L.M.'s recent post prompted me to re-read ArtFag's latest rant about recent curatorial mis-steps in big group shows that set out to define Toronto art (specifically, the Power Plant's We Can Do This Now and MOCCA's Love/Hate: New Crowned Glory in Toronto). ArtFag can be counted on for a rip-rousing, searing critique, and I applaud their unequivocal demands for better curations.
To collect a group of work under the pretense that there is no common thread is not only an abdication of responsibility, it is, to be crass about it, an abdication of your job descriptions.
I wholeheartedly agree. I also applaud ArtFag for moving beyond mere griping into some actual diagnoses and suggestions.
This is a small art scene, in a small city, after all; almost everyone knows each other, and certainly there is opportunity aplenty for all to be exposed to each other's practices. The challenge in erecting a Toronto show would be to track those threads of interconnection, to sort them so that one can have a clear picture of the living mechanism that is this city's art.
But here I start to differ. Particularly at the phrase "almost everyone knows each other." Really? Or do we just stick too closely to our well-worn paths? And what, exactly is a Toronto artist? Is it someone who was born and bred in the GTA? Someone just in from Calgary looking to set up shop in the Golden Horseshoe? Someone who's been reviewed by Gary Michael Dault? Someone who runs a video program for youth in Regent Park? Someone who went to OCAD? Someone who shows on Queen St? Someone who everybody already knows? ArtFag paints a picture of a 'stagnant' art scene and blames the commercial gallerists for not promoting younger artists. But what about the Toronto Outdoor Art Exhibition, Toronto Free Gallery, X-space, Le Gallery? And is it really youth who provide the kind of 'fresh blood' ArtFag calls for, or is it modes of practice and definitions of 'Toronto artist' that are currently off the art scene radar?
I think what we are really suffering from is a slightly sickening compulsion for self-definition. Why, in a city full of immigrants and travellers, of ambitious artists who's practices are in dialogue with others here and around the world, do we struggle to define our art according to our geography? Is is just because of rivalry with Vancouver? And, if you remove this cloying notion of Toronto's failure to love itself enough, isn't there plenty of thoughtful, rigorous curation happening in this town? What about Pat Macaulay's work at York Quay Galleries, or Diaz, or Cheryl Sourkes, or Ann MacDonald at Doris McCarthy Gallery? I can't help thinking that it's time to turn our attention away from the fairly trivial category of Toronto, and pay attention to the networks of art ideas for which such boundaries are meaningless. The important threads of connection for art are between works, not between friends. Toronto is a social town, and perhaps it is the persistence of this social perspective, this clinging to the clique as an organising principle, that gives us the sense that we are being held back.
ArtFag ends with a footnote:
....an increased interest in our city's young might provide the necessary sharp shock to the more slack and middling of our mid-career artists...
But it is precisely our mid-career artists that make us think the hardest and offer us the most, artists who have been around the block enough times to eschew fashion and gimmickry in favour of challenging themselves, of building on an increasingly resonant and evolving body of work. Artists who continue to exhibit in Toronto as well as in all kinds of far-flung places, and whose work rewards our attention, not from the lazy social perspective of pigeonholing 'people we already know', but from the broad and enriching perspective of art discourse.
But these quibbles are small compared to the my immense gratitude to ArtFag for taking the trouble to write this magnificent Toronto Manifesto, for challenging the local gatekeepers to do better, and especially for putting themselves on the line to make a proclamations about what is wrong and how to fix it. These are steps we need to take. Along with, in my case anyway, trying to learn as much as I can about how to curate awesome art shows.
this just in from Art Fag...
We would like to kick off our answer by congratulating
L.M. on what is surely the cleverest and loveliest
animated GIF we have yet to see; surely the best of
all possible advertisements for our little endeavour.
We threw our head back with laughter upon seeing it,
or, as internet parlance would have it, we LOL'd.
We would also like to point out, by way of tangential
introduction, that this latest essay of ours has
occasioned the most response, and our first ever bit
of hate mail (honestly, darlings, what took you so
long?). Obviously, more extensive dialogue is called
for. So, while we usually let our missives speak for
themselves, we make exception to enter the fray, just
this once.
