Showing posts with label Brian Grison's Words on Art-Words. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brian Grison's Words on Art-Words. Show all posts
Friday, February 18, 2011
Robert Amos Creates Artistic Life on Fort Street by Brian Grison
On January 22 Robert Amos wrote an article in the Times Colonist in which he declares art is alive and well on Fort Street, specifically on the two blocks between Blanshard and Cook. He begins with a discussion of Polychrome Fine Art Gallery and the, at the time, current exhibition there. He doesn't note that Polychrome is actually not between Cook and Blanshard. However this small geographic quibble is probably less important to Victoria's art community than Amos' opinions and pronouncements on art.
Being blessed by Robert Amos as a "very talented painter in his own right," must be as mind numbing as being slapped on the cheek by the bishop during Confirmation. How would Amos know what talent is, when psychologists, art theorists, anatomists and even the Pope don't know? How can Amos claim that Shawn Shepherd is talented, let alone "very" talented? Perhaps Shepherd is very, very, or even more very, talented? Considering the rest of Amos' 'creation' of art on Fort Street, we should hesitate to except his declaration of who is and isn't talented.
What does Robert Amos mean by the phrase, "in his own right," with reference to Shepherd's talent. I suspect this cliché phrase is meant to soften the blow of really being declared a failure. Does this phrase not that actually imply that Shepherd is not really talented in anyone's perception, but that's okay as long as he thinks he is? This is like receiving an 'A' for effort to make up for coming in second or worse. Isn't this phrase, "in his own right," pontifical, condescending and dismissive while appearing to be wise and intelligent?
Robert Amos compliments the Polychrome owners' ability to discover fine art and fine craft treasures at garage sales and auctions. He does not mention that Polychrome displays and sells these treasures at (verrrrrry!!!!) reasonable prices, (and good for them). However, the fact that Amos characterizes Shepherd's backroom picture framing practice as keeping "the wolf from the door" has a subtly disdainful tone, seeming to suggest that if Polychrome was a good gallery, it would not need to stoop to either picture framing or garage sale visits.
Robert Amos is even less generous toward Samatha Miniatures, the current exhibition of photographs by Duane Prentice at Polychrome. While he refers to the photographer as a professional (without defining the term), Amos outlines the show with dismissive passages, such as "the title suggests a Buddhist theme," and "Indian Miniatures? Not really," without explanations. He claims "the small scale and surprisingly insipid colours work against engagement with the imagery," again without explanation. His last statement, "While the pictures are not without interest, there doesn't seem to be anything here to elevate them to the realm of art," clinches Prentice's doom. Amos' use of a double negative in the first half of this final sentence eliminates the hint of praise embedded in his grammatical gymnastics, and the second half of the sentence cancels even the faintest possibility of praise with irreversible damnation. However, though probably without irony, Amos' undermines his own omnipotent authourity by misspelling of the exhibition's title. Does the Times Colonist not have an editor?
Following his visitation at Polychrome, Robert Amos tours the Victoria Emerging Art Gallery, a bit further west on Fort Street. Amos establishes this new gallery's credibility by reminding us of its origins in a "high-profile art show and contest at Avenue Gallery" last spring. Like much contemporary cultural products of a student or amateur or commercial nature, the art itself is considerably less high-profile then the promotion - a clear case of 'hype and hoopla'.
Robert Amos describes Ellen Manning, proprietor of the Victoria Emerging Art Gallery as a promoter. According to him, "she has a two-year contract with each [of the winners of the Avenue Gallery contest] and is grooming and representing them for commercial success." As well as not explaining this dubious sounding relationship, he does not tell us who these lucky 'new' artists are, or what Manning's motives are. I admit to certain dark suspicions, and I believe Amos ought to as well. However, he might agree with the gallery's mandate because he too is adept at self-promotion for commercial purposes.
Robert Amos describes the Victoria Emerging Art Gallery as a unique enterprise in Victoria. How can this be? With a bit more painterly and tasteful commercial slickness, much of the merchandise I observed there would be comfortable in any of the local tourist or interior decoration stores that call themselves art galleries.
Saving the most delusional for last, Robert Amos' introduction to SerSon, further down Fort Street, characterizes that strange business as an art gallery. However, this store is only another addition to the growing list of establishments in Victoria that are not art galleries, but pretend to be because Victoria has the reputation of being a cultural hub - and there are a lot of gullible people in this town. SerSon is the equivalent of a cultural dollar store. It is amazing that Amos, who must know the difference between an art gallery and a junk store, would seem to pretend otherwise.
Without considering good taste, Robert Amos praises SerSon for its eagerness to "appeal to any taste." Appealing to any taste is a normal business practice, for house painters, florists and hairdressers, for example. Real artists do not appeal to anyone's taste - not even their own. Commercial artists also will appeal to anyone's taste, though the owners of SerSon who churn out the impasto garbage hanging on their walls don't qualify as even commercial artists. Anyone buying 'fine' art there is being deceived, and, whether or not he realizes it, Amos is perpetuating the affront to real art, real artists and real art galleries, both commercial and non-commercial, that such businesses represent. However, I'll agree with him that SerSon does have lots of inexpensive pretty frames to sell.
