The People’s Artist Competition: What Artists Should Know Before Entering
A new online art competition called The People’s Artist, presented with the name and image of Johnny Depp, is currently being promoted to artists as a chance to win $25,000, appear in Artforum, and display artwork at The Art of Elysium’s Art Salon in Los Angeles. On the surface, the pitch sounds like a rare convergence of artistic visibility, celebrity endorsement, charitable impact, and public recognition.
But artists should look carefully at the mechanics before entering.
The central issue is not whether the competition is “real” in the crude sense. The available evidence suggests that it is a legally structured fundraising contest operated by an established contest-management company. The deeper concern is whether the competition is meaningfully about artistic merit, or whether it functions primarily as a gamified fundraising mechanism that turns artists, their families, and their audiences into unpaid promoters and donor networks. The contest’s own documents reveal a structure that is very different from a traditional art prize, juried exhibition, grant, fellowship, or curatorial opportunity.
Who actually runs The People’s Artist?
The People’s Artist is not operated by Johnny Depp, Artforum, or The Art of Elysium. The official rules identify the operator as Colossal Management, LLC, described there as “a Delaware limited liability company and for-profit professional/commercial fundraiser.” The rules state that Colossal administers the website and operates the competition.
The contest homepage states that the competition is “Operated by Colossal.org for AIT,” meaning Action Initiative Team, a 501(c)(3) public charity, which will grant donations to The Art of Elysium. That structure matters. The artist-facing branding emphasizes imagination, public recognition, Johnny Depp, Artforum, and The Art of Elysium. But the operational center is a for-profit fundraising contest company.
Colossal itself describes its business model plainly: it “runs competitions that raise money for charity,” giving participants a platform to compete for prizes while raising awareness and funds. The Colossal website also highlights celebrity and brand partnerships, including names such as Jeff Goldblum, Jessica Alba, Tony Hawk, Ciara, Bill Nye, Daymond John, Jamie Lee Curtis, Matthew Lillard, Donnie Wahlberg, Jenny McCarthy, and others.
So artists should understand the category they are entering: this is not a conventional art competition. It is part of a broader ecosystem of celebrity-branded, donation-driven online contests.
What does the winner receive?
The public-facing pitch says one artist will win $25,000, appear in Artforum Magazine, and display their artwork at The Art of Elysium’s Salon in Los Angeles. The official rules value the total prize package at approximately $50,000, consisting of a $25,000 honorarium, an estimated $15,000 value for a minimum two-page appearance in Artforum, and an estimated $10,000 value for the artwork to be showcased at The Art of Elysium’s Art Salon. However, even here, the fine print matters. The rules say the approval, extent, and duration of the showcase are to be determined at the “sole and absolute discretion” of The Art of Elysium.
That does not mean the prize is fake. But it does mean artists should distinguish between a prestigious-sounding opportunity and the legally defined version of that opportunity.
How does voting work?
The contest is decided by public voting, not by a jury of artists, critics, curators, educators, gallerists, or museum professionals. According to the rules, voters receive one free vote every 24 hours after Colossal verifies their eligibility, which may be done through Facebook or another process. Voters aged 18 or older may also donate to cast additional votes. The rules also allow Colossal to offer additional voting mechanisms, such as “2-for-1 votes,” at its sole discretion. The winner of each round is determined by the number of “Qualifying Votes” received.
This is the heart of the controversy. Because donations can generate additional votes, the contest is not simply a democratic measure of public support for the arts. It is a system in which money can amplify voting power. That makes The People’s Artist less a measure of artistic achievement than a test of social reach, donor mobilization, audience enthusiasm, and fundraising stamina.
The rounds reset votes repeatedly
The competition proceeds through multiple rounds: Top 20, Top 15, Top 10, Top 5, Group Finals, a Wildcard Round, Quarterfinals, Semifinals, and Finals. In later stages, votes reset. The rules state that the Wildcard Round, Quarterfinals, Semifinals, and Finals each involve vote resets. This is significant because it can encourage repeated campaigning. A participant may mobilize friends and family during one phase, only to have votes reset for the next phase. The structure resembles reality-TV elimination mechanics more than a traditional art award.
It also creates recurring urgency: advance now, survive the next cut, restart, solicit again.
Colossal selects who gets to compete
The rules state that Colossal will select, “in its sole, absolute, and complete discretion,” which entrants become competitors. That clause is worth pausing on. The competition is marketed as public-facing and people-driven, yet the operator retains sweeping discretion over who enters the actual competitive pool.
Again, this is not necessarily improper. But artists should understand that this is not an open, neutral, transparent public referendum on art. It is an operator-controlled competition environment.
This is not a juried art competition
Nothing in the central mechanics suggests that artistic quality is the primary determinant of success.
