 
Start by reading Marc Mayer's disingenuous defense of the closure of the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography: This is a chance to end the segregation of our photography in the Globe and Mail (Jeff Wall's career has suffered horribly from this very segregation) and perhaps wonder why a director of a Canadian Institution advocates the closure of another cultural space.
Read some of the responses including this choice comment by the photographer Rafael Goldchain:
Mr. Mayer has been building an impressive career over the years and in my personal experience seems to care little for things that he does not perceive as directly beneficial to him. To absorb CMCP into the NGC would implement administrative streamlining making budgets available for the programming he is truly interested in. It comes down to art-ideological differences. The NGC collects photography internationally and seeks to find its place within the international scene. CMCP collects and nurtures a wide range of Canadian photographic modalities and genres much of which would never reach the stratosphere of the international art scene and would not be purchased or shown by the NGC. However, this work as deep and lasting value for Canadian nation and culture building. It speaks to us of ourselves and our specificity as Canadians. We are interested in this work. The rest of the world and its art scene may not be, and why should we care? We need our photographic museum, with a mandate to collect, show, publish and nurture Canadian photography that speaks to Canadians!
Mr. Mayer, you are back in Canada after your stint in Brooklyn. The international art scene is a very small part of what we should think of culture and cultural expression, your mandate is to build a Canadian national institution, not mainly your own career.
Then go read the articles and links on Save the CMCP assembled by our friend Andrew Wright and Adrian Gollner
For the record I have not visited the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography, so to have an opinion on this issue, according to Mayer, is unconscionable. By that calculation I should also support the closure of the building that houses the National Gallery of Canada since I don't get up to Ottawa much. (Sally and I would be delighted to convert the NGC collection to on-line animated GIFs - for a price).
I'm not surprised that you haven't visited the CMCP--no one has since 2006. Pierre Théberge's (Mayer's predecessor) campaign to rid the NGC of the CMCP was long and slow, but effective. The CMCP has been closed since then. Théberge had other priorities--namely the NGC swing space in Chrétien's own riding in Shawinnigan (sp?).
I think I was only there once in 2002. Subsequent attempts were foiled.
The closure is reprehensible in two ways:
1. The CMCP's collection is of National and historical importance and it is entirely distinct (not to mention their ongoing contemporary programming) To fold it into the morass at the NGC relegates it to obscurity. Who will know it even exists? The purpose-built, street-level space at 1 Rideau Canal gives it both visibility and accessibility. As Vera Frenkel puts it: 'Our culture is hidden from view'
2. It is symptomatic of a government and their neo-con agenda that continually targets what they wrongly identify as 'frivolous': Canadian Culture itself (think Portrait Gallery, Cuts in Arts exportation programs, re-distribution of 'cultural' funds to sports). In what universe does the reduction of cultural space, the diminishing of dedicated and specialized staff, and the merging of distinct elements represent an improvement to the situation? (as Mayer suggests). How terrible that Stephen Harper now finds an ally in our own midst.
Please sign the petition at http://www.savecmcp.com/.
Obscurity is definitely the threat here. Mayer's flawed argument states we can trust the NGC to preserve photographic art. So will every fucking photo have to be ART to be shown at the NGC? (Not all photographers care to position themselves as artists.)
the problem is, that photography in many (if not most) of its capacities are not art. to have a musuem of photography is to allow that the history of the medium is polymorphic in ways that other fine arts are not.
there is a discussion in the muselogical communities in the states right now about where to put the documents from abu gharib, and i think they belong in the history of photography, but they do not belong at the moma in ny, who have archived veitnam but will not archive iraq.
and that is the most shocking example.
do family photos, newspaper morgues, amatuer porn, vacation souvineers, postcards, xrays, botanical cyanotypes, ethnographic documents, etc for example belong in an art musuem, most likely not. but they do belong to the history of photography, there needs to be a musuem of photography to quit having the art world assume that the whole medium is something to pillage.