Surely the purpose of art criticism is not to tell the viewer/reader what to think. Surely art criticism is not unqualified opinion backed up by an authoritarian and condescending voice. Surely it is not just pontifical bombast. And, surely, there are more interesting art matters in Victoria for Robert Amos to write about - even badly.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Replies to Brian's Grison reply ...
- It seems to me you stuck your neck out by writing your original article. I assume you knew people would disagree with all or part of it so I suppose you were prepared to become a target. That’s all I meant by that. Kudos anyway. You took a position. I found that refreshing. Which is why I responded. My use of the word ‘escapism’ seems straightforward to me. I think for a lot of people moving to Victoria is a kind of withdrawal from the ‘real’ world. It’s an illusion of course. We do indeed live in an era of hype and hoopla. There is no escape. Just the scale and the intensity are different. Victoria is slower, smaller and quieter than New York. The air is better too. That’s all I was saying.
- John Luna said...
- Dear Brian, I am interested in your apparent decision not to respond to my comments on your article. Perhaps a response is on its way. If you recall, I pointed out some worthwhile instances of art writing going on in Victoria, and suggested that if you did not evince more attention to the activities of others working in the community, a reactionary position might be inferred by your readers. I’d like to now add that you dismissal of the work of art students in this city strikes me as pointedly boorish. As an art educator and trained historian you should know better: in any given milieu only a very small portion of the art produced by students has ever proven exceptional. From this perspective, your comments read as a disingenuous attempt to turn students and teachers into straw-men: “ 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.” These comments expose your position as itself rather amateurish. If you are not going to apply your degrees and qualifications with integrity, there is no point in taking pains to list them.
- philipwilleyv said...
- Ooops….I wish we could edit these comments. I see now I was hasty with my blanket dismissal of escapism. Of course there are lots of ways to escape. Art works for me but some people prefer reading, yoga, boating, walking, sport, drugs, booze or watching American Idol. As John Lennon said…whatever gets you through the night.
- wwelch said...
- Sorry to have sent you to the dictionary Brian... My comments referred to having a writer start off an article by touting his credentials, then dismissing the credentials of others, then claiming he is the only one qualified to do the job of writer in this town and then give no examples.
- christine clark said...
- Hi Brian. I didn't realize until this moment that your intended theme is to discuss the mainstream/published/paid art writers currently working in Victoria. I actually thought you were planning on just ripping up everyone and everything, including galleries, artists, writers and instructors. It was that impression of a general, all-out assault on all things to do with art in Victoria that suggested to me the term "slightly irrational". Also, I found that your accusations against art schools and instructors, galleries, amateur artists and students, were not proven with concrete facts and examples. In other words, your arguments were not convincing. They were completely arbitrary and subjective. When you wrote about art instructors you could quite literally have been referring to anyone; depending on your reader's range of experience, he or she might have thought you were discussing either Daniel Laskarin or else that nice lady who teaches coil pottery down at the Fernwood Community Centre. In other words, it is not in your best interest to assume that any of us know who or what you are talking about! This is what bothered me the most about your article. I understand the urge to be honest in your writing, and I know it's difficult, but it's worse, much, much worse to be vague and indistinct. When you are trying to write an article in order to create change or to initiate an intelligent discussion, it is not good enough to be emotionally present, you've got to lay it all out, your ideas and the reasons for your ideas. Convince us! Anyway, just a few thoughts. from Christine
- christine clark said...
- the other thing i wanted to mention is that it kind of irks me that when people who are actually writing about art publish articles on this blog there is little to no response from exhibit-v readers. but here's brian grison with a pocketful of bias and suddenly there's a discussion. it's no wonder there isn't enough "good" art writing in this town, as several of you have suggested. there's no freaking support!
- wwelch said...
