Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 11:02 AM EDT

Wait, they have a bus!!!!!!  That changes everything.

b/t/w That's the big difference between you and me, Jen, being a slight sociopath, I cheerfuly lied on most of the answers but redeemed myself by refusing to name names at the end. 

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 11:11 AM EDT

I don't think  it's quite the difference you might imagine, LM. Lying on a tick box is no fun and prevents whoppers, which is the ONLY kind of lie I like to tell - if truth be told....

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 11:15 AM EDT

Very interesting correspondence, J.  I notice that in the letter posted here, the case has not been made for why an artist would want to participate. That argument is on the website, which I'm sure you must have seen, and I assume it didn't convince you. Data research is a big part of effective activism, and clean reliable statistics are a useful lobbying tool. But at the same time, it sucks to have your experience mashed into a number, and artists are particularly reluctant to subsume ourselves to a collective identity. I wonder if they are generally having difficulty getting artists to participate. I'm also wondering, would you have been more amenable to the goals of the survey if it had not come from AGYU? 

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 11:16 AM EDT

I liked the part where the questionnaire said it might be helpful to have a copy of your cv handy to answer the questions. I would think some cvs WOULD be helpful to a researcher.

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 11:19 AM EDT

I'm also wondering, would you have been more amenable to the goals of the survey if it had not come from AGYU? 

As opposed to...? 

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 11:20 AM EDT

Geeze, I meant to say hi in there Sally!

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 11:35 AM EDT

Hi J! 

 As opposed to, say, CARFAC or ARCCO, or Clive Robertson, or anybody that defines themselves as doing activist/lobbying/advocay work rather than putting on exhibitions.

 Also, I'm getting a sense from you that you think they should just do the legwork themselves to dig up the information and the survey is laziness. But formally structured survey's are the only way to gather data that can actually be used statistically. If the researcher just does their own googling search, the information is pretty much useless except as anecdote.

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 12:21 PM EDT

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 12:40 PM EDT

Re: As opposed to, say, CARFAC or ARCCO, or Clive Robertson, or anybody that defines themselves as doing activist/lobbying/advocay work rather than putting on exhibitions.

The lobby work is there for anyone who wants to take it on, Sally. Clearly the issue is not defining oneself as an activist but in taking action. And I applaud anyone who, dissatisfied with CARFAC or ARCCO or any of the professional funding bodies makes a nuisance of themselves to affect change.

On the other hand,  I, as an artist would value Michael Maranda's curation / interpretation of my work more, and I think he is probably more qualified to interpret my work than he is to interpret my or any other contemporary's socio-economic cultural significance. I think art comes before its cultural value. And I think a lot of people are getting a little hazy on that issue. 

Re: Also, I'm getting a sense from you that you think they should just do the legwork themselves to dig up the information and the survey is laziness. But formally structured survey's are the only way to gather data that can actually be used statistically. If the researcher just does their own googling search, the information is pretty much useless except as anecdote.

Like I said, the answers to most of the questions, in most cases is a matter of public record. A cv is at least partially anecdote, no? I'll just reiterate what I said as a question. Imagine the comparative impact, the positive consequences if this research involved requests for jpeg images of artworks, meetings with groups of artists, studio visits and an accelerated round of exhibitions. AGYU has a venue, a bus and a curatorial staff of notoriety. Why not champion our works and our relations with one another as artists, instead of painting our careers as cultural/economic data?

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 12:44 PM EDT

are a matter of public record not is pphhh

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 1:40 PM EDT

Why not champion our works and our relations with one another as artists, instead of painting our careers as cultural/economic data?

Well, I know Michael is a pretty good art advocate who has taken lots of effective activist action in his time. I know his title says curator, but I don't think he is acting as a curator, per se on this project.

I do find your question very interesting. I am all for the championing of art works and relations. But would I want to see everyone who is advocating for policy changes by lobbying government with art stats stop doing that and start planning art shows instead? Not really... I tend to think both are useful. But what if, say, John Holden, stopped trying to re-articulate cultural value as it is communicated to governments and business, and put all his energies into facilitating art shows instead. He's a smart guy and he'd probably generate some kickass projects (in fact, I kind of assume he's already been down that road). Would that maybe be a more effective use of his time, as far as improving conditions for aritsts? And if all the sociological folks stopped doing cultural data and organised cultural events instead, would maybe people like Richard Florida just eventually GO AWAY and leave us alone? Is it dangerous to leave government alone to make decisions about culture without good information from the cultural sector? Maybe not. Maybe the results would be the same or better if they were left to draw their own conclusions about this newly invigorated artworld. I don't mean to be disingenuous, this is where your question takes me, and I do actually find the speculations interesting and challenging. 