We feel it necessary to point out the obvious.
Courtney Love was once asked whether criticisms hurt
her, to which she responded, in her infinite wisdom,
of course not; they are not designed to hurt.
Differences and disagreements are an expected given;
such is the intent of criticism, and such is the
nature of our rather bombastic style. Surely our
response will occasion another host of responses, yet
more argument, further disagreement, and endless chain
of 'yes, but's. That is the value and the intent of
our endeavour. That is the means by which we measure
our success.
So, there are two things we feel the pressing need to
respond to: the first is the issue of self-definition,
as that was the issue whose lack of address gave rise
to our essay in the first place. One of the reasons
we started our endeavour was to combat this uniquely
Canadian ideal of deferral (we realize it is gauche to
quote one's self, but nevertheless): "definition by
exclusion; don't ask us what we are, here is what we
aren't."
Self-definition is not a sickening compulsion, it is a
function of a healthy identity. Similarly, self-love
is not a cloying notion, but likewise, the hallmarks
of a properly maintained ego. We cannot abandon these
traits, for any reason. If we cannot say, of a
certainty, who and what we are, then how are we to
explain ourselves to strangers? How are we to
convince those for whom the phrase "Queen West" means
nothing (and there are a great many of such people)
that something particular, something unique, something
valuable is going on here if we refuse to articulate
our identity to begin with? Who will sell us if we
refuse to sell ourselves?
And yes, we stand by our assertion that almost
everyone knows each other. A dangerous assertion, to
be sure, as it's nothing that can be irrefutably
demonstrated. Still, our art scene, by virtue of many
many factors, is relatively isolated and
inward-looking. Notwithstanding the suburban sprawl
that defines the "GTA" (now there's one definition we
could do without), we are a relatively small city, and
our art spaces are relatively few, and spatially
concentrated (and don't tell us what a schlep it is to
the Distillery district). It is true, as you point
out, that we have our well-worn paths. The trouble is
that our well-worn paths interconnect with alarming
regularity.
The second pressing issue: let us answer the gallery
related charges, as this is what has elicited the most
uniform response. In fact, opposition to our
assertions have taken your very form, Ms McKay: a list
of 'what abouts?', venues ignored by us in our
summation of our indictment of galleries. To be sure,
our list was not encyclopedic, but our qualifications
were precise: prominent commercial gallerists. This
is not to denigrate artist-run culture in any way. It
is an important institution both in its own right, and
as an alternative to the various confines of its
commercial brethren. We chose this designation
because commercial galleries are self-sustaining, and
thus, in a more transparent manner than artist-run
centres, bring into sharper relief those qualities
that make an engaging art scene: the intersection
between competition, talent, intelligence and novelty.
We could, in fact, pick apart your list, but we won't,
mostly because we don't want to go on too long (we
save our rampant verbosity for when we are on home
turf). We will say this, however: of your list of
places that offer good curation (and we agree with
most of your assessments), and of those places that
are commercial galleries, ask yourself: how many of
their roster are recent graduates? How many are
currently based in Toronto? How many of them have
been signed in the last two years?
One specific comment from among your list: Wil Kucey
at le gallery is doing excellent work (we might not
care for everything he shows, but that is besides the
point). However, he has not been around terribly
long, and certainly does not operate (or even
schmooze) on the level of, say, Jessica Bradley. The
true test is whether or not he will continue his
active interest in younger artists if and/or when he
has been terrible in his longevity. As it stands now,
his behaviour is consistent with any up and coming
gallery: they must build their stable from young
artists. Emergent gallerists must be in a state of
constant awareness and activity. This is not what
worries us; what worries us is when the awareness
abates, for what replaces it are the two things that
will starve an art scene: habit and complacency.
(From ArtFag, posted via SM)
I think it IS dangerous to suppose everyone knows one another. I don't think we do. I'm not sure it's a bad thing either. It represents the hope we can still break our complacent habits and learn something about the work of others. This could be achieved as easily by regularly revisiting the studio of the same artist over the years as by knocking on the door of of an artist on the other side of town who recently graduated from a school you didn't go to for the first time.