- Yes, Christine I agree, the conversation should be about art and not Brian's idiosyncrasies. And yes, I am guilty of not commenting on the art writing seen here. That said, I'd like to say that your piece on Daniel Laskarin's exhibit was one of the best examples of art writing in Victoria that I read this year. It was provocative, imaginative and interesting. And I should probably post this comment on your own review, however since this post was originally supposed to be about art writing... its probably fine her. Keep up the good work. Our city is better for your contribution.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
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
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
Monday, January 3, 2011
Re: The Current State of Art and its Writing in Victoria by Brian Grison-comment on John's Luna comment
Hi John,
Thank you for your response to my post. I don’t think that I’m advocating that all art (historical and contemporary) be re-evaluated according to firmly defined categories of amateur or professional – I hoped to suggest that amateur and professional may be useful terms when attempting to add rigor to the discussion of the local Victoria art scene. Professionalism in art is a murky concept to be sure – I am certainly not entirely comfortable with it. However, I am equally uncomfortable with the notion of a ‘seriousness of practice’ becoming the defining criteria for legitimacy or worthiness of critical appraisal. I also worry that (given the local climate) ‘serious practice’ could suggest a vague inappropriate egalitarianism (ie. the artist claiming “I am a serious artist because I say I am” or the critic “this is a serious artist because I say they are”) or perhaps promote a kind of clubhouse elitism (ie. only artists who are shown here, written about here, educated here, work in this medium or are discussed on this blog are the ‘real’ serious artists). Since Brian has begun a discussion which (amongst other things) strongly suggests that current writing about art in Victoria needs serious re-evaluation, I would like to propose that part of the reason for this need arises from a lack of rigor when discussing the nature of our local art practice. ‘Professional’ and ‘amateur’ or ‘serious’ and ‘not serious,’ might not be entirely acceptable as methods of categorization. Perhaps categorization itself is ultimately an unacceptable approach. However, if Brian is correct and a climate of mediocrity and amateurism exists in the local arts scene, perhaps these concepts should be re-evaluated, analysed and teased-apart for their potential usefulness.
Andre Gogol
Re: The Current State of Art and its Writing in Victoria by Brian Grison - comment on Andre Gogol comment
- johnluna said...
- Hi Andre, I don't think that the distinction you are suggesting is possible to make for visual artists the way it might be for a concert performer or athlete. The specific history of painting for instance, has admitted too many examples that dismay notions of amateur and professional categories to be meaningfully redefined. Definition (or its concealment) might be my point here...I think critics often do choose to write about work they think embodies a kind of seriousness as practice, but this is no guarantee that the work fits an a priori definition of professionalism (think of Baudelaire championing caracurists.) I would go so far as to suggest that many critics discover their definition of serious practice through writing about artists that interest them for less defensible reasons.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Re: The Current State of Art and its Writing in Victoria by Brian Grison
Too many possible areas for further conversation have been suggested. Too many of these issues require further examination, sans ego. I would like to focus on the responsibility art writers have to promote and uphold professionalism in the art community.
It seems to me that the question of what constitutes quality in art becomes needlessly blurred with what constitutes professionalism in art. Evaluation of quality should reasonably be a reflection of the professionalism, amateurism or student nature of the work being produced. It would not be fair (or useful) to evaluate the progress or accomplishments of the beginning/student pianist using the same criteria for a professional concert pianist of thirty years. By the same token, comparing a twenty year, beer-league hockey player with a promising first round NHL draft pick is inappropriate at best and at insulting at worst (likely to both parties).
In many other vocations, professionalism is clearly identifiable – the professional athlete is readily separated from the amateur or enthusiast as is the professional biologist from the avid naturalist, the historian from the history buff and the professional musician from the recreational guitarist. In most cases, education/training is a primary attribute separating amateur from professional – however, intent and ambition play as much or perhaps more of a role in distinguishing the achievements and contributions of the professional. True, there are (very) rare exceptions in which the achievements of the student or amateur transcend the gulf separating the enthusiast from the professional. The popularity of “American Idol” type entertainment seems to point to our collective need to embrace this mythology. However, focusing on these rarities is distracting and helps to perpetuate the fairytale of the ‘overnight sensation’ or the ‘undiscovered talent’ and unfortunately helps to overlook the years of study, dedicated work and perseverance that more typically accompanies genuine success and professionalism.
In our little community, saturated as we are with amateurs and enthusiasts, those who are tasked with writing about art need to be clear about their purpose. If their purpose is to support discussion, promote interest and spark debate about accomplished art and our professional artists (and yes, there are some) then we all benefit from an elevated discourse, sincere examination and improved appreciation of the visual arts in our community. However, if those who write about art continue to promote amateur artists (arguably the very act of writing about amateur artists is in itself a form of promotion) as if they warranted professional consideration, the deeper our collective awareness and appreciation of legitimate, professional work sinks into the murk and mire of mediocrity. It is up to our writers therefore, not only to be able to distinguish between the accomplishments of the professional verses the amateur, but to rigorously promote criticism and debate about the quality, nature and direction of the visual arts in Victoria.
It seems to me that amateur enthusiasm could be a fantastic vehicle for growth and support of an arts community. Critical mass is needed for sustained vitality in any aspect of the arts and even though our population certainly comes no where near that of a major art metropolis like London or New York, the generally high level of local interest in visual expression could potentially be refocused in support of our best and brightest – I like to believe this in my most optimistic moments. Unfortunately, it also seems to me that ego is likely an unconquerable deterrent to this possibility. How many amateur artist statements begin with “so and so has been a practicing artist/painter/sculptor for however many years” not as an indication of time pursuing their given hobby but as a means of falsely legitimizing their work as professional? Imagine how many amateurs, after years of amateur ambitions and accomplishments, would happily concede the title of ‘artist’ to the professionals and furthermore value (in all the implied meanings of this word) truly accomplished work over their own? I am willing to bet not many.
