Open calls didn’t make photography more open. They simply replaced one gatekeeping system with another, built on paid submissions, administrative rules, and predictable results. And their influence reaches far beyond the photographers who actually apply.
Many photographers at every stage of their careers spend time and money applying to open calls, believing they are investing in visibility. The expectation is simple: access in exchange for quality. The structure behind these programs is not. Most operate on an economic model that depends on volume rather than on the discovery of strong work.
In this system, the photographer is not the beneficiary but the product, and participation becomes a transaction where the platform sells visibility back to the same person who paid to submit the work. What presents itself as an opportunity often functions less as a curatorial process and more as a revenue model built on continuous submissions.
Photography has often been described as democratic, although this rarely matched how the field functions. Many spent years refining their work, only to discover that visibility depended less on skill than on structures that shaped distribution and meaning. Cameras were available to everyone, yet influence belonged to a few, and the gap between participation and recognition continued to widen.
The Collapse of Institutional Authority
For much of the twentieth century, visibility depended on access rather than ability. Magnum shaped the grammar of truth, major magazines defined how global stories looked, and museums and critics determined which images entered public memory. Millions produced photographs, but a small circle defined the direction of the medium.
This structure began to erode once the tools of production and distribution became widely accessible. Smartphones made photography ordinary, digital workflows reduced the need for specialized skills, and online platforms disconnected circulation from institutional approval. The medium expanded faster than its frameworks could contain, and the systems that once defined value began to lose coherence.
The loss of institutional authority created a vacuum in which new mechanisms of selection emerged. Open calls and submission platforms position themselves as democratic alternatives, yet they replace curatorial decisions with administrative evaluation. Work is judged not for its photographic intent but for its alignment with narrow thematic expectations. Crisis, identity, inequality, and geopolitical tension dominate these frameworks, and recognition depends on conformity rather than originality.
An economic model drives this shift. The structure is straightforward: the platform earns from the number of submissions, not from the outcomes, and the fee replaces the curatorial responsibility that once shaped photographic selection. Participation for a fee encourages broad themes, low thresholds, and predictable results. The language of inclusivity becomes a commercial tool rather than a cultural one. Photographers are not selected in a meaningful sense; they are monetized. What appears as access is a revenue model, and the criteria follow the logic of what attracts paid participation rather than what advances the medium.
The Spread of Administrative Logic
Even photographers who never submit to open calls operate within the logic these systems produce. Clients adopt similar expectations and prefer narratives that already feel familiar. Social platforms amplify images that follow predictable emotional cues. Commercial briefs often mirror the thematic frameworks of submission-based platforms. A photographer may ignore competitions entirely, yet the structures that shape visibility still influence which projects are commissioned, which styles circulate widely, and which practices appear relevant.
Yet the appearance of openness hides a single evaluative pattern. A large juried selection can still reflect one worldview because the criteria remain thematic rather than photographic. Creative unions and grant programs reinforce the same structure by rewarding alignment with predetermined subjects. The earlier institutional hierarchy collapses, but it is replaced by administrative visibility that narrows the range of work considered legitimate.
Another dynamic shapes the field more quietly. The visual language of contemporary photography develops in professional environments that work with real audiences and real constraints. Fashion, advertising, editorial, and product photography introduce new forms into circulation, refine them through repetition, and establish the habits through which images are read. Institutions adopt these forms only after they stabilize. Critics interpret them later. Open calls arrive last and select the safest version of what has already become familiar.
Professional environments move ahead of institutions because they respond to immediate demands and evolve through practice rather than interpretation. The direction of the medium emerges from this work, and institutional programs often follow rather than lead.
The Return of Control
A field without a clear center may appear free, yet a lack of shared reference points leaves photographers without direction. When institutional structures dissolve and administrative systems prioritize scale over depth, photography risks finding coherence only through mechanisms that do not support its development. The movement of the medium returns to the places where new visual logic is formed rather than managed.
