Artfag
mocks Canadian Art's recent Toronto issue.
Oh! How could you?
(via simpleposie)
We were so fucking highbrow here for about a day, and I go and spoil it with the sparklies.
"...to anyone who is thinking that the time is ripe for a survey of Toronto's art scene: don't. For the love of heaven: Just. Don't."
yeah, baby.
I thought the sparklies added a nice touch of class. Like Mirella's Touch of Class tattoos in Vancouver (http://www.mirellastouchofclass.ca/Photo-Gallery.page?i=15). And, of course, the way Artfag adds a touch of class to the world of Toronto art criticism.
There are ideas that should never be put in my head.
b/t/w has anyone read that particular issue? I borrowed a copy to see what Sarah Milroy's hair looked like in her photo, but that was only because Andrew Harwood was a misogynist and brought it up in the first place.
Ja habe ich die Zeitschrift aber nicht gerade das Teil über die stilvoll aufgeworfenen artwriters gelesen.
Why bother with anonymity - just let babelfish screw up your artcritical gibberish even better than before.
Dieses ist wie das Teilen unserer Zeit zwischen Toronto und Berlin gerecht! (and it goes in my next artist bio)
That tattoo picture would make a great cover for a national art magazine doing a Toronto issue. So would the Hello gif but then, you'd be getting into some costly paper. Really expensive.
or very cheap with glue and glitter and the labour of Fastwurms' students from Guelph.
Brilliant suggestion, J! Toss in a glossy autographed photo of Toller Cranston and we may have a winner.
You said Toller Cranston!
And so hello, KW and LM, I read the last issue of CA. Yes I did.
I read and (shamefully) even worked on that particular issue of CA. Not that there was much to "read" in the Toronto section since each text bit was like 100 words or less.
Does anyone know if Toller Cranston still runs a gallery? We had this fabulous book on him at the MFA studios when I was in Guelph...all romantic and moody black and white photos of him walking in various landscapes and looking pensive.
I didn't read it, but I did flip through it at the bookstore, and I must concur that the CA issue was hurtin'. (But I think Sarah Milroy's hair was in better shape than I had been lead to believe...)
"...lead to believe" -- by a misogynist! (how often do I have to insult him before he shows up on this thread)
What I want to know is, IF the issue amounts to tp (toilet paper) as ArtFag has suggested - IF that is true and the whole thing sucks that badly - IF the issue was theirs to manage... what would anybody do differently?
ArtFag:
"...why are the painters alone in being categorized by medium (and for God's sake, of all the painters in this city, why those painters)?"
I mean, yeah, what - nobody makes sculpture in Toronto?
ArtFag is like so snippy about people who use manila paper & crayon, which is a perfectly fine medium.
(posted by VB via SM)
I thought ArtFag was just asking why the crayon and paper people get a pic - while weirdly sculpture makers don't get a mention.
CA is a corporate-friendly collector's magazine. That's why an artist like Thrush Holmes is considered 'news', they think he sells.
So, LM, Sally, VB what was your impression of the issue?
One thought I had, while Whiteside is a fine photog - I think it might have been interesting to commission the portraits of Toronto artists by other Toronto artists. Of course, that is a minor insight compared to the brilliance of LM's gif emblazoning the front cover of the magazine.
Not a bad idea.
Also don't you think so many people were once again irritated at the thought of yet another odd, incomplete top-down definition of art in this town? In this case, it's now Rick Rhodes' version. Artfag is right, it is limited.
On the other hand, why would anyone not expect that.
But there is one strange exclusion, where's Eldon Garnet? Why was he not in there?
Eldon is us!
[...laughing maniacally now...]
Well, yeah.
Just to stick with Af's mediumistic category complaints - I noticed that photography and film and video got munched into something called imagecraft. That gets weird because there's no Burtynsky or Egoyan or Lisa Steele in the picture. And that is just very strange
I'm dangling an idea that is dipping into another idea. Sorry. To address your top-down definition of art in this town - the result of the munchup of film video and photography into 'imagecraft' is that the extremely vital (in this case) top is actually lopped off the spectrum.
