Art Herstory

The Toronto School Board Art Tragedy

In these hard economic times, the Toronto District School Board is finding it difficult to make ends meet, and much like Brandeis University, they see their art collection as secondary to everything else.

The Toronto District School Board is hoping to sell off their collection in order to fund a new program which aims to keep school swimming pools open.

I, myself, attended Northern Secondary School for grades 11 and 12, and not once did I ever utilize the swimming pool- a pool which, by the way, was in danger of being closed then, too.

In fact, I spent most of my time in the art rooms. Kathleen Woollcott is the photography teacher at Northern Secondary School and runs one of the last dark rooms in the city. This program has suffered severe budget cuts, and is being pressured to go digital- a very expensive feat for which the school with not provide a single cent- or to close down the darkroom completely.

The ceramics department at Northern Secondary School has also been scrapping the bottom for funds. They have outdated kilns, no money for necessary equipment, and fund the majority of the program off their end of the year ceramic sale. They have been completely ignored in terms of funding.

The life drawing classroom is constantly flooded due to the leaky roof, has no heating, never gets cleaned by the janitorial staff, can't afford models on a regular basis and when models do come in, they are forced to changed in a small tiny room with a backed-up sink. The teacher, Adele Clarke, even brings in her own space heater to provide the models with some heat during the winter months, seeing as to how the windows constantly leak cold air.

Oh, but you know whose budget is not heavily constricted? The sport teams. Four years ago, principal Varla Abrams decided to launch a project called the 'Field of Dreams'. The Field of Dreams consisted of a million dollar bubble that would be built over half-yes, half, not the entire field, half- of the football field. They hoped to raise funds to pay for half of the project, and get the School board to foot the rest of the bill.

And now we learn the true motivation for this art sale- the School Board wants to keep pools open in hopes that one day they'll train a great Olympic swimmer. An idea that is so incredibly ridiculous seeing as to how most- if not all- Olympic calibre swimmers are trained in private pools and swim programs.

These pools are not open to the public, nor are they open to the entire student body. Only the 50 odd students enrolled in a specialized gym class have access to this pool. A class that most students can't fit into their already heavy schedules.

The message?

The Toronto District School Board, whether it openly admits it or not, is discriminating against students. They are giving preferential treatment to athletes, and alienating the art-oriented students by restricting their educational breadth.

Their art collection is value at $7.2 million- while not as impressive as Brandeis University's $350 million dollar collection- consists of important Canadian art works by artists like Tom Thomson.

Now, I'm not a Thomson woman myself. In fact, I find the Group of Seven to be repetitive and overrated. Regardless, I understand that their works play an important role in the Canadian art scene, and represent Canadian culture and identity... something that the Toronto District School Board fails to understand.

Art is a means to record history, to document culture, and to promote pride, culture, and artistic expression. Museums remain an infallible well of knowledge, and are essential to a child's development.

Not only is this a direct reflection of who is running the School Board- stiff, greedy trustees- but these actions completely disregard the Association of Art Museum Directors' practises, the International Council of Museums' code of ethics and the College Art Association's guidelines. These principles generally discourage deaccessioning art works to fund non-art related purchases.

Mainly, deaccessioning these art works would be the equivalent of spitting in the face of all the donors who have compelled to fund and promote cultural wealth within the education system.

What we see here is a clear arrogance on behalf of the Toronto School Board, and a perverse attack on institution-based art collections and any student hoping to pursue a career in the art world.

This collection might be in their hands, but shouldn't those who the art work is for have a say in this?

I doubt that students would appreciate their cultural heritage being bartered off for an afternoon swim.

Edit 00/07/09: It has been brought to my attention that a few days after this post when up, a somewhat satisfying solution was found by the Toronto District School Board and it's board.

I feel it is important for me to say, however, that no matter what the end result is, at the time, this post very much weighed in on the board's intentions, and I can confirm- by medium of sources employed by the TDSB- that this post does illustrate accurate intentions. The TDSB changed their tune after they were met with negativity on behalf of the community.

The decision that was made, in the end, was due blogs, newspapers and art professionals talking about this situation. I have been asked to share with you all the resolution of this conflict, and you can read it by clicking HERE.

A conversation about elitism, art, art theory and concept

The Everything-ists

The effigy of our era's art

I understand that anything can be art. 

But at what point do we draw the line?

Historically, we look back and call certain things art. There are strict movements. Renaissance (Northern) has certain specific aesthetic characterizations. Impressionism is pretty specific. But in 100 years, when we look back, what will be our art? Our movement? Simply saying that anything is art holds no structure. Sure, there are artistic elements. But skill and technique, or even a metaphysical understanding of the thought processes is instrumental to the understanding of art. What will we be remembered for? In the scheme of art history, who will we be? Who will we be known as? Will we be the Everything-ists? This practice of accepting everything as art because we don't want to offend anyone is almost insulting; so what, we can't give criticism without looking like bad guys? The art world is cut throat, and it remains, to this day, run by elitist art connoisseurs, who, yes, don't always make choices that appeal to the mass populace, but I can not fault their choices, their observations, their careful suggestions as being purely self-motivated. These people do understand the art world, and the art market (yes, there is a big difference) and understand the large rift that exists between them. They are seasoned Art Historians, Art Critics, and Art Collectors who have seen so much of the art world.

