Canadian Brushstroke magazine - letter to the editor re : furor concerning RBC competition winner : Arabella Campbell
Dear Editor,
With respect to the artist, Arabella Campbell and to RBC
for supporting the arts: A few personal thoughts regarding
Vancouver artist Arabella Campbell, recently (in
September, 2007) named the national winner of the ninth
annual RBC Canadian Painting Competition.
Quoting from
the Media Newsroom on RBC's site: "The paintings were
judged by some of Canada's finest artists, curators and
gallery directors. Campbell was awarded a $25,000 cash
prize for her original work entitled, Physical Facts Series
#6.” What does such judging (in this case) say about the
jurying/ judging system itself and paper credentials?
It says very little and it says a lot.
Throughout my 40-year
career in the visual arts I have stayed away from ‘art competitions.’
I have two reasons for that stance. My second is that I was never part of the‘in’ crowd of creative peoples - therefore never invited to
participate - (the three times I dared impose myself, I was
pooh-poohed before my work was ever presented to the
esteemed judges and my ‘peers.’) Don't let me go there…
My first reason for ignoring the competition aspect of the
art world is that we are always told that it will be judged by
some of Canada's finest artists, curators, critics and gallery
directors. (Finest by whose standards?) Rarely are these
people ever even named. Why would anyone submit
themselves to a competition whose judges are faceless
and biography-less prior to the submission of work?
To respect a judge, I must know of their background,
experience, writings, academic and creative or artistic credentials,
and the recognized excellence of their offerings -
i.e.: I want to know that they will judge me on their ability
to objectively recognize both my knowledge (or lack thereof)
of the visual language requirements associated with
creating artwork and the ability (or lack thereof) of my
work to speak for itself.
A juror is someone I should be able to look in the eye
and feel the confidence emanating from their qualified
pores.
'Her winning painting acknowledges the support structure
of the actual canvas' says a revered judge. . . . .
...............Ha, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. . . . Ooooh, that's deep!!! What a riot!“
Other works have explored the colors of gallery walls and
the tools and methods of the painter. The judges praised
Campbell's intelligent results [that] both critique and glorify
the medium of painting. Pleasing in its symmetry and window-like effect alone, this painting also has a witty,
[Mobius strip]-like conceptual effect, turning painting backwards
and inside out, the judges said.”......................
I haven't heard such drivel since the 90s! Sad to say, but
we are our own worst enemies. By ignoring and even
negating the value of skill in the area of ‘visual speech’ we have conveyed upon colloquial speakers the title of poet
laureate. Just because we now say that artwork created
with less than a wall painter's skill is ‘art’ does not make it
so. Genius does not occur simply because we say it does.
Genius to this day is still the result of skillfully saying in an
extraordinary way that which (until then) has been seen as
ordinary. And even then, the title of master or genius
should be handed out with enormous care. Faith is a fragile
thing!
Because we have abandoned skill and craft as measures
of excellence in visual speech. everyone democratically
calls themselves poet. Now, all we have left is admiration
for the less than acceptable, expressed in the lowest common
denominator fashion.
A true poet is one who writes
and writes and writes as a dancer dances and bounds and
leaps to heights only possible through much talent and
effort - and still these practitioners simply call themselves‘writers’ and ‘dancers’ - still they go to a job everyday
because dancing and writing rarely pays the bills. . . In
the visual arts, on the other hand, we far too often treat
our audiences as ignorant, let hangers-on explain what
we have ‘created’ and demand that we be supported in the bohemian life we have become addicted to. And from our first brush strokes, we expect to be called artist.
As the younger generations so aptly put it: Go figure!
Surely, at some point, there needs to be some degree of
public accountability or explanation following such an
award at such a prestigious national competition.
But then. . . maybe not. There is no public accounting in this particular jurying process. This
is a private firm offering a private award. The authorities of
RBC choose who the judges will be - based on a trust that
those they choose know what they are doing. That you and
I disagree with their choice is par for the course.
It is because the jurors are not accountable that the status
quo remains. They should be accountable for what they
say. The futures of all art students are heavily based on
what is or is not deemed acceptable in the art world by
these people.
Where were the different voices of the media following
this?
Different voices of the media? Come now. The only reason
such a competition is ever reported is when the donor of
the prize is a big corporation. Art competitions are not akin
to the opening day of a block-buster movie, the super bowl
or last night's bloody hockey battle. More often than not,
the creation of artwork is not considered important except
to those who practice the craft. This is the visual arts - that ‘hobby activity’ which shot itself in the foot long ago when
it abandoned excellence in the craft of visual arts. Having
then shot itself in the head, it now sings the praises of lowest
common denominator offerings - defining bad technical
skill as a ‘style.’
Once, artworks created a buzz. Writing about artwork
focused on the content, the power and connection that the
piece mysteriously and gloriously had on the general population.
