Thank you, Jen.

Right on Jen.

We appreciate your concern! Just FYI, the 2012 Arts Innovator Awards recipients were both women. You can see the list of Artist Trust's grant recipients from 2003-on here: http://artisttrust.org/index.php/award-w…

No. Just no. This is ridiculous.

To the extent that it reflects an unfair selection process, then yes.

However, the result doesn't by itself mean the selection process was unfair, as you seem to assume.

@4, good point. Furthermore, if you go back to 2010 you will find that 4 out of 6 winners have been women.

Why concentrate on the gender and not the art?

Sigh.... Oh Ms. Graves, why do you have a need for incendiary blog comments that seek to take away from the great news that we are a city that 1) has innovator awards for local artists? and 2) that there are organizations out there (like Artist Trust) that raise money to support and administer such awards?
Is the Stranger jealous that it has competition, e.g., Genius awards? 5K doesn't look so hot these days in light of 25k and 50k awards (hooray for AT and Frye!) being awarded. And to pick on gender inequality? Really? Maybe look inwards at your own staff directory... http://posting.altweeklies.com/aan/direc… Only a 33% female employment rate there at the Stranger... not so hot for journalism equality is it? Even below the US national average for women in journalism (which is no where near parity either). Quote from Media Matters survey:
IA study released by Media Matters For America in June of this year found that women make up only 38 percent of newsroom staff -- a figure that has remained the same for the past 14 years, and one that, according to Christy C. Bulkeley of the Nieman Foundation For Journalism at Harvard University, is a mere four percent higher than the percentage of female newspaper reporters 30 years ago. Media Matters For America also found that women are underrepresented in newsroom leadership positions, comprising only 34.6 percent of newsroom supervisors in 2013.

So please, pick your battles a bit better Ms. Graves. If you have a beef with Artist Trust (or the artists chosen for the Innovator Awards) consider what they are and go forth... otherwise you might find yourself in a glass house with a pile of stones to throw. Just saying...

Since picking artists is entirely subjective, there is no scientific way to prove that these men are somehow "better" than local women artists.
Its personal taste of the jurors, and nothing else.
And so, I am totally with Jen on this one.

Plus- we are talking some guys here who, frankly, have won their share lately- Grade has won something like 5 or 6 regional awards in the last 2 or 3 years, Gary Hill wins EVERYTHING, and is not exactly in need. Several of the other artists have won a grants and awards locally recently as well.

There are a lot of artists around here, and probably over half of em are women- cant we ever pick some new people?

Youll "be reporting back"? But you have already stated your conlusion. Maybe you should have waited until you have gathered enough information to support your implication that the process was unfair.

I remember, decades ago, when I said the sign that our society was becoming equal was when men started winning awards for women.

Sadly, we're not, but they are.

The numbers are patently ridiculous. I have not commented on causality. Your kneejerk defensiveness is showing. Sexist systems do not require misogynists to continue. Chill out.

By "continue," I mean to perpetuate themselves. That was a weird construction; sorry.

@ 11- Gary Hill is in need of a new surfboard.

FYPK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Gary Hill needs a new surfboard, why doesnt he just project one?

@19, if you think projecting is easy you haven't met my therapist.

hj

Arts commentary in this town is ridiculous. We deserve better.

@15: It is not a big enough data sample to draw that conclusion. You need to analyze past years data if you want to confirm that a bias exists. 7 or more out of 8 could easily have occurred randomly if men and women were selected in an unbiased and equal fashion (in this case a 3.5% chance).

This town deserves better arts reporting. Ms. Graves is a joke.

Could they do the art-award equivalent of blind auditions? Show the judges some works and decide which ones they like the most without knowledge of the artist? That made a huge difference for gender parity in orchestras. At any rate, art galleries are an exquisite brothel of pretense and mediocrity - except unlike regular brothels you have to spend all evening on your feet.