To continue the conversation then, sincere writers about art in Victoria are then left with a difficult task – how to convince a readership largely predicated on amateurism that not only is professionalism a thing to be valued in the visual arts but also entirely distinguishable from enthusiast, amateur or student work. I would be very happy to see more examples of writing which provide supportive details and thoughtful examples of how professional quality work and art practice distinguishes itself and should therefore be valued. I would also be very pleased to see more rigorous criticism of work which claims to be of a professional quality yet perhaps falls short of that ambition. As a secondary art instructor, I am very clear about my expectation that students approach their work in exactly that light – they are ‘art students’ not yet (likely never will be) artists and should be allowed to make mistakes, celebrate small achievements, critically evaluate their development and look for potential future areas of progress in otherwise imperfect work. I feel fortunate that the majority of young people I work with have not yet established an ego which prevents them from having the ambition to improve or perhaps prevents them from recognizing the limitations of their own interests in pursuing visual arts. For the few that do already carry the spirit of amateurism with them, those who respond to guidance or criticism with “…but I like it like that” I frequently offer the following response:
“You may also like McDonalds, but that doesn’t make it good food.”
Writers in Victoria need to focus on the fine cuisine offered by the professionals in our community and to justify for us why it is not only worth appreciating and indulging in but essential and necessary to our collective culture. We’ve already got enough people that eat at McDonalds.
Andre Gogol
Dec. 31, 2010
It seems to me that the question of what constitutes quality in art becomes needlessly blurred with what constitutes professionalism in art. Evaluation of quality should reasonably be a reflection of the professionalism, amateurism or student nature of the work being produced. It would not be fair (or useful) to evaluate the progress or accomplishments of the beginning/student pianist using the same criteria for a professional concert pianist of thirty years. By the same token, comparing a twenty year, beer-league hockey player with a promising first round NHL draft pick is inappropriate at best and at insulting at worst (likely to both parties).
In many other vocations, professionalism is clearly identifiable – the professional athlete is readily separated from the amateur or enthusiast as is the professional biologist from the avid naturalist, the historian from the history buff and the professional musician from the recreational guitarist. In most cases, education/training is a primary attribute separating amateur from professional – however, intent and ambition play as much or perhaps more of a role in distinguishing the achievements and contributions of the professional. True, there are (very) rare exceptions in which the achievements of the student or amateur transcend the gulf separating the enthusiast from the professional. The popularity of “American Idol” type entertainment seems to point to our collective need to embrace this mythology. However, focusing on these rarities is distracting and helps to perpetuate the fairytale of the ‘overnight sensation’ or the ‘undiscovered talent’ and unfortunately helps to overlook the years of study, dedicated work and perseverance that more typically accompanies genuine success and professionalism.
In our little community, saturated as we are with amateurs and enthusiasts, those who are tasked with writing about art need to be clear about their purpose. If their purpose is to support discussion, promote interest and spark debate about accomplished art and our professional artists (and yes, there are some) then we all benefit from an elevated discourse, sincere examination and improved appreciation of the visual arts in our community. However, if those who write about art continue to promote amateur artists (arguably the very act of writing about amateur artists is in itself a form of promotion) as if they warranted professional consideration, the deeper our collective awareness and appreciation of legitimate, professional work sinks into the murk and mire of mediocrity. It is up to our writers therefore, not only to be able to distinguish between the accomplishments of the professional verses the amateur, but to rigorously promote criticism and debate about the quality, nature and direction of the visual arts in Victoria.
It seems to me that amateur enthusiasm could be a fantastic vehicle for growth and support of an arts community. Critical mass is needed for sustained vitality in any aspect of the arts and even though our population certainly comes no where near that of a major art metropolis like London or New York, the generally high level of local interest in visual expression could potentially be refocused in support of our best and brightest – I like to believe this in my most optimistic moments. Unfortunately, it also seems to me that ego is likely an unconquerable deterrent to this possibility. How many amateur artist statements begin with “so and so has been a practicing artist/painter/sculptor for however many years” not as an indication of time pursuing their given hobby but as a means of falsely legitimizing their work as professional? Imagine how many amateurs, after years of amateur ambitions and accomplishments, would happily concede the title of ‘artist’ to the professionals and furthermore value (in all the implied meanings of this word) truly accomplished work over their own? I am willing to bet not many.