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 1:44 PM EDT

Re: But would I want to see everyone who is advocating for policy changes by lobbying government with art stats stop doing that and start planning art shows instead?

Let's forget you even put that on the table. 

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 2:29 PM EDT

okay, okay, I was trying to gain some insight from trying to understand your position (badly I guess), but let me just answer the question directly...The reason why someone like Michael Maranda might not champion our works and our relations with one another as artists and choose instead to paint our careers as cultural/economic data is that cultural/economic data can be very useful in lobbying government for policy changes that might better the conditions for artists. 

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 2:39 PM EDT

Although, I should clarify, Michael does champion artists' works in other projects, like his Parasitic Venture Press, for example. 

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 3:27 PM EDT

Re: The reason why someone like Michael Maranda might not champion our works and our relations with one another as artists and choose instead to paint our careers as cultural/economic data is that cultural/economic data can be very useful in lobbying government for policy changes that might better the conditions for artists. 

Altruistic as that sounds, and I did say I admire the impulse, did I not? Well I do - to a point. I think the AGYU could cough up an exhibition schedule that is a little heftier than the three exhibitions it mounted in 2007. It would be so easy and it would be so exciting to see happen, especially if it was based on research that made historical and relational links between artists and their works. And in my opinion it would have miles more impact than bemoaning the government arts policy decison making vacuum cleaner. That is a very negative position from which to fire a starting gun. I want to see a little something happen. I'm tired of listing off my quote unquote benchmarks - that is absolutely bogus at this point 

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 5:57 PM EDT

 Hi, Jennifer,

 It's true, for some of the questions which I am asking, it is a google search away for some of the people who have been asked to participate in the Waging Culture survey. Keep in mind that I am hoping for somewhere in the vicinity of 800 respondents, however, and you can imagine the amount of time and research it would take to compile that information by myself. More importantly, there is information which I am asking which isn't so readily available ... home ownership, numbers of grant requests, and, in the second part of the survey, financial information.

 A complicating factor, if I restricted myself to only questions that were publicly available (which would certainly reduce the validity of the study) is, of course, which artists would I choose to compile. Only those artists I know? Only those artists who have exhibited at the AGYU? Hardly an unbiased selection. Instead, I am using a sampling technique that has been developed to study so-called hidden populations. Because of the referral process, I don't have to know the full extent of practicing artists in Canada. Indeed, the population 'reveals' itself through the study. More on this aspect is available in the description of the study (www.theAGYUisOutThere.org/wagingculture). In particular, I outline there why the information that we have about the lives of contemporary artists is currently lacking. There is no current information on how it is that artists survive in this country, not a clue as to the full extent of the difficulties of surviving while making art.

 You might look at this as a reductive study that distills all of our significance to mere statistics. I would counter that I, in no way, consider it this way. Indeed, the very reason for doing this study starts from the assumption that artists are extremely significant, and extremely important, to Canada. Not in the way that Richard Florida and his kind thinks, however, and this is unfortunate. For the Creative Cities rhetoric, we artists are merely service providers for the economy. We supply the cool neighbourhoods and the amenities for those that capitalize  on the creativity of the arts sectors -- merely a rehashing of the old argument that the arts are important because they are important economically. I wouldn't claim that the arts are not economically important, but I would argue strenuously that this is not what makes them important -- a significant difference in approach.

 That said, we are at a moment in time when these sorts of arguments (the creative city, et cet) are in full swing, and have tremendous sway over policy makers across the spectrum. In order to be able to put that argument into perspective, it would be useful to have solid evidence that the artists are not benefiting from the creative economy. At this point, that argument is not possible to make because the research has not been done.

 I want this research done, I want to know how we are all surviving. More importantly, I want policy makers to understand the situation that artists are in ... and how we manage to continue to produce despite that situation. Grants, public policy, issues surrounding taxation, et cetera: alas, these are integral parts of contemporary practice. Bureaucratic, yes. Misguided, often (take, for instance, the shameful 'Status of the Artist' legislation that the Ontario Liberals passed last year -- did anyone buy you a coffee on the 'Celebrate the Artist' weekend? Because, as far as the provincial cultural policies go, that's all you're entitled to.