Professional practice becomes the space where photography continues to evolve. Photographers who work within real markets introduce decisions that shape how images function, and their accumulated practice influences the direction the medium follows. Institutions no longer hold this authority, and platforms built on predictability cannot guide it.
A deeper contradiction defines the present moment. Institutional photography grows more dependent and bureaucratic, shaped by programs that reward compliance and narrow relevance. Freedom, experimentation, and new visual language increasingly emerge within commercial practice and personal work, driven in part by the high level of competition that forces creative decisions to evolve quickly. The center of the medium shifts back to the communities that create its language.
15 Comments
Open calls for art come in a variety of forms, so my opinion of them is not generalized but made because of specifics. Once again, I’m responding to your article by seeking examples.
For instance… our local institutions (city and county government, university, and hospitals) almost always select art through open calls. There are no entry fees. While they provide themes for which they are interested (hospitals prefer calming nature scenes), which seems reasonable, there is no dialogue between artist and selection committee. Nothing that would help me direct their attention toward one of 600 other images of mine that might be appropriate besides the few I’ve submitted. It becomes sort of a take-it-or-leave-it scenario, and that often produces less-than-ideal outcomes. However, it’s the only way to sell art to these places. Public art is often selected through open calls, and the system allows artists to pinpoint how, when and where to find customers. The system cuts down on closed-door decisions. That’s not all bad.
Other types of open calls are purely to obtain something for nothing. Banks love to have contests… pushing the idea of exposure in return for free pictures. Personally, I resent that. They can afford to pay something to the artist. The Colorado National Monument (our local federal park) operates the same way. For many photographers, it’s an honor and bragging rights to have their images selected. And photographers are quite vain in the way they think about their work. Photo competitions for the sole purpose of winning a prestigious award, the Sony World Photography awards come to mind, can arguably change the life of a winner. It's not my cup of tea, but then I don't think of my images as world-class. Some non-profit organizations raise money through competitions, and that, I suppose, is reasonable. I generally look to see how much their CEO is earning from his job and go from there. Everyone has to decide for themselves what’s worth giving away for free. So I stick by my claim that each open call deserves individual scrutiny.
For the broader implications of open calls from galleries and museums for the purpose of showing in exhibitions, it may feel like control is being given away, but for artists who are never gonna pick up the phone and initiate an introduction, responding to an open call is probably the only opportunity for them to gain any traction in the art world. After all, if not by responding to open calls, how? As in... what better way do you have for expanding your career as an artist?
Thank you, Ed. You raise an important point.
The examples you describe are exactly why this conversation matters. There are open calls that function honestly and serve a clear purpose. My concern is not with their existence, but with how commercial open calls tend to operate as a system.
In commercial open calls, work has to meet a mass criterion. More often than not, this means not being original but being effective. Originality does not pass easily through mass selection because it requires time and attention. Effectiveness is read quickly. This is what I find most troubling in these systems. Not always, but most often in commercial open calls.
Open calls provide access, but not to “the art world” in general. They provide access to a very specific audience with already formed expectations. That access can be real and sometimes useful, but it remains point-based. Even when a work is acknowledged by a major photography publication, the outcome is usually limited to a concrete result, such as selling that particular work, without dialogue, continuation, or a shift of context.
As for the question “if not open calls, then what?” — I honestly don’t have a clear alternative yet. I’m looking as well. If I find something that works differently and more sustainably, I’ll be the first to share it.
Alvin,
I love your writing and the topics that you write about are usually of great interest to me. But I have no idea what "open calls" means. I do not believe I have ever seen that term used before.
Would you be so kind as to explain what an "open call" is, in the context that you are using it here in this article?
Thanks!
In this case, Google might be useful:
An "open call" is a public invitation for submissions, applications, or participation, common in arts (auditions, exhibitions), research (funding), and creative fields, allowing anyone meeting basic criteria to apply, unlike exclusive invites, to find diverse talent or ideas for projects, grants, or performances. It functions as a broad recruitment or funding mechanism, often organized by institutions like galleries, universities, or cultural centers.
Thank you!