The contest does not appear to rely on:
- blind jury review,
- curatorial assessment,
- peer evaluation,
- sustained portfolio review,
- professional critique,
- technical or conceptual criteria,
- or a published judging rubric.
Instead, advancement is determined by public votes, including donation-based votes. The contest’s own rules state that public voting decides the winner from the selected competitors.
This does not make the competition invalid. It does, however, make the title The People’s Artist somewhat loaded. The phrase suggests broad democratic cultural recognition, but the actual system gives substantial advantage to those with larger, wealthier, more mobilizable networks.
Is there a public online gallery of the artwork?
One of the more revealing issues is the apparent absence of a clearly documented, comprehensive public gallery of all competing artwork. For a competition called The People’s Artist, one might expect a central, browsable exhibition-style gallery where the public could view, compare, and evaluate the field of entries. That would be the most natural structure if the competition were designed around public consideration of artistic work.
The rules, however, do not appear to guarantee such a gallery. They state only that, after entry, submitted photographs “may be placed on the Website, where they may be viewed by visitors to the Website.” The operative word is “may.” This language gives the operator permission to display submitted images, but it does not appear to require a complete, searchable, public archive or gallery of all entrants.
The rules also indicate that competitors must keep an approved image on their profile page, and that the public voting process begins after competitors are divided into groups. This suggests a structure centered on individual competitor profile pages and campaign links rather than a single transparent public exhibition of the full field.
This can matter significantly, as if the public cannot easily browse the entire pool of artists, then “public voting” becomes less a broad democratic assessment of artwork and more a campaign-driven process in which each artist must circulate their own voting link to friends, family, followers, students, collectors, and supporters.
In that model, visibility is not evenly distributed. Artists with larger online networks, more active audiences, stronger social-media reach, or more willing donor circles have a structural advantage. The public is not necessarily comparing all entries side by side; it is often responding to targeted appeals from individual contestants.
This does not mean the competition is illegitimate. But it does undercut the implied premise of a people’s art prize. A genuinely public-facing art competition would normally make the art easy to see, compare, and evaluate. Here, the documentation appears to support a system built primarily around profile-based voting, link circulation, and supporter mobilization.
Where do donations go?
The financial structure is one of the most important parts of the story. The People’s Artist disclosures state that the competition is part of a fundraising campaign for Action Initiative Team, and that AIT retains exclusive custody and control over all donations raised. The disclosures also state that AIT has retained Colossal as a professional fundraising firm, and that Colossal will receive a portion of the funds as costs, expenses, and fees.
AIT’s own “What Happens To Your Donation” page provides a clearer allocation framework:
- 1% supports AIT’s mission.
- No more than 13.5% goes toward fundraiser expenses for a specific campaign.
- No more than 36.5% goes to the professional fundraiser for building, managing, and executing each fundraising campaign.
- No less than 50% of funds collected is granted to the partner charity.
This means that, by AIT’s own description, at least half goes to the partner charity, but up to half may be consumed by AIT, campaign expenses, and compensation for professional fundraisers. That is not the same as “all proceeds go to charity,” and artists should be careful with how they describe the contest to their supporters. A supporter who donates to help an artist advance may reasonably assume the donation is primarily charitable. But the system also funds the machinery of the contest itself.
To be clear:
AIT is the charity of record for the contest donations.
The Art of Elysium is the charity promoted as the beneficiary.
Colossal is the paid professional fundraiser / contest operator.
What is Action Initiative Team?
Action Initiative Team, or AIT, describes itself as a 501(c)(3) public charity established in 2024. Its FAQ says it processes donations, provides tax-deductible receipts, ensures regulatory compliance, distributes grant money to designated organizations, and facilitates receipt of fundraising fees by the fundraiser.
AIT’s disclosures page says that financial audits and 990 filings will be available upon completion, noting that the organization launched in 2024. Charity Navigator currently lists Action Initiative Team as Not Rated, stating that it cannot be rated because Charity Navigator has not received the public data required to create a “star rating”. ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer similarly shows no Form 990 data available for AIT. That does not demonstrate any wrongdoing. New nonprofits often lack public financial histories. But it does mean artists and donors are being asked to trust a relatively new intermediary with a limited public financial track record.
What is The Art of Elysium?
The Art of Elysium is not a newly invented entity. It is an existing arts nonprofit founded in 1997 that uses creative programming to support people facing social, emotional, and medical challenges. The People’s Artist homepage describes The Art of Elysium as using creativity as a catalyst for healing and connection, with programs intended to help communities through art.
The important distinction is this: criticism of The People’s Artist does not necessarily imply that The Art of Elysium is fake or illegitimate. The sharper concern is whether a legitimate charity’s name is being used within a contest structure that many artists may misunderstand.
What does Colossal’s BBB record show?
