In advance of the 101st ANNUAL deadline of June 18th, we asked jurors Pepe Coronado and Shana Lopes four questions.
Pepe Coronado
How does your work as a master printer and printmaker inform the way you look at other artists’ work?
Working as a lead printer and collaborator with a wide range of artists has shaped the way I engage with and evaluate artwork. Being involved in the realization of an artist’s vision gives you a unique perspective on the relationship between concept, process and material. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to witness firsthand countless approaches to problem-solving, image-making and creative decision-making. Each artist brings a different methodology, set of strategies and way of thinking.
This experience has taught me to look beyond surface aesthetics and consider the intentions, challenges and choices that inform a work. I am often interested not only in the final image but also in the dialogue between idea and execution. As a printer, I have learned that there are many valid paths to realizing a concept, and this has made me aware of diverse artistic practices and outcomes. It has also reinforced the importance of craftsmanship, experimentation and collaboration as integral components of artistic production.
Your return to Austin, Texas, after living in New York City allowed for a fresh reintroduction to its art world. How has working in these two cities impacted your view of printmaking and community?
Living and working in both New York City and Austin has given me the opportunity to experience two very different artistic ecosystems, each with its own strengths, challenges and perspectives. New York exposed me to an incredibly dense and fast-paced cultural environment, where artists from around the world engage in ongoing conversations in contemporary art. The sheer scale and diversity of the city fostered a heightened awareness of global artistic discourse and the many ways artists position their work within larger social and cultural contexts.
Returning to Austin provided a different but equally valuable perspective. The city has a strong sense of community and a more intimate network of artists, organizations and audiences. Experiencing both environments has deepened my appreciation for how place shapes artistic production. Landscape, history, culture and community all influence the kind of work artists make, as well as and the ways audiences respond.
In terms of printmaking, these experiences have reinforced my belief that the medium thrives in community-oriented spaces. Whether in a large metropolitan center or a smaller regional scene, printmaking’s collaborative nature creates opportunities for dialogue, shared knowledge and collective growth. Both cities have shown me that artistic communities can take many forms, but their strength ultimately lies in their ability to foster connection and support creative experimentation.
What projects are you excited to be working on right now and/or in the coming months?
I am currently expanding a long-term body of work that has evolved through photography, monotype, and more recently, prints that combine screenprinting with hand-cut paper intervention. The project explores themes related to borders, territorial divisions, migration and the lasting impact of colonial systems on cultural identity and geography. I am particularly interested in how imposed boundaries create spaces of ambiguity—areas where histories, cultures and identities overlap and resist simple categorization.
We are especially excited about several collaborative projects taking place in the print studio this year. We are launching a new program that will bring together six local artists for an immersive experience in printmaking and collaborative production. The program is designed not only to introduce participants to various printmaking techniques but also to explore collaboration itself as a creative medium. I am interested in how these exchanges can generate new ideas; challenge established practices and build stronger connections within the local arts community.
When reviewing work for a competition, what do you take into consideration? Form? Process? Content?
When reviewing artwork, the first principle I try to uphold is openness. While my experience as an artist, printmaker and educator inevitably informs my perspective, I believe it is important to approach each work on its own merit. I want to remain receptive to work that challenges my expectations or expands the possibilities of the medium.
I consider form, process and content as interconnected elements rather than separate criteria. Strong formal qualities can create a compelling visual experience, but I am equally interested in how those decisions support the conceptual framework of the work. Process is also important, particularly in printmaking, where technical choices often carry conceptual significance. However, technical mastery alone is not enough; I look for work where technique serves the larger artistic vision, ultimately demonstrating clarity of intention and a sense of discovery. Printmaking has a rich history and tradition that deserves recognition and respect, but I also value artists who take risks and push the medium in new directions; those who understand tradition with a willingness to experiment, challenge convention and contribute something new to the ongoing trajectory of contemporary printmaking.
Shana Lopes
You are the Assistant Curator of Photography at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, where your exhibitions draw from a dynamic collection. How does working with historic photography shape your approach to its contemporary artists?
Even though I work a lot with contemporary artists, I wrote my dissertation on a nineteenth-century topic because I wanted to understand photography at its inception. I am fascinated by how the medium’s possibilities were first introduced and how people learned to make sense of the camera and photographs. Many of the questions that emerged during industrialization and the transformation of modern life continue to surface throughout the two-hundred-year history of photography. Each moment carries its own historical and cultural specificity, yet certain concerns persist, particularly around technological change, representation and the circulation of images.
Working with a permanent collection that spans the medium’s earliest decades to the present encourages a long view. Artists today often engage with issues that have deep historical roots, even when their approaches feel entirely new. That perspective allows me to think more expansively about photographic literacy and the ways pictures shape our understanding of the world. It also sharpens my awareness of the medium’s early relationship to print culture and the dissemination of images, connections that remain highly relevant today.
You have dedicated your career to photography. What initially brought you to the field?
As an undergraduate, I saw a Magnum photography exhibition that completely changed the way I thought about images. It made me realize how powerful photography could be and how a single photograph can shape the way we see the world. Soon after, I started taking darkroom classes because I wanted to learn how photographs were made. My own pictures were fairly mediocre, yet I found myself increasingly drawn to the medium. Looking at photographs felt like borrowing someone else’s eyes for a moment. The chance to see the world from another person’s perspective felt revelatory. A night course on the history of photography ultimately set me on my path. It was there that I discovered I was more interested in looking at photographs, thinking about them, and writing about them than making them myself. That discovery eventually led me to curatorial work.
What projects are you excited to be working on right now and/or in the coming months?
I am currently working on an exhibition about photography and magic, a topic I have been thinking about for years. I am interested in how the medium emerged during a period fascinated by illusion and spectacle, as well as why photographs have so often been described as magical. The project looks at everything from nineteenth-century trick photographs to contemporary artists who continue to draw upon the gestures of stage magic. I also recently opened a small permanent collection exhibition on photography and dance. It has been exciting to think about the relationship between a medium that freezes time and an art form built around movement, rhythm and performance.
When reviewing work for a competition, what do you take into consideration? Form? Process? Content?
When reviewing work for a juried competition, I consider form, process and content together rather than separately. I am interested in projects where the visual approach feels inseparable from the ideas being explored. Originality and thoughtfulness of approach are especially important to me. I want to understand why an artist has chosen a particular technique, process or structure, and how those decisions contribute to the work’s larger meaning. As an art historian, I am drawn to work that is both visually compelling and conceptually rigorous. Strong photographs do not necessarily require elaborate production or a grand subject. What matters most to me is a thoughtful engagement with the medium and a clear sense of why the work needs to exist.