For almost a year now, Vancouver’s artist-run centre Artspeak has been focusing on off-site, publication and performance activities rather than (and sometimes alongside) traditional art exhibitions. Cynics have implied that Artspeak’s decision may be one way for the ARC (and all like-minded organizations which likewise feel the budget pinch more severely than other art spaces) to do the most with their resources, but I’ve been impressed with the inventive and multidisciplinary projects that have emerged through their support. The Judgment and Contemporary Art Criticism symposium, publication and reading room that they co-produced with Fillip seems to have provoked a wide variety of important discussions, for instance (see Clint Burnham’s report at Canadian Art for proof), while Allison Hrabluik told her audience at York University earlier this month that her PENELOPE! mail project provoked more than just artistic reciprocation: including a cease and desist letter on university letterhead and a screenshot printout of her grant application with the result (rejected) highlighted. Ouch.
Now, in the latest issue of Fillip, Vancouver-based artist Joni Murphy has weighed in on one of Artspeak’s first OFFSITE projects, a performance-installation-intervention by multidisciplinary artist Althea Thauberger in the Downtown Eastside neighbourhood titled Carrall Street. Last September, Thauberger closed down the 200 block of Carrall Street, which Artspeak occupies, with the help of the police, lit the street with cinematic lighting and had a mix of actors/performers, art viewers and unknowing passersby interact over the course of several hours. Some performers recited Wobbly-inspired speeches drawn from the city archives, while others improvised typified roles such as “drunken bar-goer” or “panhandler.”
As Murphy points out in her review, because the location of Thauberger’s event was (and is) a highly charged one–an intersection where the tourist-friendly Gastown neighbourhood meets the Downtown Eastside, also known as “the poorest postal code in Canada”–Carrall Street created a complicated, fraught and sometimes confusing viewing experience. By lighting and dramatizing the streetscape, Thauberger drew attention to the ethical and relational issues that the Downtown Eastside inevitably raises, but Murphy questions whether this temporary intervention will be effective in any meaningful or long-term way. Echoing Claire Bishop‘s critique of the social effects of relational aesthetics, Murphy poses the question, “what types of relations are being produced [in Carrall Street], for whom and why?”
Key to Murphy’s critique is her argument that the theatricality of Thauberger’s project put its polemical intent in jeopardy. By theatricalizing an already over-represented area (in commercial film, news media and even contemporary artwork, especially in Vancouver) and setting up a fairly clear divide between performers and spectators, Murphy worries that Thauberger’s project reemphasized differences between the viewers and subjects rather than engendering unexpected meetings and interactions. She writes, and I can’t help but agree,
I can’t help wondering what Carrall Street would have been like if Thauberger had illuminated the street where John Furlong, the VANOC (Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games) chief executive, lives. Or set up lights in front of developer Bob Rennie’s house. As a collector, Rennie is a huge force in the art community, and both Rennie and Furlong control projects that have a far greater influence on the face of the city and on the DTES specifically than any individual at Carrall Street that night. Yet, their neighbourhoods are rarely the subject of representation, and few people in this town would recognize them by sight. Wealth can often buy protection from bright lights and scrutiny.
I don’t know much about this project specifically, but to expand on your quote from Claire Bishop, for whom do these kinds of projects produce meaningful social effects, and who decides when/how/why these effects are meaningful? It seems to me that a lot of relational projects in neighbourhoods like the downtown eastside, (or in Toronto, Parkdale is a relevant example)serve to ‘theatricalize’ the environment so as to render it more graspable (perhaps containable?) for dominant groups (either those living elsewhere, or local residents who are complacent in the neighbourhood’s Florida-fication). I’m not against the kinds of relational projects that seem to fall under the ever-widening umbrella of “community art projects” these days, but I am always cautious about the ways specific projects respectfully engage community members. Again, I don’t know enough about the specifics of this piece, but public forums always seem to awaken the skeptic in me.
I don't know much about this specific work either…
But I really appreciate the quote you have pulled from Murphy's review. It's a very strong point that the wealthy have not had their "spaces" invaded/infiltrated/copied in the name of art–even though the power they exert on said realm is considerable.
In other words, it would be great to see Murphy's alternative proposal in action.
I'm also curious about the end result of this Carrall Street project, and I agree with Cait that the assumption of any "meaningful social effect" must be questioned.
Isn't the forum supposed to come out in some type of print form? Not that that would be conclusive… but….
In any case, I'm glad Murphy raised these important points in her review.
I agree that these sort of social/relational community projects are always tricky and uneasy. And I don't think the forum will mitigate or resolve these problems, but I'm hoping at least some of the questions Murphy raises were addressed or discussed.
Murphy also points out in another section of her review that many non-actor, non-spectators from the neighbourhood took advantage of the performance by taking on the role of "charming panhandler" and that art viewers who were unclear of the panhandlers' status happily handed over their money. It's an anecdote that sort of illustrates the antagonism and relational aesthetics argument Claire Bishop has made.