 I go back, though, to the question of research ... without good research, there is no good advocacy. I would prefer that someone else with more resources at hand had taken up this research (arts funders, ministries of culture, advocacy groups) but that hasn't happened, and it doesn't appear that it will, so instead I decided to do the work. My motivation comes out of a long-standing commitment to advocacy on behalf of the arts, and on behalf of artists in general. Past examples of this was being part of the team that undertook the Arts Vote campaign in the last municipal election in Toronto; being a member of Active 18, a community organisation in the West Queen West neighbourhood which took on the city and a group of developers to ensure that a vibrant arts neighbourhood was not completely gutted by rampant development and gentrification; and, when I was at Fuse magazine, facilitating a concerted effort to challenge the re-formulation of individual arts grants policies by the Canada Council which, ironically, was attempting to reduce the significance of artistic practice to mere statistics.

 I am able to undertake this study because of the situation that I currently find myself in. In order to survive as an artist, I need a day-job. It just so happens that the one I find myself in is one at an institution that agrees with the importance of advocacy work, and has been more than supportive in my taking the time and resources necessary to undertake an extensive study such as the waging culture survey. Indeed, my being hired was influenced by my advocacy work. It's not many institutions that would not only tolerate but encourage this sort of work, on 'company time.'  It's not many institutions that understand that the bedrock of contemporary art is the artists, and that we don't survive by exhibiting alone.


 Michael Maranda
 Art Gallery of York University

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 7:01 PM EDT

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 8:26 PM EDT

I too thank you Michael, though I ultimately disagree with your notion of advocacy. Your aims are noble enough but I still think art is the best revenge.

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 9:22 PM EDT

 Are you looking after this kind of horror?:

"our results have found out that the average successful canadian artist is a straight white male in their 30's making around 32 000 per year (with 2 solos each year, and one mid-career museum survey that was curated by a gay man)"

I mean, what's the point?

Cedric

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 9:40 PM EDT

Hey Cedric. We're talking about this.

What are you talking about? 

Wednesday, 6 August 2008 - 11:27 PM EDT

Art is revenge? What on earth for?!

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 12:49 AM EDT

I'm talking about this: 

"a survey that will capture a wide range of information on the social, economic, and demographic aspects of being an artist in Canada. The data collected will be analysed extensively, and the results will be disseminated widely to funding agencies, government organizations, advocacy groups, policy makers, galleries and, of course, artists."

I'm worried about how the results of such statistics will be used. It is asking for artist income, isn't it? Then it sends that info to (I assume private) funding agencies and gallerists. How do these behave if they come up with a model as examplified above? Is it really about the art?

On the other hand one could argue that if inequities are revealed, than corrections could be amended in the government fundings, but somehow something tells me that the government is already more balanced on these issues than funding agencies or gallerists.

My cynicism referred to that I hardly remember seeing a solo museum show from a canadian woman artist in the 5 last years (except Claire Savoie, but that was in Rimouski, can't believe it's not travelling). I'm just a standard audience and I can already see a major problem. What do I need these statistics for?

Cedric

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 1:04 AM EDT

Basically, adding over my agreement with you Jenny that the best is to focus on the arts, I am suspicious of this statistical projet, because it seems it could serve as much evil deeds than good deeds.

How many artists are they? Much more than it will ever be possible for them to all succeed.  Providing the most opportunities possible for artists to exhibit sounds to me the project that any public organization such as AGYU should prioritize.  The government must already know the huge amounts of request for funds that they refuse. That should be enough statistics that artists are eating kraft dinner.

Or am I really riding on a completely different track?

Cedric

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 6:35 AM EDT

 Thanks for clarifying that, Cedric. We're all on the same page.

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 6:36 AM EDT

Except for anon who's a being a little obtuse.

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 2:53 PM EDT

re: I too thank you Michael, though I ultimately disagree with your notion of advocacy. Your aims are noble enough but I still think art is the best revenge.

No, not obtuse at all. In fact, I can't think of a useful construction in which art could be seen/used as revenge for anything. Who/what would be avenged by making art or being successful at it? Vengeance doesn't seem like good or interesting motivation at all, for art or most anything else.