To continue the conversation then, sincere writers about art in Victoria are then left with a difficult task – how to convince a readership largely predicated on amateurism that not only is professionalism a thing to be valued in the visual arts but also entirely distinguishable from enthusiast, amateur or student work. I would be very happy to see more examples of writing which provide supportive details and thoughtful examples of how professional quality work and art practice distinguishes itself and should therefore be valued. I would also be very pleased to see more rigorous criticism of work which claims to be of a professional quality yet perhaps falls short of that ambition. As a secondary art instructor, I am very clear about my expectation that students approach their work in exactly that light – they are ‘art students’ not yet (likely never will be) artists and should be allowed to make mistakes, celebrate small achievements, critically evaluate their development and look for potential future areas of progress in otherwise imperfect work. I feel fortunate that the majority of young people I work with have not yet established an ego which prevents them from having the ambition to improve or perhaps prevents them from recognizing the limitations of their own interests in pursuing visual arts. For the few that do already carry the spirit of amateurism with them, those who respond to guidance or criticism with “…but I like it like that” I frequently offer the following response:
“You may also like McDonalds, but that doesn’t make it good food.”
Writers in Victoria need to focus on the fine cuisine offered by the professionals in our community and to justify for us why it is not only worth appreciating and indulging in but essential and necessary to our collective culture. We’ve already got enough people that eat at McDonalds.
Andre Gogol
Dec. 31, 2010
Friday, December 31, 2010
Re: The Current State of Art and its Writing in Victoria by Brian Grison- Deborah's de Boer comment
2 comments:
- John Luna said...
- The results might be positive, I agree, but I don't find the article refreshing...it's really the same kind of thing Amos said in a panel a couple of years ago and I hear people say at the dreggish end of an opening. At its best it's a genuinely frustrated complaint made by people who want something better, at its worst it's just "cocktail bitchiness"...see http://www.rrj.ca/m8451/ for a sound take on the problems of Canadian criticism in general. See James Elkins (http://criticaycontracritica.uniandes.edu.co/textossimposio/ElkinsWhathappened.pdf)for a bigger exploration of problems faced by conmtemporary criticism and see http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/geert/2010/01/20/state-of-the-art-criticism-subjective-musings/ for a weather report on the challenges faced by online criticism. These problems are bigger and more interesting than anything you folks have had to say about them so far...
- December 31, 2010 12:08 AM
- Philip Willey said...
- Thank you John. Brian’s article was refreshing to me because I haven’t read anything like it locally. Locally being the operative word because I haven’t been keeping up with events in the real world. So at the least Brian prompted you to post some very interesting links. I’ve been out of touch with the state of art writing for some time but after reading those articles I feel as though I’ve caught up. Back on the cutting edge...whoopee! I find something entropic about them though. Reading them it’s not hard to sense an overall ‘been there, done that’ cloud of ennui over the art scene which must be very dispiriting for young artists. It’s also clear that the John Ruskin, Clement Greenberg and Robert Hughes days are well and truly over. Art criticism was always a minefield but anybody with the nerve to call themselves a critic, or even a theorist, these days is likely to get lynched. So maybe art journalism is the best we can hope for.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Re: The Current State of Art and its Writing in Victoria by Brian Grison
- Deborah de Boer said...
- Dear Brian, How refreshing! The comments here alone evoke much glee and consideration -- agendas being harder to hide than most folks imagine. I agree almost entirely with what you say. I would only suggest your assumption that most sensitive writers about art need to be artists is wrongheaded: sensitive writers about art need to be sensitive to art, especially over ego. Being literate, brave, brief, self-deprecating and capable of critical thought while constantly looking, reading, feeling and absorbing are also helpful. And It is mandatory to have some evolving concern with the larger world of contemporary art if you're going to write about it. The shrines to provincialism, amateurism and self-styled authority are the most virulent and destructive of all, for both communities and artists. Kick the damned hornets' nests. It can only be a positive thing. Deborah
Monday, December 27, 2010
Re: The Current State of Art and its Writing in Victoria by Brian Grison
If the objective is to stimulate productive discussion on art, art writing and art education, it would have been helpful to state clearly what is (are) the standard(s) against which to judge Victoria's situation. Then folks could either agree/disagree with the standards, or whether the facts about Victoria are correct.
My understand the author thinks there is something called "good art," whose exercise is possible only in a few cultural centres, and which can only be fully understood by artists or persons with degrees in art history. Victoria is provincial, and so by definition its "artists" are unsophisticated amateurs who make art for pleasure, even if some also sell some pictures to other provincials. Art writers and art schools cater to this provincial clientele.
But wait. What is "good art?" And who says? and why? and when? (Consider the pompiers. Or the socialist realists. Or, more controversially, the group of 7. Were they "good?" Who said so? Why? Do we still say so?)
By all means, let's discuss the Victoria art scene. But to do so, we need a starting point which, unlike this article, is more than a potpourri of pejorative remarks, interlarded with name dropping.
Frank Mitchell
1 comments:
- Philip Willey said...
