Brian Grison reply to ….

To see the original comments that generated these replies go to :
http://exhibit-v.blogspot.com/search/label/Brian%20Grison%27s%20Words%20on%20Art-Words 
Reply to John Labossier
                                     I would appreciate an explanation of the term 'cultural tourism'. For now I will disagree that "we are all culture tourists." I suspect that the condition you are referring to has little practical application in my article. Without clarification from you, I suspect that term,' tourist art', were I to use it, would mean something different.
                                    Your statement that "More people are seeing more art of arguably better quality than we have witnessed in over 50 years, possibly ever" brings out the skeptic in me as well. This statement is as broad as your one about cultural tourism, and its based in a spectrum of assumptions that I suspect I disagree with. However, if you would clarify your thoughts, and provide examples, I might be able to address your points, which I do find interesting.
                                      Your point regarding geography is also interesting, though I disagree with it almost entirely. I believe there are many overwhelming reasons why an art student who wants to be influenced by the art that is being taught and made in New York, London or Berlin, needs to go and study in those cities. Your suggestion that the "incredible" accessibility "to information today" is as valid a source of guidance to an art student as a good teacher is only superficially correct. "Information" is a very small ingredient in any learning process. Absorbed information is not the same as cultivated visual and manual skill and wisdom. These important aspects of art education are almost exclusively the result of personal interaction between instructor and student. Besides, in admittedly the broadest terms possible, it is probable that the best teachers are in New York, London or Berlin. I doubt that any young artist just graduating from any art school in Victoria, or almost any other city in Canada outside of maybe Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal, is going to begin their career with an art practice as sophisticated at that in New York, London or Berlin.
                                       You end your discussion of geography with a reference to "prevailing global ideas and styles." There are many reasons why this concept also brings out the skeptic in me. There is no reason why globalism per se should be the criteria of what is valid in art. (I think the philosophy of globalism in most social, economic and political matters is one of the worst dangers of contemporary society and culture. Walmart, Monsanto, Google, etc. are examples of applied globalism). You yourself indirectly acknowledge this contradiction in your last sentence, "Whether that art is good or bad is a different question." From my perspective, that is the important question.
                                       Your paragraph about retirement is also interesting. I think you are claiming that eventually the retired population of Victoria that turns to amateur art to wile away their final years are going to "make some kind of difference." I'd appreciate some explanation of how all this would work. It seems to me that the whole point of amateur art is an avoidance of "making a difference," Amateurism is a form of escapism. Just as it is an avoidance of thinking about either artistic or political issues about which one might hope to make a difference. I'd even go so far as to suggest that amateur art arises out of, among other things, an inability - or unwillingness - to think critically. Popular art, Sunday painting art, amateur art whatever you call it, is a kind of trance-inducing cultural tranquilizer. The "aging population" that you refer to is not bored by their flower paintings; they love making them. 
                                         Your last statement is exactly the point I am making about the dominant state of art writing and art in Victoria; good art and good writing is not supported in the mainstream print media in this town. Since serious art and writing in Victoria is always under threat, and therefore seems threatening, no wonder the aging baby boomers you identify have "nothing to sink their gums into." It is little wonder that amateur art or tourist art or art as wall decoration, and mostly advertorial style writing about it, dominates the cultural scene.
                                         The issue of what is or isn't amateur art is not the point of my article. But your point, that amateurism in art might be the result of "unprecedented 'dumbing down' or ... unprecedented creative opportunity" is interesting. I believe we live in a period of dumbing-down of culture. Culture is increasingly dominated by globalistic (your term) capitalist interests, and the merchant class has discovered that there is money to be made in amateurism and do-it-yourself entertainment. Why else did the federal Canadian government (through Cultural Affairs or Revenue Canada) invent the term cultural industry, which most of us swallowed)? Of course popular culture is an industry, a huge one, and amateur art, and the supporting retail businesses around it, is a crucial part of it.
                                           Beginning with the sentence, "I favour the latter view because..." I am not sure what the rest of your paragraph is referring to. I would be interested in some explanation and examples of what you mean. I appreciate your encouragement about "getting this topic into some kind of public forum." I would be interesting in such an event, though perhaps a one-time forum is less effective than the on-going discussion that Efren Quiroz is cultivating in his web site. I personally would not be interested in organizing such an event, and possibly not in participating, except from within the audience. I would be interested in being involved with a good west coast art magazine. Vanguard was excellent, but that was years ago, and Artichoke, which tended to concentrate on craft issues - and a bit shrilly in my opinion - folded a few years ago. Filip seems too esoteric and self-preoccupied for the kind of discourse that I would want to be part of.
                                           Your final statement that good readers are hard to find today is especially interesting. Surely a large aspect of this problematic cognitive issue has to do with a diminishing attention span among readers, and surely this the result of the pressure from our political masters to keep our attention on shopping rather than thinking.