I agree 'imagecraft' is a hilarious and bizarre little construction that we have to scramble to get on top of (before Burtynski and Steele stake their rightful claim).
I'm with artfag here, I can't take the thing seriously. (Another interesting excercise is to only look at AC every five years and see how quickly importance shifts totally elsewhere)
dude, if you think the toronto issue was bad, you guys were spared the total patronizing clusterfuck that was the calgary issue (or the how do you keep the rubes on the farm now that they've seen postmodernism issue)
i fucking hate Canadian Art, they don't cover work i think is interesting most days, they don't cover edmonton or moncton or inuvik, and the artists they cover from toronto bore me, and being bored is worse then being offended.
they really seem to be obsessed with big big big, and also have a thing for landscapes, and all that implies. but then the last great book on canadian criticism we had was on abstract painting in canada, a nessc. book, but a book that suggests how conserative we are as a nation
(i also don't think canadian artists have done anything nearly as awesome as this: http://www.canadiandesignresource.ca/officialgallery/?p=1576
since 1972)
"Canadian Public Modernism" according to one of the commenters on that link. (what a great label.)
I can't work up any hate for AC. (Though I'd be really angry if I was Eldon Garnet)
that comment was great--best example of canadian public modernism ive ever seen, the saskatchewan court and office building in le ronge, it was like having a logans run era space ship land in ca 1890s Klondike.
Great link, Anthony - an excellent example of great design produced in this country during the 70s - I'm reminded of Allan Fleming's designs - same era (he's responsible for the CN logo)
I agree - Canadian Public Modernism - (what a great label)
Re:
"(Another interesting exercise is to only look at AC every five years and see how quickly importance shifts totally elsewhere)"
But of course. Absolutely.
Re:
"(i also don't think Canadian artists have done anything nearly as awesome as this: http://www.canadiandesignresource.ca/officialgallery/?p=1576 since 1972)"
I wouldn't concede greatness to design just yet - what about Eric Glavin 's paintings (http://www.mercerunion.org/archive95/images/341a.jpeg
) he made in the nineties? Stephen Shearer's pattern paintings at the time were fussier and smaller but also terrific.
But the question is really analogous to that of monoculture vs biodiversity. What I mean is, if Canadian Public Modernism lovely though it is to look at and even lovelier to toss around on a blog - if that were where the buck stopped and that was all there was out there, I doubt it could sustain its appeal.
Also re:
"...being bored is worse then being offended"
That is a truly interesting remark.
I went to grad school out west and as a result, a lot of the studio visits I had were from out west art people from California and things - when they would hear I was from TO they would say things like, "Oh that's too bad. It's cold and gray there and the art is boring. I don't like it there. "
I found it tough because it's where I'm from and there are so many fantastic things about it and it was hard to deal with the perception that I might be a product of a cold gray boring artworld. I've talked about it on simpleposie - there is an episode of King of the Hill where an xray of Hank Hill's squiggly old colon ends up in an art show in Dallas or something. Long story short, when he tries to get it back, the curator freaks out on him and starts screaming (forgive me for paraphrasing), "You want boring conceptual installation art? Why don't you go to Toronto!"
Then you open up CA and the Toronto moment is defined thusly:
"The current moment in art is framed by explorations of the construction of subjectivity. The result is an art that meshes history, politics, culture and psychology with a pressing awareness of global simultaneity"
Yahoo.
J., that is a good story.
I was recently at a poetry panel in Victoria and the discussion revolved around how Canadian writing is viewed internationally. There was a sense of urgency and pathos - "are we good enough?" I came out thinking "this is just like hanging out with Torontonians!" There's a kind of nationalism at play in the Toronto identity question, an insecurity about how we stack up on the world stage. Why is this important to people? Is it because we're at war? Is it because of global economics?
I haven't read the whole CA issue, but like most people I pored over the photos to see who had made the cut. It's an ego thing, and it feels yucky. It's also a marketing thing, and as someone who is not in the business of selling art, I just find that aspect sort of baffling. I read Leah Sandals' Cross Country interviews, and I thought there were some interesting pragamatic things being said there about the way Toronto functions. One thing I liked was the general impression that Toronto belongs to the rest of the country. It's a resource.
