08 March 2010 Response to Advisory Panel Proposals
From Minnesota Artists Exhibition Program
March 8, 2010
Dear Advisory Panel,
As I’m sure you all know, “Foot in the Door 4” is open and has been a fantastic success. It has received lots of attention in the local and national media, and the opening event was the biggest ever: 7,000 people! We’ve also received a tremendous amount of positive feedback from the public about the exhibition’s size, content, and spirit—along with an appreciation for making it open to all Minnesota artists.
Now that the show is up, I’d like to get back to you regarding our ongoing discussions about the MAEP Advisory Panel. The Artist Panel appreciated hearing your thoughts in January, as well your suggestions for its continuation. Having reviewed both of your proposals and discussed your specific points, members of the Artist Panel are unanimous in their following responses:
- They greatly appreciated all your work during the transition of the MAEP last summer and fall, including your active involvement in the hiring of the coordinator;
- Due in large part to your hard work, they feel the Advisory Panel is unnecessary going forward;
- To be more specific, they do not see the need for the Artist Panel, coordinator, or associate to have another level of oversight from an Advisory Panel or group;
- They agree that, if a situation arises when it would be helpful to create another ad hoc committee, they would initiate the effort;
- In their opinion, the proposed roles for the Advisory Panel as outlined in each of your proposals are already covered under the description of the MAEP Artist Panel.
The MAEP Artist Panel and staff are considering many of the suggestions that were made at the annual meeting and in subsequent discussions. As a group we are working on these items, which include: the effort to travel MAEP shows to other venues and to find additional ways of expanding the museum’s support of Minnesota artists; making all panelists’ and staff contact information available to the artist community in order to field questions, respond to comments, or bring concerns to the panel’s attention through our social media outlets, direct e-mails, and phone calls; and the possibility of holding a second annual meeting at which artists can learn more about the program, speak directly to panelists and staff, and have an opportunity to connect with their colleagues.
We’d like to thank you again for presenting your proposals during the January meeting but, as summarized above, do not feel that either option is necessary for the ongoing administration of the program. We are happy to post this response as an open letter on the MAEP Web site.
Tammy Sopinski Perlman
Back to Advisory Panel.
Back to April 12, 2010 letter to the Minnesota Artists Community.
Back to Advisory Panel proposals.