More to the point: I'm not convinced by the polarizing here of gathering statistics and recognizing the functioning and cultural contributions of artists. I'd rather see artists take some charge of the gathering and deployment of statistical information than have the scantest data presumptively gathered from census-taking continually rehashed into incomplete and platitudinous pap about artists. Frankly, I think that public galleries should participate far more in the ways in which art and artists are represented in society at large than simply pretend to be above it all while thinking only about the immediate needs of their own spaces and programs. I wonder if there's as much suspicion of the government's (supposedly agenda-free) census-taking as there is about someone seeking to gather more accurate information about the current state of artists in Canada...

Likewise, I think that trying to set gallery agendas from the outside based on individual desires (like making claims to what the AGYU's agenda should be or the number of shows they should mount) risks sounding more like self-serving wish fulfillment than real critique of what happens in and through such spaces (not to discount criticism, which is fair game and always desirable). While my heart doesn't lie with the institutions, they're usually not much less embattled than most artists (though certainly they have a different set of pressures to deal with).

By the way, I doubt that the AGYU actually has a bus. I'm guessing that they rent it for openings. I mean, what gallery has a bus?

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 4:21 PM EDT

I also have to wonder about this idea that artists should mobilize their activism through exhibitions, and that facilitating this process is the right way for a curator to participate—this seems to be what you’re putting forth, Jennifer, and it says a lot about your idea of curatorial work.

1) “I, as an artist would value Michael Maranda's curation / interpretation of my work more”
So, in other words, Michael (or any other institutional curator) should be devoting their time to giving artists exhibitions as opposed to advocating for them on a broader level? This is hardly tenable when you consider the scope of the project, which as I understand it will involve thousands of artists. Can we really expect one institutional curator to advocate on behalf of so many people through “accelerated exhibitions”?  (Incidentally, I wonder how such an accelerated programming schedule would go over considering the AGYU’s remote location— would you be prepared to attend one show every week? Every month? Did you even attend all three shows this year?)

2) “I think the AGYU could cough up an exhibition schedule that is a little heftier than the three exhibitions it mounted in 2007”
Again, this strikes me as a rather limited notion of curatorial work. Studio visits and exhibition planning are hardly the sole province of the curator, and I think that this year’s programming reveals a much more advanced platform than you give it credit for. Had the AGYU mounted 3 exhibitions and left it at that, I’d agree with you that things weren’t sufficiently ‘hefty’. But have you seen the education programs undertaken this year? Allyson Adley’s Architecture of the Imagination was an ambitious project undertaken with 8th grade residents of the Jane and Finch community, which should remind us that downtown artsters aren’t the only people serviced by the AGYU. And last summer's Fastwurms residency produced a sprawling mother of a show that not only knocked out Torontonians, but Vancouverites as well (the show is now on its way to Winnipeg).
 
To my mind, all this criticism of curators who would presume to reduce artists’ cultural significance to a statistic smacks of the romantic notion that somehow artists just need to be artists and leave the numbers to the bureaucrats. That by participating in the numbers game, we all somehow lose our identities in the process. Taken further, this might feed the rhetoric that artists should just focus on creating, rather than trying to make a living off of their work.

Joe Scanlan recently wrote in the pages of Artforum that art’s final taboo is class, “a subject that no one, regardless of background, wants to unpack, least of all artists, who never dare broach the subject out of fear that exposing the one mortal truth about their work-how much money they make from it-would annul whatever else they like to think their work is about…And so, unable to imagine an alternative, we tacitly acknowledge the vitality of money in public on the condition that it remain suppressed, like blood in the veins, constantly circulating but to be hinted at only upon the death of an ancestor or the occasional blush.”

Seems to me that Michael Maranda is trying to open up just this problem, and I’d hate to think such questions are outside the purview of curatorial work.

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 5:17 PM EDT

 Anon:

---Vengeance doesn't seem like good or interesting motivation at all, ---for art or most anything else.

 The new culture is all about Veangeance:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsrN3qxX2Yw

(sorry, french, karaoke versions here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZnLxK9i2Nk

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blkomKwz2hE)

Nicholas Brown, What info is it that you are hoping to get from these statistics? I mean, suppose you could get an approximate number of practicing artists per province (which I doubt is accountable, because visual arts is a complex field that occurs at many different levels in a vast array of communities which are not linked in between, many of which are shortlived and spontaneous (featuring artists who will be artists for about 2 years in their life), which reverses the project back to defining criterias of which civilians apply to your research' terminology for the word "artist", and to questioning wrether these criterias are critically biased.). Then suppose you can compile up results about class (who makes money and how much, do rich people become artists more easily, how much does the average artwork cost to make, etc..).

