a site-specific artwork, which offered a three dimensional experience of being physically surrounded by art". They said they excluded that art form because it was too complex and voluminous for them to manage in the context of an open submission where artists had to physically bring their own work into the gallery. They said the art work that had won the second prize was a DVD film, that showed a performance event staged by the artist where she wrapped her body in a coil of clay. They provided photographs which showed the work, as well as several other artists work, being displayed on a monitor in the gallery. The Gallery said, although the term "ceramic installation" had been used by the applicant on the submission form, the term "Movie" had been marked clearly on the label of the object. They said the term used by the applicant had been used on their original published catalogue list of applicants, but they had then corrected it to reflect that the submission was actually a DVD.

The Gallery said the DVD had comprised a sequence of three parts; part one lasted approximately four minutes, part two approximately two minutes and part three approximately ten minutes. Each part represented a different stage of the same event in which the artist coiled her body in clay. They said they had therefore considered that the work comprised short sequences, and as each part was ten minutes or less, the work was admissible under the terms of the guidelines. They said that criterion had applied to all DVD works submitted.

The Gallery said, before the event, they had obtained legal advice about the Swansea Open 2006 Information Leaflet (which included the conditions of entry), which confirmed that their interpretation of the guideline about the duration of DVD works was acceptable. They said, however, in light of the complaint received, their advisors had recommended this year that they should consider making the guideline clearer about works that were comprised of connected sequences. They said they had agreed to make that amendment.

They said they considered their administration of the competition had complied with the Code and they intended to strengthen the underlying principles of good practice for the Swansea Open competition in 2007.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted, although it had originally been described as an installation in the Gallery's catalogue list, the second prize submission had consisted of a movie and had been described as such on the label. We also noted the Gallery had amended the description on the catalogue list to state "DVD".

We noted, however, the conditions of entry for the competition clearly stated that "Video and DVD works ... should be no longer than 10 minutes". We considered that applicants would be unlikely to understand from that condition that they could enter works which were longer than ten minutes in total, if the work was comprised of separate sequences of less than ten minutes each. We considered that the Gallery had not made that condition of entry sufficiently clear, and had therefore failed to deal fairly with all applicants or potential applicants. We welcomed the Gallery's decision to amend the wording of the guideline for the next competition.

The competition breached CAP Code clauses 27.4 (Sales promotion rules) and 31.1 (Administration).

Action

We told the Gallery to ensure that they amended the wording of their terms and conditions to make the entrance requirements for DVD works clear.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)