Now if only someone would write something similar to this about New York; preferably not one of the NY Times or Artforum critics who lap at the dish of the fashion enclave or the graduating class of Columbia University. Too many mid-career artists are ignored here, which is why many of us are considering leaving.
mid career artists are ignored everywhere. It goes with the territory, kind of like middle children. Also like middle children, the lack of attention gives us license to act like weirdos and do our own thing!
Yes, we are all Eve Plumb now.
"We Are All Eve Plumb Now."
Wow, that's gold. There's your title for your show of Toronto mid-career artists. Brilliant.
this is a painting by Eve Plumb. I kid you not.
I think the chair on the right is beautifully painted. The chair on the left is precocious and cute. There's something sort of boring about the chair in the middle, however.
Jan was the best. I always knew she was going to become an artist after she didn't make the cheerleading squad that time.
Yes, but that chair has more luster than the other two. Subtlety is everything.
the middle chair never really gets the recognition it deserves.
excellent post.
thanks Dude! And thanks to ArtFag for bringing your perspective back into it. I don't feel much like refuting point by point - I think our different views are pretty well expressed as it stands.
Well I was hoping for a sissy fight between the two of you.
"Why, in a city full of immigrants and travellers, of ambitious artists who's practices are in dialogue with others here and around the world, do we struggle to define our art according to our geography?"
A city full of people from "there" has a profound need for a recognizable idea of "here" because immigrants and travelers are usually homesick, confused and lonely people who yearn to feel a sense of place and belonging that compensates for the bewildering dislocation of immigration and travel.
that is a very good point Neilson. I have heard this point of view expressed before (on cbc's Ideas, I think, in a program about tolerance) and I find it kind of challenging but I get it.
Even without the homesickness, confusion and loneliness, I'd still agree that location of one's practise matters.
Location matters. But does it really matter that we define a Toronto-ness to Toronto art?
|
L.M.'s recent post prompted me to re-read ArtFag's latest rant about recent curatorial mis-steps in big group shows that set out to define Toronto art (specifically, the Power Plant's We Can Do This Now and MOCCA's Love/Hate: New Crowned Glory in Toronto). ArtFag can be counted on for a rip-rousing, searing critique, and I applaud their unequivocal demands for better curations. I wholeheartedly agree. I also applaud ArtFag for moving beyond mere griping into some actual diagnoses and suggestions. But here I start to differ. Particularly at the phrase "almost everyone knows each other." Really? Or do we just stick too closely to our well-worn paths? And what, exactly is a Toronto artist? Is it someone who was born and bred in the GTA? Someone just in from Calgary looking to set up shop in the Golden Horseshoe? Someone who's been reviewed by Gary Michael Dault? Someone who runs a video program for youth in Regent Park? Someone who went to OCAD? Someone who shows on Queen St? Someone who everybody already knows? ArtFag paints a picture of a 'stagnant' art scene and blames the commercial gallerists for not promoting younger artists. But what about the Toronto Outdoor Art Exhibition, Toronto Free Gallery, X-space, Le Gallery? And is it really youth who provide the kind of 'fresh blood' ArtFag calls for, or is it modes of practice and definitions of 'Toronto artist' that are currently off the art scene radar?
I think what we are really suffering from is a slightly sickening compulsion for self-definition. Why, in a city full of immigrants and travellers, of ambitious artists who's practices are in dialogue with others here and around the world, do we struggle to define our art according to our geography? Is is just because of rivalry with Vancouver? And, if you remove this cloying notion of Toronto's failure to love itself enough, isn't there plenty of thoughtful, rigorous curation happening in this town? What about Pat Macaulay's work at York Quay Galleries, or Diaz, or Cheryl Sourkes, or Ann MacDonald at Doris McCarthy Gallery? I can't help thinking that it's time to turn our attention away from the fairly trivial category of Toronto, and pay attention to the networks of art ideas for which such boundaries are meaningless. The important threads of connection for art are between works, not between friends. Toronto is a social town, and perhaps it is the persistence of this social perspective, this clinging to the clique as an organising principle, that gives us the sense that we are being held back.
