Community sustainability means many things. Often the focus is on things like jobs and environmental health. But it's more complex than that. The HBLanarc folks that helped kick-start this CV2050 thing in 2009 use an "8 pillars" model. "Culture" is one of the pillars.
A recent flurry of exchanges online and in print has put the cultural aspect of sustainability in front of a few minds. What follows is part of the exchange, as presented by Anh Le, Executive Director of the Comox Valley, with a lengthy, thoughtful riposte by Meg Cursons.
Please feel free to respond and/or circulate via this blog post, the original Facebook note, Twitter, fax, photocopy, or coffee chatter. As we talk about and through these ideas we get clearer about what's important to the long term sustainability and quality of life in our beloved Comox Valley.
If you're part of the conversation, however you work it, whatever for it takes, thanks.
<hpm>
Original Facebook "note" by Anh Le, posted January 9, 2011
January 9, 2011
Anh’s response to a question by BeingBrett on Facebook.
Brett posted this
and posted:
"I'm sincerely dissapointed that CVAG would choose this as suitable content.
Anh, what do you think of Bateman's work and it's appropriateness to be included in any publicly funded art exhibition, including the show at CVAG? Can you please speak on this from the perspective of Gallery Director as well as Curator, respectively?"
Bateman's work and it's appropriateness to be included in any publicly funded art exhibition:
On the Bateman show at CVAG from the perspective of Gallery Director:
It is an acceptable practice amongst non-profit creative organizations large and small to balance cutting edge, avant garde contemporary programming with “blockbuster” and popular program. For example, the Vancouver Art Gallery has in recent years, programmed both “Monet to Dalí: Modern Masters from the Cleveland Museum of Art (2007)” and “Vermeer, Rembrandt and the Golden Age of Dutch Art Masterpieces from The Rijksmuseum (2009)” in order to draw crowds and earn revenue. That said, the VAG also charges $19.50 admission (while a yearlong membership $75 will give you free admission for that full year).
In the article that you posted, Milroy says that the Bateman show is “Clearly a barnburner of a money-maker (the place is packed)” however she doesn’t state whether or not admission is being charged. I would assume that prints and books are being sold along with the exhibit. CVAG will also be selling books and prints, (but we have been doing so for over a year now in our gift shop). The commission that we keep from the sales is the same percentage as the agreements we have with all artists/consignors in the gift shop.
CVAG does not charge admission and we would like to keep it this way. In order to do so, we must maintain our revenue stream through funding from public and private sources, as well as raising our own funds; this includes revenue from our gift shop, fundraising events and membership/sponsorship drives. A yearlong CVAG membership is $25.
The Robert Bateman exhibit was offered to us about a year ago through his distribution company. At the time, CVAG was undergoing significant shifts; our Executive Director/Curator of 19 years was retiring, we were facing a major funding crisis, we’d just had our funding cut from BC Gaming ($30K), funds were being cut to the BC Arts Council (40% in the Olympic Games year) and were facing a possible closure in June 2010. For above mentioned reasons and working with my staff, it was my decision that we would go ahead and program this exhibit for 2011. Following a tough financial year, and knowing that Jan-March is lean every year, it is my responsibility to ensure that we will continue to operate, yes, this means booking a popular and well known artist for whom there are “questions of ethics surrounding the sale of his high-priced, photo-mechanical reproductions” (Milroy, 2). The practice of his prints/reproductions is another discussion which I won’t get into here.
Let’s discuss betraying the public trust and staging this show in a publicly funded facility:
Our facility and organization is not completely publicly funded; as I stated earlier, our revenue is generated from a variety of sources. I don’t have the percentage breakdowns in my head but do have it at the office in our business plan – it’s approx. 25-35% public funds. I can also provide you or anyone who’s interested, with our financial statements which detail this.
CVAG will not be paying Robert Bateman or his distribution company any CARFAC rated artists’ fees; this will allow us to use these funds to pay other artists this year. Nor are we paying for shipping, packaging or the production of a catalogue. It is standard practice that public galleries and museums pay these fees as part of the exhibition. Also, most blockbusters shows are offered to small museums and come with a hefty price tag ($5000 for a small exhibit and upwards into the millions in major museums). This exhibition will not cost CVAG anything other than the cost to operate the gallery for 6 weeks.