BBB records add important context. The BBB profile for Colossal Management, LLC in Phoenix lists the business under Fundraising Counselors and Organizations and says the business is not BBB accredited. It also lists alternate names including Colossal Impact, America’s Favorite Pet, Face of Horror, and America’s Favorite Teacher. BBB states that the business offers fundraising services and categorizes it under both fundraising and contest arranging/judging. (BBB)
The complaints page for Colossal Management, LLC lists 12 total complaints in the last three years and 6 complaints closed in the last 12 months, with complaint types including product issues, service or repair issues, sales and advertising issues, and order issues. (BBB)
One BBB complaint concerning America’s Favorite Pet alleged that a contestant dropped from first to sixth place overnight and complained that the vote totals were not shown. Colossal responded that rankings are determined solely by verified votes, updated in real time, and that individual vote totals are not displayed to protect the integrity of the competition. (BBB)
That exchange captures the core trust problem. Colossal’s position is that hiding vote totals prevents manipulation. Participants’ position is that hidden vote totals prevent verification.
Both statements can be simultaneously understandable. But for a paid-vote system, the absence of independently reviewable vote totals is a serious credibility concern.
There is also a separate BBB profile for “Colossal Management” in San Francisco, categorized under contest arranging and judging, that shows an F rating. BBB lists the reasons as failure to respond to three complaints and four complaints filed against the business. (BBB) Because there are multiple Colossal-related listings, the Phoenix Colossal Management, LLC profile appears to be the more directly relevant entity for the current fundraising contest structure; still, the existence of multiple similarly named BBB profiles can contribute to public confusion.
What are the recurring complaint themes?
Across the BBB complaints you found and the complaints visible in BBB’s database, several themes recur:
1. Hidden rankings and vote totals
Participants complain that they cannot verify why rankings change. Colossal responds that vote totals are hidden to protect integrity.
2. Sudden ranking changes
Participants report dramatic movement in standings and interpret it as suspicious or pressure-inducing. Colossal says rankings can change quickly when competitors receive votes in close groups.
3. Emotional and financial pressure
Because advancement can depend on votes purchased with donations, participants may repeatedly solicit votes from friends, family, followers, and supporters. This can become emotionally charged, especially in contests involving pets, babies, young athletes, women over 40, or artists pursuing public recognition.
4. No-refund policy
The People’s Artist rules state that once a vote is cast, no refunds will be given, and that voters acknowledge this. (peoplesartist.org)
5. Dispute limitations
The rules require binding arbitration, waive class-action participation, limit discovery, and place arbitration in Phoenix, Arizona, unless otherwise agreed or handled virtually.
These are not minor details. They define the practical power relationship between the participant, the voter, and the operator.
What personal information is collected?
The People’s Artist privacy policy says the site may collect information when users surf the website, use features, register, enter the competition, place a vote, purchase a vote, respond to surveys or marketing communications, or fill out forms. It says users may be asked for name, email address, mailing address, phone number, credit-card information, or other details.
The policy also states that Stripe may collect and process personal data for payment and fraud-prevention purposes, and that the site may use Meta Conversions API and/or Meta Pixel to collect information such as pages viewed, IP address, transactions, and actions taken. This information may be shared with Meta for analytics, measurement, and ad targeting.
So the concern that “free voting” still involves the acquisition of personal information is not imaginary. The official policy confirms that voting and site interaction can involve data collection, tracking, analytics, marketing, and third-party tools.
What rights do artists grant when entering?
The rules and terms contain broad language about submitted photographs and entry materials.
The rules say that by entering, competitors grant Colossal a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use entries and submitted materials in connection with the competition and future People’s Artist competitions. But the terms also state that entrants “expressly assign any intellectual property rights in the Submitted or Additional Photographs to Operator and waive any claims for copyright infringement or violation of the right of publicity.” (peoplesartist.org) That language is much stronger than a normal promotional-use license. In plain English, it suggests that by submitting the photographs, entrants may be transferring to the operator any intellectual-property rights they have in the submitted photographs or in additional photographs, while also agreeing not to bring copyright-infringement or right-of-publicity claims based on the operator’s use of those images. The terms indeed contain broader assignment and waiver language, creating a serious ambiguity or conflict that entrants should not ignore.
That language deserves careful legal review. Artists should be particularly cautious about submitting high-value professional images, images of works they intend to license elsewhere, images created by third-party photographers, or images involving other people’s likenesses. At a minimum, artists should read the rules and terms carefully before uploading anything.
Why Johnny Depp matters
The celebrity presentation is central to the contest’s persuasive force. The People’s Artist homepage says the contest is “Presented by Johnny Depp,” describing him as a lifelong creative across film, music, and visual art who invites creators to step forward and support social impact through art. However, the rules indicate that public voting determines the winner of the competition. They do not state anywhere that Johnny Depp is a juror, curator, reviewer, or evaluator of artistic merit. That distinction really matters. A celebrity’s name can create the feeling of artistic legitimacy, but celebrity association is not the same as professional art evaluation.