Reply to Wendy Welch
                                           Your response is interesting but also confusing to me. I hope you are being ironic in your first sentence. I think the best way to reply to you is to address each point you make directly.
First, regarding self-aggrandizement: Considering the qualifications - or lack thereof - among the particular writers about art that I list in my article, I seem to be the most qualified. I state this as fact, rather than for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. (Please let me know if you think there are qualifications I didn't list). However, it is not be difficult to be a better writer than the writers I list, so, as an attempt at self-aggrandizement I
would be boasting over nothing. And self-aggrandizement would undermine the purpose of my column, which is to cultivate good writing and good art rather than to promote myself. If anything I'm promoting exhibit-v.
                                           Second, self-righteousness: This is always a tricky concept for me. My dictionary defines the term as "excessive confidence of one's own righteousness or virtuousness, esp. in comparison to others." I don't know this applies to me generally. In particular, as applied to the writers for Victoria's most popular magazines, self-righteousness would be as misplaced at self-aggrandizement.
                                          However, your concern for my apparent self-righteousness coupled with your concern that we avoid self-righteousness is interesting for another reason. The common negative interpretation of self-righteousness has always seemed rather close to a notion that was drummed into me as a youngster, that one must never publicly acknowledge one's successes or qualifications. Of course this absurd lesson in self-censorship or self-emasculation was taught more to my sisters because in the 1950s young women weren't supposed to strive for independence or excellence.
                                         To claim that I am a better writer (artist, cook, sky-diver, whatever) than someone else is not self-righteousness, unless I make the mistake of thinking I am therefore a better person. I do not suggest that anywhere in my article. I think it is acceptable to say writer A is better at writing than writer B, even if I happen to be writer A. And, let me ask you a final question: If you were writer A would you object to me claiming that you were a better than writer B.
                                         However, I think you end your response with encouragement, perhaps the same as Christine Clark does; I hope so anyway. What kind of content would you like me to add a little of?
Your final word, 'sustenance' is interesting. Perhaps it's a pun or a Freudian slip because you were thinking about lunch. Perhaps you meant the word 'substance'. If so, I'll defend the introductory nature of my first article as requiring no more substance that I offered. I hope to have more, or at least other, content/substance, in future articles.

Reply to Philip Willey
                                        Thank you for your support and encouragement, but I am not sure in what way I have stuck out my neck; could you clarify this?
                                        Like any community Victoria does have its brand of hype and hoopla, but this is always easy to avoid in any community, and does not require "escapism" to 'escape'. However, since it's easy to avoid in any community, I suspect most people move here for other reasons, both positive and negative. I also think that the temptations inherent in the "desire for recognition" account for much of the hype and hoopla.
                                         I'm not sure what you mean by the terms 'escapism', 'hype' and 'hoopla'. My dictionary states that hype refers to "extravagant or intensive publicity promotion," a "dubious or questionable statement, method etc., used to promote a product of service." Hoopla refers to "extravagant publicity, hype." These words refer to the same condition, and both conditions and activities are as common in Victoria as they are everywhere. Hype and hoopla are the basis of advertising (though this is a somewhat different matter from the phenomenon that you refer to). We live in an era of hype and hoopla; it is largely the basis of Western culture - which is one reason why contemporary culture is generally of such a crass nature.
                                         Escapism is the "tendency to seek distraction and relief from reality, esp., in the arts or through fantasy." This is a fascinating definition, and I wonder if it matches the way you are using it.
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase, "the desire for recognition."