(the small room at the ago of foto is a perfect example of this, because it has all of the work above, but fails to properly contextualise them in a way that suggests they speak the language of art history)
also, whoever curates the national galleries photo collection has such eye gougingly boring taste. to have him deal with anything but his own fiefdom puts the fear in me
THE FEAR
i agree that not all photographers choose to position themselves as artists. also, to advocate the closure of cultural institutions -- esp hard fought for ones -- sets dubious precedents.
tinder app , tinder date
tider
|
Start by reading Marc Mayer's disingenuous defense of the closure of the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography: This is a chance to end the segregation of our photography in the Globe and Mail (Jeff Wall's career has suffered horribly from this very segregation) and perhaps wonder why a director of a Canadian Institution advocates the closure of another cultural space.
Read some of the responses including this choice comment by the photographer Rafael Goldchain: Then go read the articles and links on Save the CMCP assembled by our friend Andrew Wright and Adrian Gollner
For the record I have not visited the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography, so to have an opinion on this issue, according to Mayer, is unconscionable. By that calculation I should also support the closure of the building that houses the National Gallery of Canada since I don't get up to Ottawa much. (Sally and I would be delighted to convert the NGC collection to on-line animated GIFs - for a price).
- L.M. 5-08-2009 3:19 pm
I'm not surprised that you haven't visited the CMCP--no one has since 2006. Pierre Théberge's (Mayer's predecessor) campaign to rid the NGC of the CMCP was long and slow, but effective. The CMCP has been closed since then. Théberge had other priorities--namely the NGC swing space in Chrétien's own riding in Shawinnigan (sp?).
I think I was only there once in 2002. Subsequent attempts were foiled.
The closure is reprehensible in two ways:
1. The CMCP's collection is of National and historical importance and it is entirely distinct (not to mention their ongoing contemporary programming) To fold it into the morass at the NGC relegates it to obscurity. Who will know it even exists? The purpose-built, street-level space at 1 Rideau Canal gives it both visibility and accessibility. As Vera Frenkel puts it: 'Our culture is hidden from view'
2. It is symptomatic of a government and their neo-con agenda that continually targets what they wrongly identify as 'frivolous': Canadian Culture itself (think Portrait Gallery, Cuts in Arts exportation programs, re-distribution of 'cultural' funds to sports). In what universe does the reduction of cultural space, the diminishing of dedicated and specialized staff, and the merging of distinct elements represent an improvement to the situation? (as Mayer suggests). How terrible that Stephen Harper now finds an ally in our own midst.
Please sign the petition at http://www.savecmcp.com/.
- Andrew Wright (guest) 5-08-2009 5:07 pm
Obscurity is definitely the threat here. Mayer's flawed argument states we can trust the NGC to preserve photographic art. So will every fucking photo have to be ART to be shown at the NGC? (Not all photographers care to position themselves as artists.)
- L.M. 5-08-2009 5:26 pm
the problem is, that photography in many (if not most) of its capacities are not art. to have a musuem of photography is to allow that the history of the medium is polymorphic in ways that other fine arts are not.
there is a discussion in the muselogical communities in the states right now about where to put the documents from abu gharib, and i think they belong in the history of photography, but they do not belong at the moma in ny, who have archived veitnam but will not archive iraq.
and that is the most shocking example.
do family photos, newspaper morgues, amatuer porn, vacation souvineers, postcards, xrays, botanical cyanotypes, ethnographic documents, etc for example belong in an art musuem, most likely not. but they do belong to the history of photography, there needs to be a musuem of photography to quit having the art world assume that the whole medium is something to pillage.
(the small room at the ago of foto is a perfect example of this, because it has all of the work above, but fails to properly contextualise them in a way that suggests they speak the language of art history)
- anthony (guest) 5-09-2009 7:28 am
also, whoever curates the national galleries photo collection has such eye gougingly boring taste. to have him deal with anything but his own fiefdom puts the fear in me
THE FEAR
- anthony (guest) 5-09-2009 7:30 am
i agree that not all photographers choose to position themselves as artists. also, to advocate the closure of cultural institutions -- esp hard fought for ones -- sets dubious precedents.
- Leah Sandals (guest) 5-10-2009 2:01 am
tinder app , tinder date
tider
- CharlesTon (guest) 2-18-2021 9:08 am