Artists should ask: Is Depp selecting the artist? Is he reviewing portfolios? Is he curating? Is he mentoring? Or is his presence primarily promotional? Based on the official rules, the contest’s determining mechanism is public voting, not Depp’s artistic involvement in any way.
The Artforum question
The contest’s association with Artforum is also rhetorically powerful. Artforum is one of the most recognizable publications in contemporary art, and the contest homepage describes it as influential in shaping critical discourse. But the rules frame the prize as a two-page appearance rather than a necessarily critical editorial validation. The winner may refer to themselves as “The People’s Artist” or “People’s Artist Winner” only in non-commercial uses and may not imply endorsement by Colossal or Artforum. That distinction also matters. Appearing in a magazine as part of a contest prize is not the same thing as being selected by that magazine’s critics, editors, or curators as an artist of critical importance.
The core ethical concern
The strongest criticism of The People’s Artist is not that it is “fake.” The stronger criticism is that it appears to convert artistic aspiration into a fundraising engine.
The contest borrows the language of:
- artistic discovery,
- democratic recognition,
- public voice,
- celebrity endorsement,
- charitable purpose,
- and institutional proximity.
But the actual mechanics reward:
- audience mobilization,
- repeated campaigning,
- donor enthusiasm,
- social-media persistence,
- and paid vote accumulation.
That is a very different thing from artistic excellence. For artists, the danger is not only financial. It is reputational. Participating may require repeatedly asking one’s community to vote, verify identity, donate, or return daily. If supporters later feel misled by the structure, the reputational cost may fall not on Colossal, Johnny Depp, AIT, or The Art of Elysium, but on the artist who invited them into the system.
Is it a scam?
A good deal of people online seem to be claiming the contest is a “scam”. But the truth is that it really depends on what one means by “scam.” If “scam” means a fake contest, nonexistent prize, fake charity, or criminal fraud, that would require evidence beyond the public materials I have seen.
But if “scam” is being used colloquially to describe a contest structure that may feel misleading or exploitative to participants, the criticism is easier to understand. Public materials describe The People’s Artist as a competition run by Colossal Management, LLC, a for-profit professional/commercial fundraiser, with voting tied to public support and donation-driven votes. The Art of Elysium’s FAQ also says Colossal operates the competition on behalf of the Action Initiative Team, and that the winner is determined through public voting.
A more precise description would be:
The People’s Artist appears to be a legally structured, celebrity-branded, donation-driven popularity contest operated through a for-profit fundraising model. Its mechanics appear to prioritize public voting, donor mobilization, and social reach rather than independent artistic evaluation. Artists considering entry should understand that participation may function less like a traditional juried art competition and more like public-facing fundraising within a commercial contest platform.
Questions artists should ask before entering
Before entering, artists should ask:
-
Am I comfortable asking friends, family, collectors, students, and followers to vote or donate in a contest where paid votes can affect the outcome?
-
Am I comfortable with a system where vote totals are not publicly displayed or independently auditable?
-
Am I comfortable with votes resetting between rounds?
-
Am I comfortable granting the contest operator broad rights to use submitted images?
-
Am I comfortable with no refunds once votes are cast?
-
Am I comfortable with binding arbitration and class-action waiver provisions?
-
Am I comfortable with my supporters giving personal information to vote?
-
Do I want my artistic reputation associated with a contest-management fundraising model?
-
Is this likely to advance my career in a meaningful way, or simply convert my network into a fundraising pool?
-
Would I still enter if Johnny Depp’s name or Artforum were removed from the promotional material?
That last question may be the most revealing.
Final assessment
The People’s Artist is not best understood as a traditional art prize. It is better understood as a fundraising competition presented in the language of artistic opportunity.
Artists should enter only if they understand the mechanism: public voting, paid vote amplification, repeated elimination rounds, vote resets, broad operator discretion, data collection, limited refunds, and charity fundraising through a for-profit contest platform. For some participants, that may be acceptable. They may enjoy the visibility, the campaigning, the community engagement, and the possibility of winning.
But artists seeking serious curatorial recognition, merit-based assessment, or professional validation should be very cautious. The contest may look like an art-world opportunity, but structurally, it appears to function more like a gamified fundraising campaign. The concern is not merely that Colossal may profit. Professional fundraisers often do and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.
The deeper concern is that the contest’s public language may lead artists to believe they are entering a democratic search for artistic excellence, while the actual structure appears centered on monetized participation, celebrity attraction, and network-driven fundraising.
Artists deserve to understand that before they lend their names, their work, and their communities to it.