Today, the public is considered (by the powers that
be) visually illiterate. Writing about artwork therefore is no
longer about the artwork but about the ‘artist's statement’ -
about defining what the artwork's creator has tried to say.
In other words contemporary artwork doesn't even speak
for itself. It needs an interpreter. It can't stand on its own.
Critics, (or should I say art journalists) simply took up the
flag - maintaining the illusion that the work they deem to
be art must have its hand held through their indulgent
explanations. But in reality, artwork which cannot speak
for itself can never be art.
It would be refreshing to see someone in a position to do
so, raise questions about the accountability and the competency
of the judges, or at least the results of their
actions/decisions.
That is where good art critics (don't laugh, there are
some!) and competent commentators come in : (see Rob
O'Flanagan, Russel Smith, etc.).
This is just one more thing that helps to skew public
understanding as to 'what is art?' and 'what is good art?'
Every critic (purported or real) should have their say. It is
more important to have several ‘independent’ voices
speak on a topic than have comments questioning the
other commentators.
We all must maintain a variety of voices in order that the
reading public make up its own mind as to who is or is not
making intelligent and informed commentary on artwork .
(Note, you may have noticed that I have an aversion to
calling all art-related creations ‘art.’ It's like calling anything
that is old ‘valuable antiques.’)
How can the experts be wrong? Who should we be listening
to, if not to them?
The question should be: Who deemed the experts to be
expert? Let's not kid ourselves. It is NOT required that you
be an art expert to write a column in a paper or review the
visual arts on television - though speaking an unintelligible‘jargon,’ more creative than the artwork spoken about,
seems to be.
Writing about art is akin to how we perceive
"Art's" importance in schools. In elementary and high schools
the subject of ‘art’ is taught by anyone who happens to be
free during the specifically designated ‘art’ class periods…
A qualified and competent art or music teacher is NOT a
requirement in our school system. Adding salt to the
wound of perceiving the arts as not worthy of expertise, I
was recently advised by a very red-faced fine arts school
administrator that skill in the areas of drawing and painting
were not necessary to obtain a diploma in the fine arts. . .
I wonder where we would be if the medical faculty took on
that contemporary philosophy?
Why not take the institutions responsible for such things
to task; at least opening the door for a little dialogue. All
major financial supporters of the arts should be cherished,
but I don’t think that means ignoring things like this. How
many more times do we need to see blank canvases in
various arrangements or such a simple geometric graphic
on a canvas being passed off as art? We all know and
understand the arguments behind passing such things off
as art. The defense of such pieces often seems to have
been given more thought than to the piece itself.
But despite all of this ranting, a corporation can do what it pleases whether we
like it or not. As the Medicis did in the past, they are footing
the bill. At least they can say that they are doing
something to highlight the visual arts. That's more attention
than most schools, local, regional, provincial and federal governments do. And that is where we should be soundly complaining - not against the corporations that dole out the funds to keep the arts going.
Food for thought: How creative or new is this work by Arabella, conceptually
or otherwise?
Is RBC's most recently awarded painting new? - (as in :
modern art = redefining boundaries every second of every
day?) No. This painting is a throw-back to a hard-edged
era. But its pastel tones are more reminiscent of a kinder
and gentler edge style; one a post-modern hotel suite
designer might pick up as décor. Its look is as passé as
most canvas coverings are today. Innovation (if that means "good" art) is definitely in a tizzy these days as the
bottom line is to grab attention wherever, whenever and
however you can get it.
You don't have to be an art connoisseur to get it. . . Hard-edge is definitely gone. . .
You have to pee in a jar filled with traditional or religious
icons if you want any reaction from a rather blazé public.
Is talent self-evident in the piece or should that matter -
where a statement is being made? Does making a statement
that does not require the ability to paint (to be conveyed)
carry any less weight than a painting clearly
demonstrating such ability? Do we use examples of art
history to defend this or can it possibly be no more than it
is?
In the end, contemporary artwork is too often
about the creator - about navel-gazing, about therapy,
which doesn't much go beyond the realm of the person
making the statement. In simpler terms it's all about ME.
Sad as that may sound, I leave you with a few last pointed comments:
A bad painting is one which is more often than not
an exercise in self-absorption. And like a bad speech, it is
endurable for the first five minutes. After ten, an enormous
amount of patience and polite endurance is required to
continue looking at it. After fifteen, it becomes annoying,
and after twenty minutes downright unbearable due to the
repeated yawns it inevitably causes.
Art is the heartbeat of
a nation, the colour of its imagination and a reflection of the intensity of its commitment to the well being of its citizens. However we look at it, it reflects who we are - and sometimes that isn't what we want to hear. . . or see.
Bernard Poulin
Ottawa, ON |
