“The Presumed Injustice of Rejection”

It is my intention to prove to the fine men and women of the jury, that the defendant standing before you, committed premeditated self-defeat when he entered the arena of competition on the date of 10/20/1963, as a contestant at the Ultimate Proving Grounds event. I will bring evidence before the court, with the intention to convince the jurists beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is well versed in the practice of Rejectivism, a form of self-sabotage deemed unlawful in the province of Well Being, under the jurisdiction of our omnipotent court system in these Unified States of Conscious Awareness.

“Poppycock!” says the jury in unison. Now, it’s time to put up, or shut up. I’ve been rejected by the very jury I’m trying to persuade with these outlandish arguments of self-incrimination, in regards to the nature of personal rejection. Through careful introspection of past rejections, we can often see clearly how we were not only complicit with our rejector, but indeed we were the initiator of the whole cycle of self-abusive behavior that led to the rejection itself. The evidence I will put forth in the following document, has been gleaned through a lifetime of rejections experienced by an eternally-emerging Visual Artist by the name of Scott Joseph Moore.

Exhibit A+ Case #12472B-REAL

As an aspiring artist, Scott Joseph Moore has entered into juried art competitions on numerous occasions throughout the forty-plus years of his career in the visual arts. The generally accepted judging system within the art world, consists of a sole juror, passing judgement on artwork submitted by multiple artists as entries to the particular competition. The qualifications of the Lone Juror have usually been validated by the board of directors charged with administration of the gallery, museum or venue hosting the show. The entrants pay a nominal fee to enter each piece of art they submit for consideration of inclusion in the show, with the ultimate goal of placing as a ribbon winner. Being a non-conformist, Mr. Moore has often intentionally submitted to shows that were really not a fit for his decidedly unconventional approach to art. If the venue was historically conservative and likely to frown on contemporary art, this renegade artist would accept the challenge, and attempt to persuade the stodgy juror of the virtues of unbridled modern creativity. When absolute rejection was the outcome, as the artist subconsciously expected, Moore would rant over the unfair judgement of the apparently blind and uneducated juror. As Mr. Moore’s adolescent hormone level ebbed and then slacked, he learned to temper his quite contrary ways. He recognized that he had been setting himself up for failure all along. It was more than likely that he had been subconsciously looking for a reason to give up his efforts to become an artist entirely. Rejection could lead him to quiet resignation, and that would be a whole lot easier for him to cope with, and less demeaning as well. Although, while he was wallowing in the pitiful place of painful rejection, he was unable to see clearly through the fog of indignation, and so he would continue to fume over the injustice of the latest rejection notice. Through careful and honest introspection, the artist discovered that he was perfecting the character quality of self-defeatism by intentionally seeking approval where rejection was probable. He later tested his theory by asking a supermodel to go on a date with him. He still can’t fathom how she could say no to a Wendy’s hamburger.

An interesting tidbit of information from the world of visual art: There is a style of art labeled Rejectionism. It is defined as being minimal art. I guess this is for the artist who has turned the tables on the art world by rejecting the jury and negating the manual craft of creation. After all, who could justify the rejection of artwork that expresses nothing about anything.