I could relate best to Shauna Dempsey and Lori Millan who said "The influence of the art market is much more marked in Toronto. There’s next to no commercial scene in Winnipeg, so there’s little potential wealth associated with art. But you can be a happy, functioning artist here. You can have a studio and a part-time job, or even live on grants. There’s a thriving community to be a part of, and it’s not competitive the way Toronto sometimes feels."
I have said almost the exact same thing about New York, and choose to live in Toronto instead because it feels possible to chart my own path here, and duck the competitive aspects most of the time. Having grown up restless and self-conscious in rural Ontario, I like that there are a lot of people around here doing lots of different things. But I like getting outside of TO for art activities and I find the smaller centres more welcoming as far as actually enjoying art (as opposed to positioning artists).
"...actually enjoying art (as opposed to positioning artists)"
Yeah!
Well otter girl and question girl, that's not the way we do things here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNk4K3YaIc
sometimes enjoying work is positioning artists. and we have to hustle if we want to make a career out of it
rarrr.
That is the best wolf EVER!
Re:
"...sometimes enjoying work is positioning artists. and we have to hustle if we want to make a career out of it"
That's right set dec and photo stylists do have to hustle
I've read enough of Anthony's writing on art not to dismiss that statement coming from him. We do constantly position and, hopefully, reposition artists. (It's also a bit different from an individual artist obsessing on their own standing -- quite a waste of time in the long run.)
If I was dismissing Anthony's remark, I wouldn't have responded to it.
The point is you have an art magazine full of more posed/ positioned pictures of art people than art. Clearly set decs and stylists are hustling, working and gainfully employed.
Oh, right, you were actually still on topic. (Sorry, I was on to wolves and beyond.)
I have to look at those photos again, but I don't remember them looking very styled. (I don't have the copy handy right now) But you're right. What the fuck does the art look like?
(and is Eldon really mad at Rick now?)
Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing survival, either. There's a lot of hustling involved in my job(s). But hustling is not a part of art that I find very interesting to talk about or celebrate, beyond the usual survival chit-chat and gossip that happens between friends.
Once M.Jean and I were on a train to chicago and we met a guy named Brandy in the bar car who bared his chest to show us his tatoo of a wolf pack. It was super detailed and went right around his whole torso. He told us about his narrow escape from a Toronto goth bar where he'd spilled a beer and folks ganged up on him saying that spilling beer was a sin like spilling blood. I love bar cars on trains.
"Bared his chest" is an eumphemism. He was down to his freaking jockey shorts.
i keep coming back to this, and for me, its not the artists chosen by canadian art were "bad" or medicore artists, its that they crafted an overly simplified narrative, that was not nearly as strange as the scene could have been...
the writing is lazy and the photo taking was lazy, lazy is a worse sin, then almost anything else, including posing for pictures or doing press, in fact doing press is a way to have the work being seen, even if it is second or third hand.
press is like cock size, it needs to be measured in inches.
"strange" is a good reminder. Art is strange.
I live and make art in Oakland, I read blogs about art in Toronto and New York, and I show in a lot of places (okay, a few places) including online. My art world is so decentralized now that the need to have shows or magazine articles that emphasize the physical location of the artists seems really arbitrary - at least to my way of working.
Sally, to be fair to New York artists, the scene is so large that when you're there there's New York (Chelsea) and Brooklyn (commercial gallery) and Brooklyn (artist run space) and museums and 57th street and so on . So you can always "chart your own path" there somehow, unless you mark success by solo Museum shows only.
I guess my point is you get used to whatever art world you're working in.
I didn't mean to be unfair to NY artists. I am full aware that lots of people chart their own paths there to great effect. But I do think my choice to do it elsewhere gives me a little more free time.
Ha! I know what you're up to these days - you telling me you got free time? (but I know what you mean).
Oh, tempted so much by the discussion of art mags (near and dear, adn all that).