- I don’t think any one person can tell you what is good and what is bad in art. It’s too subjective. It’s a historical process arrived at by selection and consensus that decides what is forgettable and what is great. With contemporary art it’s more a question of getting work into certain galleries Gagosian, White Cube, Sonnabend, being written about in certain magazines, or bought by certain collectors i.e. Charles Saatchi. Achieving this is difficult for artists living far from certain urban art centers. I do think there is a difference between major and minor art. This can be a question of subject matter, theme, originality or eye-catching technique. Or it can depend on things like promotion or the level of an individual artist’s ambition. Victoria attracts people who just want to live somewhere nice and paint pictures. Nothing wrong with that but that’s what makes it provincial. Mediocre? Maybe but there is plenty of mediocre work in New York and London too. I thought Brian said a lot of things that needed saying in his article. I doubt if it will result in any major changes but perhaps he’ll write another one pointing a way forward.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Re: The Current State of Art and its Writing in Victoria by Brian Grison
If the objective is to stimulate productive discussion on art, art writing and art education, it would have been helpful to state clearly what is (are) the standard(s) against which to judge Victoria's situation. Then folks could either agree/disagree with the standards, or whether the facts about Victoria are correct.
My understand the author thinks there is something called "good art," whose exercise is possible only in a few cultural centres, and which can only be fully understood by artists or persons with degrees in art history. Victoria is provincial, and so by definition its "artists" are unsophisticated amateurs who make art for pleasure, even if some also sell some pictures to other provincials. Art writers and art schools cater to this provincial clientele.
But wait. What is "good art?" And who says? and why? and when? (Consider the pompiers. Or the socialist realists. Or, more controversially, the group of 7. Were they "good?" Who said so? Why? Do we still say so?)
By all means, let's discuss the Victoria art scene. But to do so, we need a starting point which, unlike this article, is more than a potpourri of pejorative remarks, interlarded with name dropping.
Frank Mitchell
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The Current State of Art and its Writing in Victoria by Brian Grison
There are several magazines that publish articles about visual art in Victoria. Among these, Boulevard, Douglas, Focus, Monday Magazine, the Times Colonist and Y.A.M are the main ones. Articles about art in these magazines have been written by Rick Gibbs, Alisa Gordaneer, David Lennam, Denise Rudnicki and others for Boulevard, David Lennam for Douglas, Mollie Kaye, Linda Rogers and, until six months ago, myself, for Focus, John Threlfall for Monday Magazine, Robert Amos for the Times Colonist and myself for Y.A.M. However, much of this writing is disappointing.
The qualifications of these writers are worth considering. For example, except for Robert Amos, perhaps Mollie Kaye, and myself I don't think any of these writers can claim to be an artist. I think that only Robert Amos and myself write exclusively about visual art. Other than myself, probably none of these writers has completed university degrees in art history, or has taught visual art. In fact, it seems that few of these writers the basic qualifications to write about art. If this is true, the art community in Victoria is not being well served.
Of course writers about art need not be serious artists, art historians or even art critics. For example, Charles Baudelaire, Octavio Paz, John Ashbery and Frank O'Hara are poets, and John Ruskin was an amateur artist. Writers about art need to be sensitive to art - whatever that means. However, one would reasonably assume that the most sensitive writers about art would be artists. A short list would include Michelangelo, van Gogh, David Milne, Lauren Harris, Donald Judd, Sol LeWitt and David Hockney.
On the other hand, there is no direct equivalence between the quality of one's art and one's ability to write intelligently about it. Many good artists are not articulate about their own or any other artist's work. However, such artists are in the minority. The better artists are usually the most articulate, and often they are excellent writers about art. Much less often, an average or mediocre artist becomes an important writer about art. John Ruskin is probably the most well known example.
While writing for Focus I often read articles in other periodicals (and occasionally, in Focus) that I wanted to respond to, either through letters to the editor or through Focus. I did once send a letter to the Times Colonist editor about an article by Robert Amos, but it was not published. And, perhaps understandably, Focus wasn't interested in publishing my criticisms of other writers.
However, a few months ago Efren Quiroz invited me to write such responses on his website exhibit-v. Through these articles I hope to cultivate discussion among artists and writers about what art, and writing about it, is supposed to accomplish.
This present article will outline a possible relationship between writing and art in Victoria. This relationship reflects local geography, history, demography, art education and business practice.
Consider the following circumstances. Besides that fact that most local writers are incapable of writing about serious historic or contemporary art, there is a broad agenda among most local publishers to support low quality art. Most of the magazines in Victoria depend on advertising space purchased by commercial galleries, and all but about six of these exhibit art for tourists or interior decoration. From a business perspective this makes sense; tourist art and interior decoration sells more quickly than serious art. Good art receives little attention, and good writing is not required.
Geography is another unfortunate matter. Victoria suffers from its location far away from the world's important art centres - with all due respect to the important First Nations visual art culture of this coast. Nothing can make up for not living in New York, Paris, London. Beginning artists need constant exposure to the best historic and contemporary art. Art books and magazines, art history and theory courses, images on the Internet, or occasional trips across the continent or ocean to visit important museums and galleries are not enough. Without constant exposure to good and serious art, most writers reflect what is available, and that is mostly provincial.