How are these informations serving you?  I'm not talking about cultural policy but you. As an individual. What it is you'd like to know and why you want to know it?

Cedric

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 6:09 PM EDT

Hi Nicolas,

Please re read what I wrote in my letter:

Regarding the missive you sent me yesterday - for the most part the answers to the questions on your questionnaire are a matter of public record, just a google away - except for the last bit - please refer us to ten fellow practicing artists. I admire the impulse behind your research to a point. But I have to navigate enough bureaucracy in life without, sadly, having to imagine a  curator at AGYU is about to reinterpret and redisseminate my cultural significance as a statistic. Imagine the comparative impact, the positive consequences if your research involved jpeg images of artworks, meetings with groups of artists, studio visits and an accelerated round of exhibitions. Please...Champion our works and our relations with one another as artists, not our careers as cultural/economic data. 

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 6:12 PM EDT

Sorry, I spelled your name wrong. You are Nicholas with an h. My apologies.

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 7:01 PM EDT

Hello Anon,

Re: No, not obtuse at all. In fact, I can't think of a useful construction in which art could be seen/used as revenge for anything. Who/what would be avenged by making art or being successful at it? Vengeance doesn't seem like good or interesting motivation at all, for art or most anything else.

Well, you're not even in the ball park if you're troubling yourself with attempts to think up useful constructions. The phrase, art is the best revenge is a riff on a maxim my little pumpkin. Ok, whatever, if you don't like obtuse - why don't we just say you seem rounded at the free end.

Re: I'm not convinced by the polarizing here of gathering statistics and recognizing the functioning and cultural contributions of artists.

Come again?

Re: I'd rather see artists take some charge of the gathering and deployment of statistical information than have the scantest data presumptively gathered from census-taking continually rehashed into incomplete and platitudinous pap about artists.

Let's reflect. Is it really wise to throw "good" statistics after "bad"?

Re: Frankly, I think that public galleries should participate far more in the ways in which art and artists are represented in society at large than simply pretend to be above it all while thinking only about the immediate needs of their own spaces and programs.

That is pure discombobulation.

Re: I wonder if there's as much suspicion of the government's (supposedly agenda-free) census-taking as there is about someone seeking to gather more accurate information about the current state of artists in Canada...

You clearly have an enquiring mind. 

Re: Likewise, I think that trying to set gallery agendas from the outside based on individual desires (like making claims to what the AGYU's agenda should be or the number of shows they should mount) risks sounding more like self-serving wish fulfillment than real critique of what happens in and through such spaces (not to discount criticism, which is fair game and always desirable).

If AGYU had not contacted me, had an associate of mine  not referred me to Michael's survey, we wouldn't be having this little chit chat, anon. My statement that the details of my cv are largely a matter of public record and my stated preference/WISH that the AGYU curatorial staff channel its research energies through its exhibitions, makes in no way  a claim to what the AGYU's agenda should be. I do think they could do more exhibitions, as I have since stated here on the blog. That is my opinion to which I believe I am entitled and in which I would think the AGYU might be interested.  If it risks sounding  more like self serving wish fulfillment than real critique of what happens in and through such spaces, (whatever that means) to you, so be it. You are projecting.

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 11:05 PM EDT

Hrmmm... well thanks for getting my name right.

Yep, reread your letter. Not sure what your bolded points prove-- it still seems like a pretty reductive view of the job of the curator. Exhibitions over bureaucracy. I get it.

I have to say, between your dismissive reply to my comment and your glib, condescending response to 'Anon', you're really on a roll! I realize that with over 30 comments logged, it's a lot of work staying on top of things, but you might want to take a bit more time with your replies.

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 11:36 PM EDT

I beg your pardon, Nicholas. Who's condescending to whom? No matter. Thank you for re reading my letter - I see that you've got the salient point. Yes, I value exhibitions over bureaucracy! How is that a reductive view of the job of the curator? 

Thursday, 7 August 2008 - 11:59 PM EDT

OK, looks like we don't agree. I say it's reductive because I don't think curators should spend all of their time mounting exhibitions. Curators can profitably spend their time doing all sorts of research-based work in support of artists, but that's old news. I DO think that any curator who actually wants to spend their time embroiled in bureaucracy for the benefit of artists should certainly be encouraged to do it. God knows I don't want to sift through the data generated by this survey. Have at it, Michael!