ArtFag ends with a footnote: But it is precisely our mid-career artists that make us think the hardest and offer us the most, artists who have been around the block enough times to eschew fashion and gimmickry in favour of challenging themselves, of building on an increasingly resonant and evolving body of work. Artists who continue to exhibit in Toronto as well as in all kinds of far-flung places, and whose work rewards our attention, not from the lazy social perspective of pigeonholing 'people we already know', but from the broad and enriching perspective of art discourse.
But these quibbles are small compared to the my immense gratitude to ArtFag for taking the trouble to write this magnificent Toronto Manifesto, for challenging the local gatekeepers to do better, and especially for putting themselves on the line to make a proclamations about what is wrong and how to fix it. These are steps we need to take. Along with, in my case anyway, trying to learn as much as I can about how to curate awesome art shows.
- sally mckay 8-24-2007 6:10 pm
this just in from Art Fag...
We would like to kick off our answer by congratulating L.M. on what is surely the cleverest and loveliest animated GIF we have yet to see; surely the best of all possible advertisements for our little endeavour. We threw our head back with laughter upon seeing it, or, as internet parlance would have it, we LOL'd.
We would also like to point out, by way of tangential introduction, that this latest essay of ours has occasioned the most response, and our first ever bit of hate mail (honestly, darlings, what took you so long?). Obviously, more extensive dialogue is called for. So, while we usually let our missives speak for themselves, we make exception to enter the fray, just this once.
We feel it necessary to point out the obvious. Courtney Love was once asked whether criticisms hurt her, to which she responded, in her infinite wisdom, of course not; they are not designed to hurt. Differences and disagreements are an expected given; such is the intent of criticism, and such is the nature of our rather bombastic style. Surely our response will occasion another host of responses, yet more argument, further disagreement, and endless chain of 'yes, but's. That is the value and the intent of our endeavour. That is the means by which we measure our success.
So, there are two things we feel the pressing need to respond to: the first is the issue of self-definition, as that was the issue whose lack of address gave rise to our essay in the first place. One of the reasons we started our endeavour was to combat this uniquely Canadian ideal of deferral (we realize it is gauche to quote one's self, but nevertheless): "definition by exclusion; don't ask us what we are, here is what we aren't."
Self-definition is not a sickening compulsion, it is a function of a healthy identity. Similarly, self-love is not a cloying notion, but likewise, the hallmarks of a properly maintained ego. We cannot abandon these traits, for any reason. If we cannot say, of a certainty, who and what we are, then how are we to explain ourselves to strangers? How are we to convince those for whom the phrase "Queen West" means nothing (and there are a great many of such people) that something particular, something unique, something valuable is going on here if we refuse to articulate our identity to begin with? Who will sell us if we refuse to sell ourselves?
And yes, we stand by our assertion that almost everyone knows each other. A dangerous assertion, to be sure, as it's nothing that can be irrefutably demonstrated. Still, our art scene, by virtue of many many factors, is relatively isolated and inward-looking. Notwithstanding the suburban sprawl that defines the "GTA" (now there's one definition we could do without), we are a relatively small city, and our art spaces are relatively few, and spatially concentrated (and don't tell us what a schlep it is to the Distillery district). It is true, as you point out, that we have our well-worn paths. The trouble is that our well-worn paths interconnect with alarming regularity.
The second pressing issue: let us answer the gallery related charges, as this is what has elicited the most uniform response. In fact, opposition to our assertions have taken your very form, Ms McKay: a list of 'what abouts?', venues ignored by us in our summation of our indictment of galleries. To be sure, our list was not encyclopedic, but our qualifications were precise: prominent commercial gallerists. This is not to denigrate artist-run culture in any way. It is an important institution both in its own right, and as an alternative to the various confines of its commercial brethren. We chose this designation because commercial galleries are self-sustaining, and thus, in a more transparent manner than artist-run centres, bring into sharper relief those qualities that make an engaging art scene: the intersection between competition, talent, intelligence and novelty.