Here is another point. On a per capita basis, Victoria supposedly has more artists than any other Canadian city. This is actually not encouraging. Since Victoria is not a world-class cultural centre, most young, talented and ambitious artists move to more important cities. On the other hand, Victoria is a popular retirement destinations for Canadians, and a many of these residents take up art as a leisure pastime. After a few easy and fun workshops and courses or consulting a few how-to books, they begin participating in studio tours. Then some local commercial gallery 'discovers' them and their misplaced ambitions soar; dollar signs and the artistic 'life-style' eliminate the possibility of critical thinking and good art practice.
Art education catering to amateurs is big business in Victoria. Most of the art courses in this town are designed to satisfy the simple ambitions of amateur artists. Even if they find themselves attending so-called higher education courses, such students are rarely interested in the challenge of serious art. They only want to entertain themselves, to express themselves, to discover their inner artist. They want to make art about recognizable and pleasant subjects. Hence, most art education in Victoria is not challenging; it lacks the rigor, whether from a manual, perceptual or theoretical perspective, required to cultivate technically good or intellectually serious art, and well-trained instructors are not required.
Unfortunately, these facts of artistic life in Victoria reflect a larger problematic cultural condition. Even quiet, quaint and isolated Victoria participates in one of the grand self-delusions of contemporary life, that we live in an age of increasing amateurism, deepening hedonistic materialism and simultaneously conservative and shallow politics. Today, being entertained has replaced being cultured. Instant gratification measured by fifteen-minute fame has replaced the slow, difficult life-long cultivation of knowledge, culture and wisdom. There is little wonder that much of the art and the writing about it in Victoria amounts to a lot of mediocrity.
Please send your responses to this article to : exhibit.vic@gmail.com Thank You
The qualifications of these writers are worth considering. For example, except for Robert Amos, perhaps Mollie Kaye, and myself I don't think any of these writers can claim to be an artist. I think that only Robert Amos and myself write exclusively about visual art. Other than myself, probably none of these writers has completed university degrees in art history, or has taught visual art. In fact, it seems that few of these writers the basic qualifications to write about art. If this is true, the art community in Victoria is not being well served.
Of course writers about art need not be serious artists, art historians or even art critics. For example, Charles Baudelaire, Octavio Paz, John Ashbery and Frank O'Hara are poets, and John Ruskin was an amateur artist. Writers about art need to be sensitive to art - whatever that means. However, one would reasonably assume that the most sensitive writers about art would be artists. A short list would include Michelangelo, van Gogh, David Milne, Lauren Harris, Donald Judd, Sol LeWitt and David Hockney.
On the other hand, there is no direct equivalence between the quality of one's art and one's ability to write intelligently about it. Many good artists are not articulate about their own or any other artist's work. However, such artists are in the minority. The better artists are usually the most articulate, and often they are excellent writers about art. Much less often, an average or mediocre artist becomes an important writer about art. John Ruskin is probably the most well known example.
While writing for Focus I often read articles in other periodicals (and occasionally, in Focus) that I wanted to respond to, either through letters to the editor or through Focus. I did once send a letter to the Times Colonist editor about an article by Robert Amos, but it was not published. And, perhaps understandably, Focus wasn't interested in publishing my criticisms of other writers.
However, a few months ago Efren Quiroz invited me to write such responses on his website exhibit-v. Through these articles I hope to cultivate discussion among artists and writers about what art, and writing about it, is supposed to accomplish.
This present article will outline a possible relationship between writing and art in Victoria. This relationship reflects local geography, history, demography, art education and business practice.
Consider the following circumstances. Besides that fact that most local writers are incapable of writing about serious historic or contemporary art, there is a broad agenda among most local publishers to support low quality art. Most of the magazines in Victoria depend on advertising space purchased by commercial galleries, and all but about six of these exhibit art for tourists or interior decoration. From a business perspective this makes sense; tourist art and interior decoration sells more quickly than serious art. Good art receives little attention, and good writing is not required.
Geography is another unfortunate matter. Victoria suffers from its location far away from the world's important art centres - with all due respect to the important First Nations visual art culture of this coast. Nothing can make up for not living in New York, Paris, London. Beginning artists need constant exposure to the best historic and contemporary art. Art books and magazines, art history and theory courses, images on the Internet, or occasional trips across the continent or ocean to visit important museums and galleries are not enough. Without constant exposure to good and serious art, most writers reflect what is available, and that is mostly provincial.
Here is another point. On a per capita basis, Victoria supposedly has more artists than any other Canadian city. This is actually not encouraging. Since Victoria is not a world-class cultural centre, most young, talented and ambitious artists move to more important cities. On the other hand, Victoria is a popular retirement destinations for Canadians, and a many of these residents take up art as a leisure pastime. After a few easy and fun workshops and courses or consulting a few how-to books, they begin participating in studio tours. Then some local commercial gallery 'discovers' them and their misplaced ambitions soar; dollar signs and the artistic 'life-style' eliminate the possibility of critical thinking and good art practice.