The whole city-thing-series for Can Art is driven by newsstand sales (ask any distribution consultant). And, by definition, it's not that interesting. They proved that ...
Current bang-for-the-buck? Fillip ... outstanding. We need more arts criticism like that.
On a sad note, was truly depressing to read that Val Ross died on Monday. So much for any coverage of issues of concern to the art scene in the Globe and Mail.
- maranda
Loving the smack talk on Le Art Fag's comments which are so true!!
Val Ross obit and "You Can't Read This"
Fillip
"There's a kind of nationalism at play in the Toronto identity question, an insecurity about how we stack up on the world stage. Why is this important to people? Is it because we're at war? Is it because of global economics?"
Maybe our wondering about a place in the world isn't insecurity so much as ambition. Toronto is bursting with intelligent, creative people who want to shape and influence global culture, but who no longer believe you have to emigrate to do it. A whole new generation of Torontonians is coming up who ask "Where do we stack up?" not as lament but as challenge.
Fucking eh rarrr.
|
Artfag mocks Canadian Art's recent Toronto issue.
Oh! How could you?
(via simpleposie)
- L.M. 2-11-2008 9:35 pm
We were so fucking highbrow here for about a day, and I go and spoil it with the sparklies.
- L.M. 2-11-2008 9:36 pm
yeah, baby.- sally mckay 2-11-2008 9:45 pm
I thought the sparklies added a nice touch of class. Like Mirella's Touch of Class tattoos in Vancouver (http://www.mirellastouchofclass.ca/Photo-Gallery.page?i=15). And, of course, the way Artfag adds a touch of class to the world of Toronto art criticism.
- Gabby Moser (guest) 2-11-2008 10:10 pm
There are ideas that should never be put in my head.
- L.M. 2-11-2008 10:21 pm
b/t/w has anyone read that particular issue? I borrowed a copy to see what Sarah Milroy's hair looked like in her photo, but that was only because Andrew Harwood was a misogynist and brought it up in the first place.
- L.M. 2-12-2008 12:45 am
Ja habe ich die Zeitschrift aber nicht gerade das Teil über die stilvoll aufgeworfenen artwriters gelesen.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 2:00 am
Why bother with anonymity - just let babelfish screw up your artcritical gibberish even better than before.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 2:10 am
Dieses ist wie das Teilen unserer Zeit zwischen Toronto und Berlin gerecht! (and it goes in my next artist bio)
- L.M. 2-12-2008 2:12 am
That tattoo picture would make a great cover for a national art magazine doing a Toronto issue. So would the Hello gif but then, you'd be getting into some costly paper. Really expensive.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 2:17 am
or very cheap with glue and glitter and the labour of Fastwurms' students from Guelph.
- L.M. 2-12-2008 2:23 am
Brilliant suggestion, J! Toss in a glossy autographed photo of Toller Cranston and we may have a winner.
- KW (guest) 2-12-2008 2:30 am
You said Toller Cranston!
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 2:37 am
And so hello, KW and LM, I read the last issue of CA. Yes I did.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 2:47 am
I read and (shamefully) even worked on that particular issue of CA. Not that there was much to "read" in the Toronto section since each text bit was like 100 words or less.
- Gabby Moser (guest) 2-12-2008 3:20 am
Does anyone know if Toller Cranston still runs a gallery? We had this fabulous book on him at the MFA studios when I was in Guelph...all romantic and moody black and white photos of him walking in various landscapes and looking pensive.
I didn't read it, but I did flip through it at the bookstore, and I must concur that the CA issue was hurtin'. (But I think Sarah Milroy's hair was in better shape than I had been lead to believe...)
- C.R. (guest) 2-12-2008 4:31 am
"...lead to believe" -- by a misogynist! (how often do I have to insult him before he shows up on this thread)
- L.M. 2-12-2008 4:43 am
What I want to know is, IF the issue amounts to tp (toilet paper) as ArtFag has suggested - IF that is true and the whole thing sucks that badly - IF the issue was theirs to manage... what would anybody do differently?