Reply to Brandy Saturley
                                           I agree with your claim that none of the publications based in Victoria are "'art' magazines." This was the defense that the publisher of Focus used when my column was cancelled; as he put it, "Focus is a business magazine, not an art magazine." However, like most magazines in Victoria, Focus claims some association, presumably supportive, with culture. Surely this therefore makes these magazines and their writers as responsible to and for the best that culture has to offer and its promotion. Focus does a decent job within what its publisher refers to as its attitude of "progressive politics," toward local politics and social issues (Rick Wipond for example) but the way the magazine deals with culture is conservative, reactionary and exploitive, and almost all the publications in Victoria have the same policy. I presume this is why they don't think it necessary to have good writers about visual art.

                                       However, most art magazines in Canada also regularly publish poor quality writing. The fact that some of them usually write about serious art and use more educated or specialized language does not automatically mean the writing is more intelligent, or more readable.

                                      While I agree with your phrase, "... a deeper art history than North America" you might be offending any First Nations artist reading your words. However I expect they, like me, understand that you are referring only to Western or Euro-North American culture, which has existed only since about the 3rd millennium BC. Almost any indigenous culture that hasn't been destroyed by Western culture will be considerably older.

Reply to Frank Mitchell
                                           My primary intention in my first article for Efren Quiroz certainly is to "stimulate productive discussion" about most of the writing about art by most of the writers based in Victoria and published by most Victoria-based magazines. I list the magazines and writers I'm referring to in the beginning of the article which claims that writing by the named writers is not good enough for the art community in Victoria.
                                          Then I outline some criteria for establishing the credibility of art writers and I suggest that few of these writers qualify. I counter my own conclusions with the suggestion that one does not need to be an artist to be able to write about it, and I give a few historic examples.
Naming the writers in Victoria whose writing I criticize and naming important historic art writers does not constitute name-dropping. I understand that name-dropping is a kind of self-aggrandizement by association. I would gain no credibility by associating myself with the art writers in Victoria that I list, and I certainly don't achieve the same by referring to important historic art writers.
                                           I would be interested in helping to develop a clear criteria for what constitutes good writing about art, and I believe my article begins that process by suggesting qualifications that most of the writers about art in Victoria do not have.
                                           I offer three reasons, geography, demography and education, why ;ow quality writing about art in Victoria is common.
                                           It is interesting that most of the responses have been from artists rather than writers, when, in fact, it is the writing rather than the art that my article focuses on. It is also interesting that none of the writers I name have responded. I suspect its because they are commercial writers.
My article does not focus on the issue of what is good art. It focuses on why most of the print media in Victoria does not publish good writing about art.
                                           The question of what is good art is important too, and perhaps sometime I'll try to address it. Despite being a more complex subject, the question is essentially the same as what is good dentistry? What is good plumbing? What is good literature? For the answer one asks experts in the field. That is easy. For example, when you need a plumber you ask around until you find the best plumber. You ask persons whom you suspect would know, such as neighbours who own a home and therefore probably have had to hire a plumber on occassion. Finding the best visual art and finding the best art writing is much the same. It will probably take a bit more time because the subject is more complex, but it is not difficult. Its a nice way to spend one's life.