Art education catering to amateurs is big business in Victoria. Most of the art courses in this town are designed to satisfy the simple ambitions of amateur artists. Even if they find themselves attending so-called higher education courses, such students are rarely interested in the challenge of serious art. They only want to entertain themselves, to express themselves, to discover their inner artist. They want to make art about recognizable and pleasant subjects. Hence, most art education in Victoria is not challenging; it lacks the rigor, whether from a manual, perceptual or theoretical perspective, required to cultivate technically good or intellectually serious art, and well-trained instructors are not required.
Unfortunately, these facts of artistic life in Victoria reflect a larger problematic cultural condition. Even quiet, quaint and isolated Victoria participates in one of the grand self-delusions of contemporary life, that we live in an age of increasing amateurism, deepening hedonistic materialism and simultaneously conservative and shallow politics. Today, being entertained has replaced being cultured. Instant gratification measured by fifteen-minute fame has replaced the slow, difficult life-long cultivation of knowledge, culture and wisdom. There is little wonder that much of the art and the writing about it in Victoria amounts to a lot of mediocrity.
Please send your responses to this article to : exhibit.vic@gmail.com Thank You
- christine clark said...
- It's true that without specifics this article reads as slightly irrational. To whom are you referring? Are you suggesting that all the artists, writers, instructors and galleries in Victoria are provincial and mediocre? If you have something to say, you better quit pulling your punches. It will make for a more convincing argument and possibly even an interesting discussion. Pugilistically, Christine
- Wow....you really stuck your neck out. It's refreshing to read something like that and I agree with a lot of it. On the other hand I think a lot of people/artists move to Victoria to get away from all the hype and hoopla. Hopefully you can find a balance between escapism and the desire for recognition. I wish you the best of luck.
- roygreenart said...
- well done Brian...I agree with everything you say...sometimes all Mr. Amos does is quote the press release for the show without offering any opinion about it, ie. the recent Martin Golland exhibit...easy tepid images of lazy flowers,scenic pictures of boats or quaint domiciles and abstraction that is only about 60 years behind the times are prevalent in our fair town...the majority of painters in our bucolic center of somnambulism want to create pictures rather than paintings... I miss your articles in Focus and I look forward to your postings...
- Its quite astonishing to read an article that does an such an excellent job of integrating self-aggrandizement with self-righteousness. Add a little content to this and you might have something of sustenance.
- howboy said...
- I'll send along by email the longer comments I just posted and were not accepted because, evidently, there's a word limit on comments. Dang. But let me say here, good analysis Brian, but let's not throw the baby with the bathwater. Everything is changing and Victoria is as likely a place as any to be engaged with that change, possibly better. - Rob from ReadingArt.ca
- Brandy Saturley said...
- There are several magazines that publish articles on art in Victoria, but none of them are 'art' magazines, I think that is the issue. I think the only Canadian art magazines that I have actually purchased or choose to puruse are Canadian Art and Whitehot Magazine. Victoria is a more 'crafty' art group and Victoria art fairs are more like 'flea markets' than art shows. Even the Moss Stret Paint-In, which I have exhibited in, is mostly a glorified flea market. We are very remote and far away from the serious art of the world. I love living in Victoria and have a great respect for the community, I am second generation Victorian artist, but I spend most of my time educating myself on art in the major art centres and traveling as much as I can. I still cannot bring myself to move away from this beautiful place and do belive it is possible to be a respected, successful, serious artist living in Victoria as long as you regularily travel and experience art elsewhere and in places that have a deeper art history than North America.
- John Luna said...
- I do find these comments very general, and this is disappointing. It's not revelatory (nor was it ten, or even fifteen years ago) to broadly indicate the perpetuation of mediocrity in art exhibition, education and critical reception in Victoria if you will not attend to the exceptions. I look forward to a closer reading in the future.
-
- john luna said...
- In the last month, Jessica Berlanga Taylor's imaginative catalogue essay for Daniel Laskarin appeared in print, Debora Alanna wrote an erudite and impressionistic review of Shannon Scanlan for Exhibit-V, Christine Clark managed to be both disarming and sharp in many of her observations on Laskarin (also in this forum), Vanessa Annand offered an engaged, experiential review of Wunder Worry in the Martlet, and I wrote a perfunctory but adequate review of d.bradley muir's exhibition at the Nanaimo Art Gallery for Border Crossings. I would argue that criticism is in fact experiencing a groundswell in Victoria just now, but not at the hands of self-declared authorities. I am concerned that if you don't evince attention to the ongoing progress of your practice, you will risk being perceived a reactionary. I don't recall seeing you at either of the talks about art criticism recently hosted by Open Space, but hopefully you'll be attending Robert Enright's talk this January. In the meantime, I look forward to the dialogue that might take place here, and encourage the rest of you (you know who you are) to weigh in critically and conscientiously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)