Friday, 8 August 2008 - 2:52 AM EDT

I do not agree, Nicholas. When you are assigned to be a curator for some institution, you should serve the people and the community to which that institution belong. In this case, providing quality access to artistic endeavours to the student community at YU.  Mr. Maranda and whoever is his boss are not doing their job by taking up concerns that are of no relevance with what should be happening with the gallery. It's the same as criticizing a student's thesis by accusing it of being too broad. This work should have been done outside curatorial context, it was not the AGYU role.

There are associations for art centres. Artist' Rights societies that have recently crumbled. These are the places where you do that kind of work. If the passion for visual art "in itself" is lost at AGYU, than maybe they should close the space. Are you using part of the gallery budget to make that survey? That's shocking. Using the gallery's money to write your own thesis paper instead of servicing the artists and the university's audience.

Cedric

Friday, 8 August 2008 - 12:59 PM EDT

Cedric, this stuff you are saying about thesis papers is confusing. AGYU isn't a student gallery and the survey is not a student project.

Friday, 8 August 2008 - 1:14 PM EDT

as an independent artist/curator/writer with a hybrid practice and only a moderate level of political engagement, what I find "shocking" is the vehemence of antipathy on this thread to the idea that a major art institution would put some of its resources into advocacy. 

Friday, 8 August 2008 - 4:59 PM EDT

It's a university gallery. Its role is or should be to initiate its students and its visitors about current trends in contemporary visual arts. Not to study the demographics of canadian artists throughout Canada? It is not a student paper but it reads like it. The result will be a signed document ready to be sent out to various institutions. I think that's really stretching the term "curating" to call it a curatorial project, and to me it magnifies this impression that I'm getting, as a member of the audience, that curators have been taking the centre stage recently and artists and art in general have suffered greatly from that.

The problem is not Mr. Maranda's project, who certainly has the bestest of intentions, but the context within which it is presented, and it being referred to as a "curatorial project".  Will there be an exhibition about these results? Than it should be called an "artist project", because it will really represent the work of one person.

Finally, yes, I remain skeptical about the use of such results, and the problematic of the "straw man" that Jenny hinted at in another post. The antipathic tone is meant in part to as a defense for all the artists which I know will and could not be represented by such a survey, because it is simply impossible. The university context I presume will strongly influence notions about what the constitution of a professional artist should be (we're already talking about CV), and I'm afraid the results within such an academic mindframe could only ever remain far from representing the reality.  I am trying to protect the definitions of "art" and "artists" which I enjoy to be as freely and encompassive as can be.

 Cheers,

Cedric

Friday, 8 August 2008 - 5:16 PM EDT

The best advocacy for contemporary arts is to present more art and the best possible, because good exhibitions are beginning to be as far and afew as possible, pretty much everywhere.

The government and agencies are not going to give more money until we prove the magic that we can do with the little we have. If your curatorial program sucks, and every member of the audience finds it boring, than yes some people are going to question what you are doing up there.

This projects sounds like proposing the contrary: if we can prove to the government that there is this or that amount of artists, than they'll give us more money for bigger exhibitions.  I don't really think this way.  Your present exhibit should command the interest on its own. As a curator your role is to provide the most rewarding experience in visual arts. In you can only select 1 artist in 12 millions because you have no means to do more, yet you can't come up with the artist and exhibition that will knock everyone out, than what are you doing as a curator ?? 

gosh, I need to open a gallery,

Cedric

Friday, 8 August 2008 - 5:21 PM EDT

Among the many typos, I regert the most to have written "In" instead of "IF":

If you can only select 1 artist in 12 millions because you have no means to exhibit more, yet you can't come up with the one artist and exhibition that will knock everyone out, than what are you doing as a curator?

That's better,

Ced 

Friday, 8 August 2008 - 6:21 PM EDT

I think you could cut Cedric some slack, Sally, as he IS an out of towner after all. Also I think you know that both Cedric and I are both pro arts funding. And I'm pretty sure that you've read  both of us express sympathy for Michael Maranda's position in this thread. So I think your use of the word antipathy above is a little overwrought to say the least. This is a sedate little repartee  about Canadian therapeutic art institutions. Chill out sister!

Friday, 8 August 2008 - 7:47 PM EDT

I don't mind being called antipathic, because I'm sure the present curator at AGYU wouldn't be happy to read what I said, but it's important to remember that I speak from "a member of the audience"'s point of view, that is, the gallery visitor, and it's ok for a visitor to say that they are disappointed by the curatorial choices of an institution.