I will now read your article with this definition in mind. I tried to read it previously, but it made little sense to me because I did not know the meaning of the thing that the article was written about.
EDIT:
Oh, it looks like you are talking about photo contests in which the entrants pay to enter their photo into the competition. Is that indeed what you are talking about?
For example: the university in our community (Colorado Mesa University) remodeled their library a few years ago. They wanted to buy new artwork for the building, but rather than contacting artists individually and inviting them to come to their business office to discuss their needs, they posted an "open call" on a public website. Not the university website, although they could do it that way, but posted through an organization that reaches thousands of artists who have signed up to be notified of "calls for artwork." Organizations typically require that you sign up for their newsletter to be informed of future open calls. This is the website where our university open call was posted:
https://www.callforentry.org/
And this is where I would submit my proposals to an open call, including the media type (photography), a jpeg of the image, price, etc., to the university. An open call only means it's open to anyone who wants to respond. No particular qualifications are required, and that is somewhat of an advantage to the artists, especially young artists without any track record of exhibitions. Most galleries are only interested in showing your work if you have an established history of exhibitions or awards.
After the closing or cut off-date for submissions, the university has already appointed a committee to review submissions, which goes to work choosing the art they want to buy. There are no absolute criteria for selecting artwork... they don't have to purchase the cheapest, but they are often accountable to a board of directors or higher officers who might question a decision if perceived to be based on nepotism or any sort of illogical reason. Generally speaking, local artists are favored when they have the capability of meeting the needs of the buyer. The open call might even state in its terms that local artists are preferred. Some responses to an open call require that the artist pay a nominal fee to enter; others such as this one for the university were free to enter. They simply wanted to buy art, not run a contest with prizes for the sake of publicity.
There are many forms of open calls. The Sony World Photography awards are conducted as an open call to photographers. Anyone can enter pictures into each of several categories. Up to three I think are free, more than that cost something. Winners receive substantial cash prizes and some degree of prestige, which may help the person have their work accepted into an art gallery, or advance their career in other ways. So, yes, photo competitions can be one form of an open call, but are often far more than just simple competitions for publicity and cash prizes. Most art acquired by public universities, government offices and hospitals is acquired through an open call. The process is open and transparent, an important aspect of purchasing anything for these sort of institutions. The huge metal sculptures placed in a few of our city's roundabouts were purchased after posting an open call invitation to artists in that field. So it's not just relevant to photography.
One of my photographs selected by Colorado Mesa University through the open call for artwork process....
Thank you for the example, Ed.
I have never, ever, in all my life, heard of something being done this way. So no wonder I was unfamiliar with the term, and the article made little sense to me.
Without actual examples, things remain nebulous in my mind, and discussions about them don't make any sense because I do not know what it is that is being written about. And no, it is never helpful for things to be nebulous and undefined in the reader's mind - that never serves the purposes of the writer (assuming their purposes are viable), and never serves the purposes of the reader.
I think it would behoove writers to not assume that the readership at large is already familiar with the topic being written about. Just a simple, straightforward paragraph at the very beginning of an article, explaining what it is that the article discusses, would be so very helpful.
Ed wrote:
"Most art acquired by public universities, government offices and hospitals is acquired through an open call."
That is not always the case. I know this because the U.S. State Department asked for a photo of mine to be used in a permanent exhibit in the Kenyan embassy. There was no outgoing call. The ambassador simply found photos that she liked by surfing the internet - specifically looking for photos showing North American megafauna - and wanted to use one of my pics of a Mule Deer buck. She was not open to considering any other images, neither from me or from any other photographers. Only the ones that she had found online and picked out as ones she wanted for the exhibit were going to be considered. No open call whatsoever.
I didn't say it always works that way. I too have landed some nice work which sidestepped public rules for purchasing. However, those sort of closed-door deals invite scrutiny from public watch dogs, and with financial budgets and government bloat going sky high these days, there are a lot of politically minded folks looking for wasteful spending, even on just a local level.