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 6:04 am
ArtFag:
"...why are the painters alone in being categorized by medium (and for God's sake, of all the painters in this city, why those painters)?"
I mean, yeah, what - nobody makes sculpture in Toronto?
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 6:10 am
ArtFag is like so snippy about people who use manila paper & crayon, which is a perfectly fine medium.
(posted by VB via SM)
- sally mckay 2-12-2008 6:15 am
I thought ArtFag was just asking why the crayon and paper people get a pic - while weirdly sculpture makers don't get a mention.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 6:25 am
CA is a corporate-friendly collector's magazine. That's why an artist like Thrush Holmes is considered 'news', they think he sells.
- L.M. 2-12-2008 6:30 am
So, LM, Sally, VB what was your impression of the issue?
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 6:39 am
One thought I had, while Whiteside is a fine photog - I think it might have been interesting to commission the portraits of Toronto artists by other Toronto artists. Of course, that is a minor insight compared to the brilliance of LM's gif emblazoning the front cover of the magazine.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 6:44 am
Not a bad idea.
Also don't you think so many people were once again irritated at the thought of yet another odd, incomplete top-down definition of art in this town? In this case, it's now Rick Rhodes' version. Artfag is right, it is limited.
On the other hand, why would anyone not expect that.
But there is one strange exclusion, where's Eldon Garnet? Why was he not in there?
Eldon is us!
[...laughing maniacally now...]
- L.M. 2-12-2008 6:58 am
Well, yeah.
Just to stick with Af's mediumistic category complaints - I noticed that photography and film and video got munched into something called imagecraft. That gets weird because there's no Burtynsky or Egoyan or Lisa Steele in the picture. And that is just very strange
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 7:10 am
I'm dangling an idea that is dipping into another idea. Sorry. To address your top-down definition of art in this town - the result of the munchup of film video and photography into 'imagecraft' is that the extremely vital (in this case) top is actually lopped off the spectrum.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 7:42 am
I agree 'imagecraft' is a hilarious and bizarre little construction that we have to scramble to get on top of (before Burtynski and Steele stake their rightful claim).
I'm with artfag here, I can't take the thing seriously. (Another interesting excercise is to only look at AC every five years and see how quickly importance shifts totally elsewhere)
- L.M. 2-12-2008 7:57 am
dude, if you think the toronto issue was bad, you guys were spared the total patronizing clusterfuck that was the calgary issue (or the how do you keep the rubes on the farm now that they've seen postmodernism issue)
i fucking hate Canadian Art, they don't cover work i think is interesting most days, they don't cover edmonton or moncton or inuvik, and the artists they cover from toronto bore me, and being bored is worse then being offended.
they really seem to be obsessed with big big big, and also have a thing for landscapes, and all that implies. but then the last great book on canadian criticism we had was on abstract painting in canada, a nessc. book, but a book that suggests how conserative we are as a nation
(i also don't think canadian artists have done anything nearly as awesome as this: http://www.canadiandesignresource.ca/officialgallery/?p=1576 since 1972)
- anthony (guest) 2-12-2008 9:11 am
"Canadian Public Modernism" according to one of the commenters on that link. (what a great label.)
I can't work up any hate for AC. (Though I'd be really angry if I was Eldon Garnet)
- L.M. 2-12-2008 9:23 am
that comment was great--best example of canadian public modernism ive ever seen, the saskatchewan court and office building in le ronge, it was like having a logans run era space ship land in ca 1890s Klondike.
- anthony (guest) 2-12-2008 10:01 am
Great link, Anthony - an excellent example of great design produced in this country during the 70s - I'm reminded of Allan Fleming's designs - same era (he's responsible for the CN logo)
I agree - Canadian Public Modernism - (what a great label)
- KW (guest) 2-12-2008 4:00 pm
Re:
"(Another interesting exercise is to only look at AC every five years and see how quickly importance shifts totally elsewhere)"
But of course. Absolutely.