In Canada we have this comfortable situation where institutions can do pretty much what they want and never have to care about visitor feedback.  People working in the artworld may have reasons to lean toward Mr. Maranda's proposition which the visitor may be totally oblivious about, but I'm aiming to represent the perspective of who exactly the AGYU were originally supposed to serve.

That's an interesting question: is the mandate of AGYU to serve the artists or its public? Is the current research project doing any of both? Which artists is it serving? Names?

Cheers,

Cedric 

Friday, 8 August 2008 - 9:49 PM EDT

The thread is open.

Saturday, 9 August 2008 - 12:56 PM EDT

"That's an interesting question: is the mandate of AGYU to serve the artists or its public?"

Are you saying those two are mutually exclusive? What contemporary art institution doesn't have artists as its public?

Saturday, 9 August 2008 - 1:25 PM EDT

The real reason I'm overwrought is because cbc is not broadcasting Coronation Street during the olympics, nor are they posting it online like they did for the Stanley Cup. I think it's a media conspiracy to drive Canadian artists insane by forcing us to watch mainstream sports instead of low-brow British soap operas. I'm going to call my local curator and complain.

Saturday, 9 August 2008 - 1:59 PM EDT

Maybe that's why they're pushing that Coronation Street trivia game so hard on CBC commercials-- they need to passify the angry hordes during the Olympics.

Me, I'll settle for track racing. Hooray for hipster nascar!

Saturday, 9 August 2008 - 3:08 PM EDT

I'm trying to stay out of this for the most part as I think that the survey/study is my contribution to the debate. However, I must protest ... Cedric, when did I claim this was a curatorial project? If curators by definition only do curatorial projects in their professional capacities, then the obvious conclustion is that the most common curatorial project in the 21st century is writing grant applications.

Further, to some of the suggestions all round that this "won't capture artist x's practice" or misses that ... well, in the question regarding medium used, there is an option to put in whatever one wants. This isn't restrictive, the choices I put up were based on pre-existing divisions in use by various arts funders. The goal is to be able to round up general groupings to be able to look across mediums and see the various differences in income, career paths, et cetera. [An aside, I always thought that new media included web artists, no?] The usage of pre-existing lists does two things: one, it makes the analysis feasible (I can't hand code 800+ descriptions, sorry. Not only would it be impossible to do with the amount of time I have, but, unless I were brutal in my distilling of vague responses, I would end up with hundreds of media -- thus obliterating any use of the resulting categories. The point of statistics is to categorise, not to proliferate). The needs of a new media artist is much different than an installation artist than a painter -- on both questions of time, and money. What are those differrences in reality? Give me some time, and I'll let you know based on actual practices. 

Furthermore, yes, the career benchmarks that are in the survey are not appropriate to all practices and media. In particular, community artists are not going to have many places to mark their X. Does this imply that I think these sorts of benchmarks are the only ones of importance? Of course not. If (as it will probably show) Community art practices cannot be measured on the same benchmarks as, say, painters (which isn't a surprise on an anecdotal level), this survey will demonstrate that in a very significant (statistically speaking) way. And, again, if there are other benchmarks that people feel are more appropriate, there is space to add them. If they are quantifiable, and suggested enough times, then they will be added to the study.

The whole point of the career benchmarks, by the way, is to circumvent the classic oft-used oft-decried overly-reductivist all-but-useless categorisations of artists into emerging, mid-, and established. What the hell do those mean? I don't know, I still don't know, but maybe I will be creating a starting place for considering more useful distinctions based on real-life experiences of artists.

Saturday, 9 August 2008 - 5:15 PM EDT

I haven't checked but it is important that your survey makes it explicit that it surveys only whatever your project defines as contemporary "Fine Artists", because I am deducting that such fields as craft, applied arts, popular arts, design,  or simply traditional (academic) Fine Arts (example: illustration) are not exactly included in what it aims to cover, and this is an issue I am perticularly sensible about: the definition of what constitutes an artist or an artwork.

I think that through all what has been said here you got enough of a sample of ideas that may be brought forth as critic to your project if it ever reach completion,  so perhaps one day this topic could be debated in a proper symposium organized by AGYU about contemporary artists, advocacy, and statistics?  I mean, if this is going to sound as official as it is announced, maybe artists would like to discuss the mechanics behind these procedures?  Was a specialist in demographic statistics consulted?  The degree of personal questions in the survey gave me the impression that the results would almost near an anthropological portrait. It's that close to asking your dentures imprints. but that's just me.

