The components for evaluation, described below, are weighted similarly to the way state agencies, AWP, and the National Endowment for the Arts weight their components by varying amounts.
Artistic or Academic Merit (45%)
Subcommittee members evaluate the artistic value, pedagogical value, intellectual value, or entrepreneurial value of the proposal. High-scoring panels should be artistically meritorious, intellectually significant, with a roster of talented artists or accomplished experts on the topic.
Importance to Members (25%)
How important is it to our attendees that our conference offers this topic? Subcommittee members evaluate how useful the presentation would be to one or more of SGCI’s constituencies: students, emerging professionals, academics, program directors, publishers, print shops, individual practitioners, etc. The subcommittee will assess the relative novelty of the proposal (for example, has something been similar been offered in recent conference year programming?), basing decisions on if the proposed panel will be new and important to a significant number of our attendees.
Subcommittee members evaluate whether or not the proposal will offer artistic, intellectual, regional, political, ethnic, and cultural diversity to the conference, and whether or not it addresses the needs of all communities working in printmaking.
Proposal Integrity (10%)
Is the necessary information (event description, statement of merit, biographical notes) complete and useful? Are the moderator and/or presenters reliable professionals? Subcommittee members evaluate both the proposal’s intentions and the ability of the presenters to fulfill those intentions.