OVERTIME 26
Competition Brief
Purpose
OVERTIME 26 calls for innovative works from all sorts of artists (such as sketches, paintings, drawings, photography, jewelry, sculpture, furniture, installations, etc.) that will be publically displayed at an exhibition. The purpose of the show is to recreate the traditional gallery set-up as a free stage for architects and designers to exhibit rather unconventional architectural works beyond built environments.
Concern
The contest brings back to the present-day the original essence of the Overtime exhibitions at the beginning of the 1990s. It is planned to gather works from the original generation of contributors and to include new inputs from the young designers and students, thus providing a place for trial, contemplation, and interdisciplinary design practice. aiasanfrancisco.submittable.com
Jury
There is no jury information available.
Prizes
| Recognition / Outcome | Details |
|---|---|
| Exhibition display | Selected works will be shown in the OVERTIME 26 exhibition. |
Fees
| Entry Type | Fee (USD) |
|---|---|
| Standard submission | 50 |
| Student / Gallery‑Student submission | 10 |
Timeline
| Phase / Stage | Date / Detail |
|---|---|
| Phase 1 (OG) submission deadline | February 25, 2026 |
| Installation for Phase 1 | March 13–17, 2026 |
| Launch of Phase 1 exhibition | March 18, 2026 |
| Phase 2 (REDUX) submission deadline | June 2, 2026 |
| Installation for Phase 2 | June 12–14, 2026 |
| Launch of Phase 2 exhibition | June 17, 2026 |
✦ ArchUp Competition Review
OVERTIME 26 is an open call for works of art in almost all forms, which among other things, intends to invite architects to express themselves not only through building but also by venturing into different non-built mediums. Greatly through its very wide-ranging nature the event does facilitate among others, avant-garde and interdisciplinary works but on the other hand, the not-revealed jury and undefined curatorial criteria do cause less transparency and thereby the situation gets evaluative, in a way, unpredictable. Fees upon entry are low, however, participants are responsible for the whole process including making, moving, and displaying that could easily tell more on the students and less on emerging designers as a consequence. The format of the two phases not only tries to join the traditional contributors with the new participants but at the same time it is putting in jeopardy the dilution of the exhibition identity. To sum up, the competition does provide the winning artists with staff and resources, however, the practical and evaluative uncertainties may limit its perceived professional value and accessibility.
Critical Analysis
Scope and Opportunity vs. Ambiguity
The vast variety of media and scales allowed in the competition provide the architect with the possibility to create his own way and even to go through non-traditional architectural practices. On the other hand, the open scope also makes it unclear: without the constraints of a theme, the applicants may not know what the jury considers as suitable or competitive work and hence get confused. The unclear curatorial criteria may cause inconsistent selection standards for totally different types of submissions.
Transparency and lack of jury disclosure
The non-existence of any jury or curatorial committee that is publicly listed and known to the public is a reason for lack of transparency. No one knows who is going to evaluate the submissions or what their backgrounds are; thus, the participants cannot assess how their work might be judged. This situation creates unpredictability and may also discourage those who prefer to know exactly what the evaluation standards are.
Financial Accessibility vs. Production Burden
The relatively low entry fees (50 USD standard, 10 USD for students) reduce the financial barrier of submission to a minimum. However, selected artists are the ones responsible for the whole process of making, transporting, installing, and taking care of their works, logistic and financial burdens that might be regarded as prohibitive especially for students, beginners, or people without institutional support. This requirement could mean that participation in a significant way is only possible for the rich and well-connected.
Generational Bridge vs. Exhibition Identity Risk
The dual-phase format (Phase 1 OG and Phase 2 REDUX) holds up the original contributors from the 1990s and new-generation designers, potentially leading to intergenerational conversation. At the same time, the merging of the old and new works runs the risk of the exhibition being perceived in parts. There might be a drop in the artistic coherence, and the newer pieces can fall behind due to the nostalgia or historical significance.
Evaluation Challenge for Diverse Media
The variety of media (ranging from painting to furniture to installation) makes the creation of just evaluation criteria a very difficult task. The comparison between the different media types may lead to the favoritism of certain formats (e.g. those more gallery-friendly or easier to photograph and install) over others. In the absence of the evaluation parameters that are documented, the selections may amount to a lot of subjective curatorial taste involved, which might be unfavorable to the unconventional or conceptually challenging works.
Value Without Guarantee
The main “reward” for the participants is the exposition and the visibility of the curator, not the financial or institutional support. This might be perfectly fine for experimental and personal work, but it does not provide any guarantee of impact, sale, or follow-up. The entrants are left to decide if the potential benefit of the exhibition exposure is worth the risk, cost, and effort that comes with realizing their work independently.
Conclusion
OVERTIME 26 is an open call for works of art in almost all forms, which among other things, intends to invite architects to express themselves not only through building but also by venturing into different non-built mediums. The event has a wide-ranging nature that greatly facilitates, among others, avant-garde and interdisciplinary works; however, the not-revealed jury and the undefined curatorial criteria bring about less transparency and thereby the situation gets evaluative, in a way, unpredictable. The submission fees are low, but the participants have to take care of the whole process from making to moving and displaying which could tell more on the students and less on the emerging designers as a consequence. The two phases format tries to connect the traditional contributors with the new participants; at the same time, it jeopardizes the dilution of the exhibition identity. In short, the competition does provide the winning artists with staff and resources, but the practical and evaluative uncertainties may limit its perceived professional value and accessibility.
Explore the Latest Architecture Exhibitions & Conferences
ArchUp offers daily updates on top global architectural exhibitions, design conferences, and professional art and design forums.
Follow key architecture competitions, check official results, and stay informed through the latest architectural news worldwide.
ArchUp is your encyclopedic hub for discovering events and design-driven opportunities across the globe.
Registration Deadline
Brought to you by the ArchUp Editorial Team
Inspiration starts here. Dive deeper into Architecture, Interior Design, Research, Cities, Design, and cutting-edge Projects on ArchUp
