A bunch of people have been commenting/following up on the mysterious, “anonymous” criticism left by “a group of artists, educators and curators” on the VoCA blog and on their own blog, Vancouver Feedback, about the Belkin Gallery’s current “Exponential Future” show.
Elizabeth Zvonar, Pelly’s Mission 2982, 2006
It’s the first heated art debate I’ve heard from Vancouver in a while and the mysterious Vancouver911/Vancouver Feedback group’s criticism seems to mostly centre on the curators’ choices of who to include in a show that’s being touted as an update of the “6: New Vancouver Modern” exhibition. While that’s all well and good – I mean, I too, was sort of surprised by the lack of “newness” in their selection: who in the Canadian art world doesn’t know about Tim Lee and Althea Thauberger at this point? – I feel like I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop. Yes, the choices of artists are kind of safe; yes, we’re all getting a little sick of Tim Lee because we’ve been over-exposed to him in the past few months; yes, the press release was a little over the top (but when aren’t they, really?).
But where’s the ranting about the validity of locally-defined and thematically-weak curatorial decisions that we saw in Artfag circa the Power Plant’s now-infamous “We Can Do This Now” exhibition and the MOCCA’s “Love/Hate” show? Where’s the really exciting and vital discussion about whether or not defining local movements is possible/important/worthwhile? Or some arguing about why Vancouver exhibits introducing Vancouver art to Vancouverites are completely acceptable to the art-going public, while the same premise is written off in Toronto before it can even get off the ground? Or, maybe, trying to locate these artists’ work in relation to those past “movements” of the 6 New Vancouver Modern and the looming spectre of the Vancouver School?
Most of the response the Vancouver Feedback folks seems to hone in on their insistence to be anonymous and whether or not that’s productive, necessary in the terribly small Canadian art world, or sort of just, well, cowardly. Although I think that’s an interesting side issue that should be looked at further (I’m on the side of accountable and named critique, by the way – I think that Earl Miller totally nailed it when he told a room full of art history students that being a curator or arts writer meant accepting the fact that you would be changing your mind in public a lot), I’m sort of surprised that a lot of the comments have been drawn in to the “whodunnit?” aspect of the issue rather than the critique that I’m hoping the Vancouver Feedback people are earnestly trying to instigate (whatever you feel about their methods).
Thoughts? Comments? Ranting, anonymous vitriolic, anyone?
On a somewhat unrelated note, however, the Belkin’s video podcast of Kevin Schmidt talking about the inspiration for his work being a Rush concert’s light show is adorable.
Recent Comments