The best way for public employees to stay out of hot water is to have transparency in the decision making process. For decades, the city and county would conduct bid openings. After soliciting formal bids for a print order, the purchasing agent would open all of the bids at a designated time for all sales representatives to see in person, and presumably the lowest bid would get the order. Those were stressful moments on big orders when you were sitting there with other vendors. But if you got to know the purchasing agent pretty well, sometimes they'd slip you an order without going through the formal bid process.
The amount of money involved too makes a difference. I had a US Dept of Interior person contact me about using one of my images of Colorado National Monument on their website, for free of course. Having just filed my tax return, I wasn't too sympathetic to giving the government a gift.
Ed wrote:
"I had a US Dept of Interior person contact me about using one of my images of Colorado National Monument on their website, for free of course. Having just filed my tax return, I wasn't too sympathetic to giving the government a gift."
Yeah I understand that!
I get people from nonprofit agencies wanting to use my pics for free. I say "no", and explain that they (the person contacting me) is getting a paycheck from the nonprofit. The nonprofit is paying the power company for the electricity that they use. They are paying for the internet service they use. They pay a local contractor to plow the snow off of their parking lot. They pay for the cleaning supplies that their custodian uses. They pay for agency-owned cars, the gas they use, and the insurance that covers them.
Yet they want to use my photos and not pay? Seriously? Why is it that they have no problem paying for everything else that they use, but expect photos to be free?
Good question... probably because they can.
Ohhh.... you forgot that the CEO is probably getting paid a million bucks salary.
BTW, that image of yours works wonderfully with the colors of the room and its furnishings!
Thanks, Tom. I don't actually recall if I was lucky or if something in the open call cited the colors they were looking for. That's one of the problems with open calls that Alvin alludes to. It's really difficult to establish a conversation. You throw a few images in front of the buyer and hope for the best. It's far more effective to engage in a conversation with the potential buyer, in which case you can expand the scope of what they may have been initially focused on.
Most people looking for decorative art have a narrow view of what they like, and what else is available. In this case, the prospect invited a face-to-face meeting for talking about artwork in their remodeled event and meeting facility. Virtually everybody wants landscapes. They were no exception. But when I brought my box full of print samples and showed other ideas, she was instantly attracted and sold on the idea of the more intimate scenes and an old dilapidated building to fit with the brick interior of her walls. That's the problem with open calls... it's nearly impossible to have an impact on the client's thoughts which might deviate from their original intention.
Reading the article chapter by chapter felt like revisiting the same idea from different angles, but I don’t mean that as a criticism. Quite the opposite. I genuinely love your writing, and I loved this article.
What struck me is that, while reading, I realized something I hadn’t fully articulated before. Open calls are largely why I stepped away from creating in a “pure” creative sense. And paradoxically, that shift helped me.
Over the years, decades, really, I learned that a solid business model let me do the opposite of what’s usually expected: reduce my clientele, raise my prices, and simplify my work. My role gradually moved from attracting attention as a creative to operating as a highly efficient service provider.
I do have competition, of course, but efficiency cuts through noise. It allows me to respond with creativity on demand, when a client actually needs it. Because of the trust built through reliability and speed, much of my work happens quietly. It’s largely invisible to competitors, who rarely enter my circle at all.
Thank you for the comment. You’re right, this article looks at the same idea from several angles rather than developing it forward. That was intentional, and you read it correctly.
Trust and efficiency really are key factors of success. And yes, open calls often work as entry points for building that trust. A long list of past selections helps before any real interaction even starts. That’s their advantage.
Where I see the danger is exactly in what you describe — the illusion. The illusion that marketing tools help develop creativity or personal style. In reality, they often do the opposite. Especially in large, commercial open calls. The logic is simple: the more participants, the more money. And when money depends on volume, the bar cannot be set very high. Original work slows the process down. Obvious, effective work moves through faster.
That doesn’t mean the solution is to abandon creative work and become a service provider only. The real challenge is learning how to combine both without letting marketing tools define what the work is allowed to become.