Re:
"(i also don't think Canadian artists have done anything nearly as awesome as this: http://www.canadiandesignresource.ca/officialgallery/?p=1576 since 1972)"
I wouldn't concede greatness to design just yet - what about Eric Glavin 's paintings (http://www.mercerunion.org/archive95/images/341a.jpeg ) he made in the nineties? Stephen Shearer's pattern paintings at the time were fussier and smaller but also terrific.
But the question is really analogous to that of monoculture vs biodiversity. What I mean is, if Canadian Public Modernism lovely though it is to look at and even lovelier to toss around on a blog - if that were where the buck stopped and that was all there was out there, I doubt it could sustain its appeal.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 4:54 pm
Also re:
"...being bored is worse then being offended"
That is a truly interesting remark.
I went to grad school out west and as a result, a lot of the studio visits I had were from out west art people from California and things - when they would hear I was from TO they would say things like, "Oh that's too bad. It's cold and gray there and the art is boring. I don't like it there. "
I found it tough because it's where I'm from and there are so many fantastic things about it and it was hard to deal with the perception that I might be a product of a cold gray boring artworld. I've talked about it on simpleposie - there is an episode of King of the Hill where an xray of Hank Hill's squiggly old colon ends up in an art show in Dallas or something. Long story short, when he tries to get it back, the curator freaks out on him and starts screaming (forgive me for paraphrasing), "You want boring conceptual installation art? Why don't you go to Toronto!"
Then you open up CA and the Toronto moment is defined thusly:
"The current moment in art is framed by explorations of the construction of subjectivity. The result is an art that meshes history, politics, culture and psychology with a pressing awareness of global simultaneity"
Yahoo.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 5:22 pm
J., that is a good story.
I have said almost the exact same thing about New York, and choose to live in Toronto instead because it feels possible to chart my own path here, and duck the competitive aspects most of the time. Having grown up restless and self-conscious in rural Ontario, I like that there are a lot of people around here doing lots of different things. But I like getting outside of TO for art activities and I find the smaller centres more welcoming as far as actually enjoying art (as opposed to positioning artists).I was recently at a poetry panel in Victoria and the discussion revolved around how Canadian writing is viewed internationally. There was a sense of urgency and pathos - "are we good enough?" I came out thinking "this is just like hanging out with Torontonians!" There's a kind of nationalism at play in the Toronto identity question, an insecurity about how we stack up on the world stage. Why is this important to people? Is it because we're at war? Is it because of global economics?
I haven't read the whole CA issue, but like most people I pored over the photos to see who had made the cut. It's an ego thing, and it feels yucky. It's also a marketing thing, and as someone who is not in the business of selling art, I just find that aspect sort of baffling. I read Leah Sandals' Cross Country interviews, and I thought there were some interesting pragamatic things being said there about the way Toronto functions. One thing I liked was the general impression that Toronto belongs to the rest of the country. It's a resource.
I could relate best to Shauna Dempsey and Lori Millan who said
- sally mckay 2-12-2008 7:29 pm
"...actually enjoying art (as opposed to positioning artists)"
Yeah!
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-12-2008 7:35 pm
Well otter girl and question girl, that's not the way we do things here.
- L.M. 2-12-2008 11:42 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNk4K3YaIc
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-13-2008 12:15 am
sometimes enjoying work is positioning artists. and we have to hustle if we want to make a career out of it
- anthony (guest) 2-13-2008 1:29 am
rarrr.
- L.M. 2-13-2008 1:56 am
That is the best wolf EVER!
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-13-2008 2:09 am
Re:
"...sometimes enjoying work is positioning artists. and we have to hustle if we want to make a career out of it"
That's right set dec and photo stylists do have to hustle
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-13-2008 2:17 am
I've read enough of Anthony's writing on art not to dismiss that statement coming from him. We do constantly position and, hopefully, reposition artists. (It's also a bit different from an individual artist obsessing on their own standing -- quite a waste of time in the long run.)
- L.M. 2-13-2008 2:27 am
If I was dismissing Anthony's remark, I wouldn't have responded to it.
The point is you have an art magazine full of more posed/ positioned pictures of art people than art. Clearly set decs and stylists are hustling, working and gainfully employed.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 2-13-2008 3:26 am
Oh, right, you were actually still on topic. (Sorry, I was on to wolves and beyond.)