Reply to Christine Clark
                                            If my first article is the best you have read of mine it's probably mostly because Focus magazine never allowed me to write about such a broad or important subject as quality in local art writing. As well, I was never allowed to write critically or with even a hint of negativity - as I'm apparently indulging in my first article for exhibit-v. Focus never wanted me to use words like 'mediocre' and 'amateur', though I snuck in both terms occasionally. Fortunately, most of the time I was able to write about good art. I would have liked to address shows that weren't good, because I believed I could have done this honestly and with constructive criticism. But Focus was never interested in such writing.
                                            So my first article for Efren Quiroz was both a challenge and liberation for me. I am not used to writing critically about mediocre culture, and writing about writing is an even more unusual experience for me. I have decided to do this because I believe that the visual art community of Victoria deserves and needs better writing than it generally gets, as well as more serious support, in its most high-profile publications.
                                             So I appreciate your supportive response. However, the second part of your response, which you might have sent later, raises questions that I need to address.
                                             I think the subject of the article is clear rather than "irrational." The purpose of the first article was to introduce the theme of my column with exhibit-v, specifically that my articles will address the writing about art that is published in a particular group of magazines in Victoria. I name the magazines and I name the writers. I suggest that the writing in most of these magazines is not good enough and I offer three reasons for this. One reason is that most of the writers don't have any real qualifications to write about art. The second is that there is a business relationship between the magazines and those commercial galleries that cultivates mediocre art. I don't name these galleries, but I state in the article that I would put all but about six of Victoria's commercial galleries in the group that sells mediocre art. The third reason is that art instruction in Victoria is generally not rigorous enough to teach real skills and real critical thinking and thus hopefully generate serious artists and serious discussion about art. I do not offer reasons for this condition of art education in Victoria; perhaps I will in a later article, though this would be outside the purpose of this column
                                            My article does not suggest that all art by all artists being exhibited in all galleries (whether commercial, artist-run, public or otherwise) is provincial and/or mediocre. However, without naming the artists or the galleries, I believe most of the galleries and their art is provincial and mediocre.
                                            Perhaps Efren Quiroz will allow me to write exhibition reviews, so I can address the bad art in the bad galleries.However, writing about bad art is a more difficult than writing about good art, and usually less interesting.
                                            I also do not suggest that all art instructors in Victoria are provincial and mediocre, but if the art coming out of the local art schools is any indication, than I have to assume that most of the instructors are not very good or not doing a good job or are overwhelmed by untalented and un-ambitious students.
                                            It is interesting, considering that my article is about writers, that you do not ask me if I believe that all writers in Victoria are provincial and mediocre. My article focuses only on the worst writers because these are, unfortunately, the most commonly read because the magazines they publish in have the largest presence in the cultural community. Just as there are some excellent artists in Victoria, there are some excellent writers about art. Unfortunately, almost none of them write for the mainstream press. We need to figure out how to change this situation.

Reply to Roy Green
                                             I saw the writing on the wall at Focus when, about sixteen months before my column there was cancelled in July 2010, I was told that I had to limit my articles to exhibitions in galleries that bought advertising space in the magazine - and I could write only rarely about the others. As well as preferring the 'others', I had been in the habit of writing about shows in only about six of Victoria's commercial galleries; these are the ones that do exhibit enough good art to keep me interested. There are many commercial galleries in Victoria that I avoid; unfortunately they were regular advertisers in Focus. I managed to stretch out the column for another year, but I knew it was doomed. Such is life in a world in which money is more important that culture.
                                             As for "Mr. Amos," I look forward to discussing one of his articles. I agree with you that he usually doesn't do much more than just quote press releases. And, on those occasions when he does express an opinion, instead of qualifying them, he bludgeons or seduces the reader with pontifications. I usually can't decide whether to grind my teeth of laugh when I read one of his articles.

