mines/pies
Two artists on the 2.0 site recently engaged in a brief discussion about how work is described and it got us, here at BlackFlash, thinking. Specifically, I’m referring to Colin Carney’s entry in the artist pages and David Pollock’s reaction to it. The issue underlying their exchange, and perhaps the larger issue behind artist statements and art research in general, is the role of research in art. To what extent is a “social sciences” dialogue being used in art-speak nowadays?
Being through the art school system myself, I remember the days of my MFA when my colleagues and I would scramble to put together our SSHRC grant applications. In case you don’t know, SSHRC stands for Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Funny that it should be offering funding to fine arts student, no? Evidently not. SSHRC grants are given to fine arts students as researchers. The caveat is that the student must show what sort of new research he/she is engaging in and what methodology he/she is using. I was not the only one at the time to be struck by the foreignness of the demands. Indeed, funding bodies create demands and artists, who often need money to make ambitious projects, attempt to deliver.
While this is an academic context that I’m citing here–SSHRC grants are there to fund your graduate studies–the people who are being educated in these programs go on to shape the future art community. Are these changes good or bad? Are they largely propelled by the decisions of funding bodies and society’s desire for an instrumental function in art, or is it also a part of art’s natural evolution that stems from a history of political art and social engagement? How do we begin to qualify art that takes as its premise social engagement–by ethics or aesthetics?
We’re hoping the BlackFlash community can share their ideas about their own travails in being an artist, in looking about art and in reading about art. What do you think?
Being chosen to represent Canada in the Venice Biennale is a distinguished honour and also, as it has come to be known, a bit of an architectural curse. The Canadian Pavilion is an awkward squat building known for being inhospitable to the exhibition of art. Every artist has had to wrestle with its dimensions and, as can be seen in the above photograph, the glass encased tree that grows inside it. Here’s a link to an article in The Toronto Star describing a possible future installation at the Canadian Pavilion–its controlled destruction.
I think it would be great if BlackFlash could publish an article or perhaps a series of photographs detailing the various aesthetic acrobatics that had to be undertaken to negotiate this space. We could start by contributing a list of past exhibiting artists here as well as discussing their various solutions.
This year’s artist is Mark Lewis and a description of his project can be found on the Canadian Pavilion website. The website is actually a great source of information if not critique on the Canadian Pavilion. They even have a floorplan of its seashell-like proportions. A list of past exhibitors can also be found on the website.
Image from AKA Gallery website.
On Saturday February 28th, AKA Gallery in Saskatoon held a panel as a follow up to it’s exhibition, The Bachelor (of Fine Arts) Party. The juried exhibition featured four students from the University of Regina (UofR) and four students from the University of Saskatchewan (UofS). The panel discussion was on the topic of BFA pedagogy in Saskatchewan and its place within fine arts education. The panel featured a representative from the UofR, Prof. David Garneau, a representative from the UofS, Bart Gazzola, two UofR students and one UofS student.
I have posted a transcript of the panel below. It is a shortened transcript that touches on the main points in the discussion. Prompted by Canadian Art’s “art schools” issue, my hope is to start a comparative examination of pedagogy across the country.
