Ruckus is sustained by a dynamic mix of writers and writing backgrounds. Anyone can submit an article idea regardless of experience or formal art training. We are looking for writers who are conscious of ongoing dialogue in contemporary art and excited about our region’s contribution to the greater conversation. Please complete the following form to submit your pitch. If you have a full draft at the time of submission, we are happy to take this as your proposal, but any given proposal does not need to be more than a few sentences that outline what you plan to accomplish. For instance, in an exhibition review, mention which upcoming show you have selected, how you plan to assess its success and when you plan to have this piece finished.
Examples of subjects we are always looking for, but is in no way limited to, include:
-Articles concerning the experience and histories of Black, Indigenous, Queer, Rural, economically disenfranchised, and People of Color, and their intersection with art in the region.
-Articles concerning the role of art in gentrification.
-Articles concerning the intersection of art and politics.
-Articles that discuss the relationship between art and public health.
-Articles that discuss the relationship between public art/public aesthetics/architecture and civic values.
-Reviews of exhibitions.
-Artist spotlights, and/or Q&As.
At their discretion, the editorial team may refuse submissions in which the writer:
-Writes about their own work.
-Writes about the work of someone with whom the writer has a personal or financial relationship.
-Received compensation from a gallery or artist to write the article in question.
-Collects the work of the artist in question.
-Writes about exhibitions curated by, featuring, or including the work of any Ruckus contributor or collaborator.
Writers must disclose any such relationship to the editorial team when proposing their submission; accepted submissions of this kind will be editorially positioned to reflect the relationship—as a personal essay, for example, as opposed to an objective review—to prioritize the integrity of the piece and the journal.