 

The Weight of Significance and the Omission of Artists in History

One could argue that John Cage isn't an artist, but he is. He deliberately lends his art to chance, there is  the presence of concept, but most importantly, there is a dialog. When you think of a 'general' performance artists, often times, they aren't artists, nor would I consider them artists. Generally, from personal experience, they are people who have very narrow expectations of art. They don't posses a certain skill, and lean heavily on the supposed 'concept', only to strive simply for the shock. John Cage is perhaps one of the greatest examples of the modern artist-theorist. He gives the avant-guard artistic structure as much weight as the cultural and methodical symbolism. The concept, the process, the execution and the product are all equally important. Is this not art? Is this not a conscientious and deliberate formulation of artistic expression? 

Sure, when you look at, lets say the Impressionists, we know them as Modern artists. They eclipse other 'artists' of the time. Why? Because someone chose to highlight them. This is what Nochlin talks about in Why Are There No Great Women Artists. The omitted artists of history are surely victims, yes, but would we consider them art works today?Would we deem them as culturally significant? Or would we simply yearn after them because they are not cannon? Because they are different and exotic? There is a big rift on popular art (What is publicized and popularized) and on 'dismissed art'. This is where the shift between "art" and "good art" happens. Is it fair? Probably not. Mostly, art world big wigs push for these artists. But, you have to realize that this opening of "art" and this "anyone can be an artist" is severely damaging to the art world and the art industry. There are the two art histories: The one told and the one hidden or lost. There is the one revered and the one frowned upon. Which one do we 'listen to'? The one that tarnishes the 'art' of Art History? Or the one that helps other artists sell and have success, the one that keeps museums thriving?

It's not to say that people who aren't popular, or aren't recognized as artists are not 'artists' or that they have no skill. But when speaking in terms of High Art, there is and has to be a certain line separating it from the 'rest'.

Doesn't mean that someone out there might not like it.

Understanding, Not Ignorance Key Factor in Avoidance of Elitist Accusations

Impressionist paintings: I don't like them. They're still art. I just don't like them. It's interesting, I can appreciate the theory. I can appreciate the intent and the skill. Just not for me. That's the main factor. As an Art Historian, as a member of the art world, I have the right to dislike certain artworks, but I still understand it, appreciate and make the effort to recognize it. A curator can not deaccession an art work simply because they do not like the piece. Just like I can not ignore a large part of history on the basis of aesthetic appeal.

I understand performance art. I really, really do. I just don't think that it merits to be called art (gross generalization.. I know, but MOST of 'them' are really only doing this stuff for attention and to get in on the fad.). When does 'Performance Art' morph into 'Shock Art'? When do we stop addressing it as 'Art'?

Like any other field, there is a necessity for boundaries, and there needs to be some sort of structure, some sort of process in identifying art. Sure, art is subjective, but art is also elitist. It has always been elitist. And as much as some would say that this 'everything is art' movement negates this, I feel that it does not. At all. It simply broadens the specter of self-acclaimed art elitists. Now, everyone can be an artist and an art snob!

In regards to photography... a good photo is a good photo. Theory, technique, saturation, development, etc. You either HAVE the eye or you DON'T. Not everyone is a photographer. I can paint a canvas and call myself a painter, but I'm not. If the photo has passion, if it's developed, if the subject matter is just right. If there's a visual dialog and a presence, then yes, this is a photo, and yes, this person is a photographer. It's not just the click the photo and photo-shopping. It's making sure you take the right shot. Keeping a bunch of things running through the back of your mind.

It's not enough to know about art. You could memorize every painting, every artist, every period, every technique, every type of paint. But if you can not understand it, if you can not read it, if you can not embrace it and learn from it... who are you to judge it? This, I think, is the general reflection of people in the art world. This is what separates an Art Historian from a Historian. An Art Critic from a Critic. To be able to look at a painting, and understand what it means, what it suggests, what it alludes to... is that not an art in itself? 

Religious Art is Not Art?

Art remains an important testament to ancient civilizations, ancient cultures, world cultural history. If we trust 'these people' to properly care for an art work, so who are we to say that 'anyone can be an artist' and 'anything can be art'? These self appointed art critics are just as bad as the self appointed artist. Let us take for example the November 2008 case of  Piero della Francesca's The Baptism of Christ: 

A self-important Archbishop of Westminster demanded that the National Gallery hand over a priceless Italian Renaissance art work. This poplar panel art work is :

1. 1. Extremely fragile, and in a delicate state (read: should not be moved, and is expensive to care for). 
2.  
1. 2. The property of the National Gallery, and was bought directly from the original patron the Camaldolese Abbey.   

  

But, alas, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor thinks that this is NOT art. This is an object of worship and meant for personal acts of piety. But, what makes this different than 90% of the objects in the National Gallery and the Louvre? Are all object depicting a moment in Christ's life suddenly not art, but religious objects of worship?

Why would this man of the cloth know more about what art is than someone who spend their life surrounded by it? Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor doesn't think this painting is art. So who gets to decide? Anyone can say what they believe art is, and what isn't. But who do we listen to? Personally, I think that the museum and art theorists exist for this purpose. To help others explore art, and to help the audience gain an understanding of the visual dialog. 

The thing about an artist: a painter, a photographer, a sculptor, a film maker... is that they will be able to make you call them an artist. They will convince you that they are one.

No one will ever be able to rightfully answer 'What is Art?', but this does not mean that those who want to pioneer a standard are wrong.