I have to look at those photos again, but I don't remember them looking very styled. (I don't have the copy handy right now) But you're right. What the fuck does the art look like?
(and is Eldon really mad at Rick now?)
- L.M. 2-13-2008 4:57 am
Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing survival, either. There's a lot of hustling involved in my job(s). But hustling is not a part of art that I find very interesting to talk about or celebrate, beyond the usual survival chit-chat and gossip that happens between friends.
Once M.Jean and I were on a train to chicago and we met a guy named Brandy in the bar car who bared his chest to show us his tatoo of a wolf pack. It was super detailed and went right around his whole torso. He told us about his narrow escape from a Toronto goth bar where he'd spilled a beer and folks ganged up on him saying that spilling beer was a sin like spilling blood. I love bar cars on trains.
- sally mckay 2-13-2008 5:04 am
"Bared his chest" is an eumphemism. He was down to his freaking jockey shorts.
- M.Jean 2-13-2008 6:04 am
i keep coming back to this, and for me, its not the artists chosen by canadian art were "bad" or medicore artists, its that they crafted an overly simplified narrative, that was not nearly as strange as the scene could have been...
the writing is lazy and the photo taking was lazy, lazy is a worse sin, then almost anything else, including posing for pictures or doing press, in fact doing press is a way to have the work being seen, even if it is second or third hand.
press is like cock size, it needs to be measured in inches.
- anthony (guest) 2-13-2008 8:28 am
"strange" is a good reminder. Art is strange.
- sally mckay 2-13-2008 4:34 pm
I live and make art in Oakland, I read blogs about art in Toronto and New York, and I show in a lot of places (okay, a few places) including online. My art world is so decentralized now that the need to have shows or magazine articles that emphasize the physical location of the artists seems really arbitrary - at least to my way of working.
Sally, to be fair to New York artists, the scene is so large that when you're there there's New York (Chelsea) and Brooklyn (commercial gallery) and Brooklyn (artist run space) and museums and 57th street and so on . So you can always "chart your own path" there somehow, unless you mark success by solo Museum shows only.
- joester (guest) 2-14-2008 7:51 am
I guess my point is you get used to whatever art world you're working in.
- Joester (guest) 2-14-2008 10:35 pm
I didn't mean to be unfair to NY artists. I am full aware that lots of people chart their own paths there to great effect. But I do think my choice to do it elsewhere gives me a little more free time.
- sally mckay 2-15-2008 12:15 am
Ha! I know what you're up to these days - you telling me you got free time? (but I know what you mean).
- joester (guest) 2-15-2008 2:13 am
Oh, tempted so much by the discussion of art mags (near and dear, adn all that).
The whole city-thing-series for Can Art is driven by newsstand sales (ask any distribution consultant). And, by definition, it's not that interesting. They proved that ...
Current bang-for-the-buck? Fillip ... outstanding. We need more arts criticism like that.
On a sad note, was truly depressing to read that Val Ross died on Monday. So much for any coverage of issues of concern to the art scene in the Globe and Mail.
- maranda
- anonymous (guest) 2-20-2008 1:00 am
Loving the smack talk on Le Art Fag's comments which are so true!!
- Andrew Harwood (guest) 2-20-2008 1:06 am
Val Ross obit and "You Can't Read This"
- L.M. 2-20-2008 1:19 am
Fillip
- L.M. 2-20-2008 1:22 am
"There's a kind of nationalism at play in the Toronto identity question, an insecurity about how we stack up on the world stage. Why is this important to people? Is it because we're at war? Is it because of global economics?"
Maybe our wondering about a place in the world isn't insecurity so much as ambition. Toronto is bursting with intelligent, creative people who want to shape and influence global culture, but who no longer believe you have to emigrate to do it. A whole new generation of Torontonians is coming up who ask "Where do we stack up?" not as lament but as challenge.
- neilson133 (guest) 2-20-2008 8:38 pm
Fucking eh rarrr.
- L.M. 2-20-2008 8:59 pm