We could, in fact, pick apart your list, but we won't, mostly because we don't want to go on too long (we save our rampant verbosity for when we are on home turf). We will say this, however: of your list of places that offer good curation (and we agree with most of your assessments), and of those places that are commercial galleries, ask yourself: how many of their roster are recent graduates? How many are currently based in Toronto? How many of them have been signed in the last two years?
One specific comment from among your list: Wil Kucey at le gallery is doing excellent work (we might not care for everything he shows, but that is besides the point). However, he has not been around terribly long, and certainly does not operate (or even schmooze) on the level of, say, Jessica Bradley. The true test is whether or not he will continue his active interest in younger artists if and/or when he has been terrible in his longevity. As it stands now, his behaviour is consistent with any up and coming gallery: they must build their stable from young artists. Emergent gallerists must be in a state of constant awareness and activity. This is not what worries us; what worries us is when the awareness abates, for what replaces it are the two things that will starve an art scene: habit and complacency.
(From ArtFag, posted via SM)
- sally mckay 8-24-2007 10:51 pm
I think it IS dangerous to suppose everyone knows one another. I don't think we do. I'm not sure it's a bad thing either. It represents the hope we can still break our complacent habits and learn something about the work of others. This could be achieved as easily by regularly revisiting the studio of the same artist over the years as by knocking on the door of of an artist on the other side of town who recently graduated from a school you didn't go to for the first time.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 8-25-2007 12:46 am
Now if only someone would write something similar to this about New York; preferably not one of the NY Times or Artforum critics who lap at the dish of the fashion enclave or the graduating class of Columbia University. Too many mid-career artists are ignored here, which is why many of us are considering leaving.
- Morse (guest) 8-25-2007 3:24 am
mid career artists are ignored everywhere. It goes with the territory, kind of like middle children. Also like middle children, the lack of attention gives us license to act like weirdos and do our own thing!
- sally mckay 8-25-2007 6:46 am
Yes, we are all Eve Plumb now.
- Morse (guest) 8-25-2007 5:49 pm
"We Are All Eve Plumb Now."
Wow, that's gold. There's your title for your show of Toronto mid-career artists. Brilliant.
- John Massier (guest) 8-25-2007 9:53 pm
this is a painting by Eve Plumb. I kid you not.
- sally mckay 8-25-2007 11:36 pm
I think the chair on the right is beautifully painted. The chair on the left is precocious and cute. There's something sort of boring about the chair in the middle, however.
- joester 8-26-2007 12:22 am
Jan was the best. I always knew she was going to become an artist after she didn't make the cheerleading squad that time.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 8-26-2007 1:58 am
Yes, but that chair has more luster than the other two. Subtlety is everything.
- Morse (guest) 8-26-2007 7:40 am
the middle chair never really gets the recognition it deserves.
- bill 8-26-2007 3:21 pm
excellent post.
- mister anchovy (guest) 8-28-2007 1:54 am
thanks Dude! And thanks to ArtFag for bringing your perspective back into it. I don't feel much like refuting point by point - I think our different views are pretty well expressed as it stands.
- sally mckay 8-28-2007 6:32 pm
Well I was hoping for a sissy fight between the two of you.
- L.M. 8-29-2007 9:08 am
"Why, in a city full of immigrants and travellers, of ambitious artists who's practices are in dialogue with others here and around the world, do we struggle to define our art according to our geography?"
A city full of people from "there" has a profound need for a recognizable idea of "here" because immigrants and travelers are usually homesick, confused and lonely people who yearn to feel a sense of place and belonging that compensates for the bewildering dislocation of immigration and travel.
- neilson133 (guest) 9-19-2007 12:04 am
that is a very good point Neilson. I have heard this point of view expressed before (on cbc's Ideas, I think, in a program about tolerance) and I find it kind of challenging but I get it.
- sally mckay 9-19-2007 12:29 am
Even without the homesickness, confusion and loneliness, I'd still agree that location of one's practise matters.
- L.M. 9-19-2007 12:29 am
Location matters. But does it really matter that we define a Toronto-ness to Toronto art?
- sally mckay 9-19-2007 12:36 am