Cheers,

Cedric 

Saturday, 9 August 2008 - 6:00 PM EDT

Re:

I mean, if this is going to sound as official as it is announced, maybe artists would like to discuss the mechanics behind these procedures?  Was a specialist in demographic statistics consulted?

Hey Cedric, go here and click on methodology

Saturday, 9 August 2008 - 8:41 PM EDT

Sunday, 10 August 2008 - 7:44 AM EDT

LM, by my count there are seven people leaving comments on this "recent bubble of talk at simpleposie", you, Sally, Michael, Cedric, Nicholas, myself and Anon. That is a very small number and it's been nothing but civil.  Although I did read  you commenting on your blog that there HAS been some blithering about a shitstorm somewhere, your notion of the heat Michael Maranda's been enduring has never gone above tepid here. If you quit watching the pot, the water might actually boil.

Sunday, 10 August 2008 - 7:45 AM EDT

The last couple times I went to TO (they were very short visits, I was there back in June), I looked at what was up at AGYU and either not much was up or it was something from artists I never heard about and regardless of good intentions to encourage these new artists, the programmation didn't seem up par with past programmation.

Than I hear about this project (here, 3 days ago), and I my mind started making connections that I probably shouldn't have.

I don't have any interest in creating heat, as I don't see how this project can do me harm on any level. But my last visits in TO were generally disappointing (perhaps because a couple of the bigger spaces are temporary closed) and I've been on the lookout in finding reasons why.

For example the current exhibit at Power Plant, though it contains some very interesting pieces, was the worst choice ever for a summer exhibit. That's one of the case where I would like to differentiate servicing the artists and servicing the public (to reply to Maranda above).  We are talking about all these researches about artists and communties but the cowbells have been leaving the scene one after the other (thank god there is still David Liss).

So as a visitor all I'm saying is, whatever scientifical research you are plannificating about the artworld, and that I'm more or less supposed to know about, please bring back the good exhibitions !

 

;-)

Cedric

Monday, 11 August 2008 - 7:48 PM EDT

Hmmm... I feel like I'm posting a bit after the fact here, but here goes.

It seems there are several issues swirling around here in this discussion.

One is whether statistical studies of artists are worth doing. In my opinion, they are. Without hard numbers it can be difficult to effectively advocate for further arts funding, a form of funding which, as we all know, is being radically cut by the current government. A zeitgeist and popular ideology, such as the one Richard Florida stirred up here in Toronto, is also helpful, but I say when you are dealing with an opposition numbers can be very useful. 

 A second issue is whether it's fair to ask artists to fill out extensive surveys in the name of this research. I think that's really up to each artist and their own political views. Indeed, if it is important enough to the researcher, they will invest the time necessary to make the potential benefits of the research clear, and/or offer some recompense for surveys completed. 

 A third issue is whether it is appropriate for curators to do this kind of research. I think it is, as long as their gallery is serving the arts and non-arts communities through exhibitions, education and publications as well.

Which leads me to... the more specific fourth issue of whether the AGYU is serving artists well at this point in time.

 I think, really, that very few of the university galleries in Toronto are being used to their optimum extent for artist and community benefit.

OCAD is probably the worst offender here, with a student gallery (the one on Dundas) that shows very few students per year, a Professional Gallery that has brought in some interesting artists but provides little space, and the nebulous XPACE which-- while I'm excited about Gabby's upcoming show there, make no mistake!-- and have seen good stuff there in the past, I'm still a bit confused about. (In the end, XPACE is probably the best part of OCAD's gallery efforts, though, for the fact that they are open to both students and others and willing to be engaged by both groups.)

AGYU I'm sorta impressed by and sorta not. I'm not an artist, so I can't speak to whether its curators are really getting out into the community.  I did really enjoy the Fastwurms show there, and I enjoy the multiples shop. I think the outreach they've done is great in process but really disappointing in presentation. And it does surprise me that, from what I can see, it doesn't seem to have much of a resource as a practice/project space for York's students and faculty. (It probably does behind the scenes, but again, I don't see that on the surface.)

 I'm probably just confused about institutional mandates, etc. but I did want to address some of the many issues coming up here, which are interesting. I do hope something comes out of the research should it continue.

Tuesday, 12 August 2008 - 8:34 AM EDT

Hi Leah. Thanks for that.