Thanks Jen. For speaking out and saying what needs saying. Last week it was announced that uber liberal Seattle has the worst gender gap in terms of employment. http://www.geekwire.com/2013/seattle-wor… Now this announcement. And now this. So much of what has been won over the past decades is being lost. It's not an attack on any one institution (to the comments upstream). It's a warning. A sign, a signal that the culture is slipping. Anyone who attends Artist Trust events knows that women fill their programs as students, workshop takers, admins, supporters and the awards go ... to the men. What century is this? If the women are STILL filling all the classes and the men are still getting ALL the awards and opportunities, isn't time to ask why? According to some of the comments here, we can't even ask a simple direct question.

Right on, Jen.

@Jen: The numbers are patently ridiculous. I have not commented on causality.

What does it even mean to say the numbers are "patently ridiculous" without any reference to the system that produced them?

@26 Ann-Marie, I think my main issue is that no "simple direct question" has been asked here. Graves used this Blog to hurl an indictment (implied or direct depending upon ones sensitivities) at Artist Trust and threatens to follow her outrage up with a report. It's not culture that is slipping; journalistic standards are.

PS. what's up with calling your recent photo series of men "Asian Guys Hair"? smacks of stereotyping. Is that not also troublesome and indicative of a slipping culture, or is it just your artistic vision (a cool one) promoted by you without heed to some larger societal trajectory? Just making a point that 7 out of 8 nominees for an award doesn't signal misogyny, nor does your photo series signal racism, but how quickly and easily that charge could be levied at you. (also assuming those photos are yours...apologies if I'm off-base).

@23, Now we're cooking with math! Thank you.

@15, Hey Jen. Have you looked at gender bias with past Genius Awards? I was starting to, but realized that's what a journalist digging into this topic should be doing. I'm not one, but have a lot of faith in them to present facts and multiple viewpoints. hint, hint.

Dang it, couldn't help myself and looked up the numbers... 52 total Stranger Genius awards (from 2003 through 2012). 12 of those are organizations leaving 40 "individual" awards, identifiable by their gender... 17 to women, 23 to men (only counted SBC as 1 male award). That stacks to 23% organization, 33% female, and 44% male. Does this mean anything is flawed with your selection process? Maybe/Maybe not. Discuss.

WAY 2 GO BOYS!

@11 do you recognize the irony? It sounds like you are saying that there is broad recognition that this Grades fellow does stuff people like... and that's your argument for saying he SHOULDN'T get the award?

my name is not number eleven.
I have been on these juries- not this particular award, but a variety of juries for artists, including some for Artist Trust.

Its not about numbers, or statistics.
Its about personal preference, and the politics of each individual jury.
The Awarding Body, in this case Artists Trust, sets general guidelines- generally, they want artists selected solely on the merits of the work, without considering gender, age, location, or past history.

But human brains dont work that way- jurors have opinions, based on their own biases and history. On a panel like this, the jurors will know the work of the artists, and often, know the artists themselves, socially.

So, inevitably, it becomes about emotion, opinion, personal tastes, and who is a jerk at dinner parties.

Personally, as a juror, I do look first for a high standard of quality in the work- but in a field like this, where they are all pretty darn good, you do, inevitably, think about who has gotten a lot of awards lately, about the gender and race balance of awards, about who "deserves" it more.
Sometimes I have reluctantly voted with the majority for the rich white guy who just had 3 museum shows and a MacArthur, because the work is just plain better than the direct competition.

But mostly, I, and many other jurors, do try to balance these things out, to reward younger, less known, more deserving artists, as opposed to the same old fat and sassy old white guys. Because, at the end of the day, Grade and Hill will still have a lot more trophies, dollars, sales and shows than a woman or a black man with the same level of quality of work.

America is racist and sexist, period.

When can I get one of these white male awards? I totally qualify!

I'm with Jen. It's like going inbto
Stone Way Hardware: you have to have (or be) a dick to get any recognition.

"Studies have shown that if you submit work to a juried exhibit and the jurors don't know the gender of the person submitting, it ends up pretty equal in terms of who is selected. But as soon as the artist's gender is known, women drop back to one third." Linda Stein