Reply to Deborah De Boer
                                             I only claim rhetorically that it would seem logical that the most sensitive writers about art would be artists. However I disqualify this assumption with examples to the contrary. Probably the number of artists who write well and the number of non-artists who write well about art is about equal. The subject would be interesting to research.
                                             I agree that writers about art need to be sensitive to art, though I'm not sure what you mean by "especially over ego." (Other responders have referred to ego as well, and I wish they too would explain). "Bravery," "literacy," "brevity of words," "critical thought," "constant looking," "reading," "feeling and absorbing" are also useful and necessary. However I'm not sure that I agree with "self-depreciation," which my dictionary defines as "disparagement or undervaluation of oneself and one's abilities." This sounds like one of those many Christian self-emasculations that are still popular in secular Canadian society.
                                             Also I would appreciate knowing what you mean by having "some evolving concern with the larger world of contemporary art." I suspect that I agree with you, but I would appreciate your elaboration.
                                             I admit that I am as interested in how writers express their ideas or opinions as I am in their validity. All ideas are equal, whether or not they are correct. Even incorrect ideas lead to truth.

Reply to John Luna
                                             It is true that my first article deals only with half of the issue of the state of writing about art in Victoria. Were I to "attend to the exceptions," as you express it, I would be forced to use even more general comments, and that would be worse, from your perspective as well as mine. As well, generally speaking, the exceptions are capable of taking care of themselves and don't require my comments.

                                            My plan is to address the bad writing in Victoria, not the good writing, though, in fact, your ideas might cause me to slightly change that. I want to encourage the public to read the better writing, even if it is slightly more difficult to find. Perhaps I'll write one article in which I offer a general overview of what I consider good writing, and its whereabouts, in Victoria.

                                           Your use of the word 'exception' is interesting for another reason. You remind me of the theory that exceptions prove the rule. My claim that bad writing dominates the Victoria art community is only supported by the exceptions you raise. Obviously my hope is to help reverse this situation, so I appreciate your broad advice.

                                           However, perhaps it is the responsibility of good writers in Victoria to teach others how to write better. The difficulty is that good writers in Victoria rarely publish reviews of art at the same time that bad writers do. For example, except for rare coincidences between Mr. Amos, and myself I have never seen articles about any artist written at the same time by, for example, yourself and Linda Rogers. So comparing and contrasting specific articles about specific artists or exhibitions is difficult. It would be interesting to collaborate with you on a project in which I would write a response to the writing in an article in one of the above-listed magazines and you would write an article about the artist or exhibition reviewed in the same article. Perhaps the writer we would be critiquing would not appreciate our efforts, but I sispect the artist would. I am impressed by how often self-styled amateur artists tell me that they crave good criticism of their efforts.

                                       I also appreciate the fact that you have given me the beginnings of a list of writers in Victoria who are better than those who publish in most of the local magazines. I would include your name of such as list (though I don't see your on-line articles anywhere anymore), as well as Wendy Welch (though I have seen nothing in the local press from her in some time), Christine Clark (who is probably my favorite local writer), Danielle Hogan (who also seems to be not publishing locally). I am not acquainted with the other writers you list, so I agree with your perhaps unconscious implication that I have homework to do. Again - thank you.

                                       Writing about art in Victoria might be experiencing the "groundswell" you suggest. But, unfortunately, it is still the exception; the most public writers about art in Victoria publish in the dominant tourist culture and/or business magazines. Perhaps my articles here might contribute to the groundswell you see becoming the dominant voice for the visual art community. Victoria is as desperate for good writing as it is desperate for good art.

                                        I have to smile at your apparent gentle reprimand for my lack of attendance at certain public forums in which art matters are chewed over. Unfortunately the drawing courses I teach usually overlap with such events at the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria. As well, without going into gory details, the past year of my waning life has forced some crucial changes in the way I live. For example, after getting about with a walker for the first five months of 2010, I have been forced to at least temporarily give up my bicycle. So besides the fact that getting about is now either slower or more expensive, I usually run out of energy by the evening when important events in the art community occur. However, rather than being defeated by looming signs of old age, I expect to resolve all these matters over the next year, and I look forward to competing with you over who attends more openings and discussion forums.
Brian Grison