From a Directorship perspective, I hope that we have used the public’s funds responsibly, given our challenges. For more on arts funding cuts, please visit: http://www.stopbcartscuts.ca/. You’ll see that the national average for provincial arts funding is $26 per capita. BC, *with* newly restored $7M funding is the lowest in Canada at $6.54 per capita.
Also, we hope that having a high profile painter will bring more public awareness to everything else that the gallery does: contemporary art shows, education programming, events and a venue (gift shop) for local artist to sell artwork.
Finally, Milroy says, “Our arts institutions are empowered and funded to educate members of the public, not pander to their ignorance in pursuit of a quick profit.” Believe when I say we won’t be rolling in the dough; we will be socking away any revenue we earn to maintain operations and apply it the contemporary programming for the remainder of the year, in order to fulfill our mandate.
On the Bateman show at CVAG from the perspective of Curator
As Curator, would I have initiated an exhibition at the CVAG featuring Robert Bateman? No. His work and practices do not align with my curatorial/artistic interests. I do however, celebrate and appreciate all forms of visual arts and respect Bateman for his technical virtuosity and work as an environmentalist.
Do I agree with Milroy where she writes:
“…the McMichael solemnly presents Bateman as an artist grappling with the big themes of 20th-century art, an heir to Franz Kline, Clyfford Still or even Vincent Van Gogh, a lone wolf wrongly condemned by the “art snobs” who are out to get him.
This is patent nonsense, serving simply to reveal Bateman's shallow understanding of his great forebears. Just for the record: To mimic two white passages of paint in a Still painting by painting a pair of mountain goats on a rocky cliff, as Bateman describes having done in the making of Sheer Drop (1980), cannot in any meaningful way be considered an homage to the great American abstract expressionist painter, whose aim was to abolish the conventions of three-dimensional space and embrace, instead, the physical facts of paint on canvas. Such illusionism would have been an abomination to Still. It made me sad and mad to see museum-goers lapping up this pretentious silliness.”
It would be hard for me to respond without actually seeing and reading how the McMichael exhibit was framed and packaged. For the exhibit at CVAG, I will not be writing a curatorial introduction. I will not be presenting or packaging the show as Bateman grappling with any contemporary or philosophical themes of the 20th or 21st century. I will not be comparing his works to those of any Modern painters. It is not the intent of this show to over-intellectualize or inject art philosophy into wildlife illustration. We have some shows later this year for art philosophy and academic contemplation.
The exhibit is being simply presented as a collection of his paintings, for enjoyment by our entire community. CVAG cannot please everyone all the time, but we can do our best to balance what we have to work with.
I am sincerely glad that you have questioned the programming of this exhibit and hope that my response has addressed some of your concerns. As always, I welcome your feedback.
Sincerely,
Anh Le
CVAG Curator/Director
Meg Cursons's riposte, January 9, 2011
Meg Cursons This crosses all the arts sectors: economics and the balance between the mundane and the mainstream and the radical or avante garde. In our music festivals, galleries, theatre, publications etc. We must shatter the illusion that the arts in our community are 'publicly funded'. We are supported a bit, somewhat subsidized but a more appropriate description for many might be 'fed just enough fight through the throws of death'.. As public arts organization we are 'expected' to reach broad audiences. Not just cultural elites (whatever that actually means). This doesn't mean were funded to do it. It just means that those are the dues we pay to remain 'in the commons' - an economic, social and cultural playing field I like to try and preserve and protect and contribute to... In fact, we are expected as arts organization to engage in merchandizing and other 'earned revenues' (beer gardens, raffles, prints and CD's) in order to maintain even moderate public funding support. And this is often expected at a level that matches public dollars...or those dollars are pulled. 50% is a standard project funding award. Where do we get the other 50% from? Anarchists are shitty fundrasiers...fun friends, but shitty fundrasiers Unless the brilliant, alt minded, radical thinkers out there are ready to step up and support the arts with their own $$, political lobbying and active board contributions we have to be willing to work to the great unwashed, provide them with the familiar, and use the benefits of their 'comfort food' to fund our collective adventures... ....or surrender our venues and events...its a tough one....and a great conversation. Thanks Brett for agitating and for Anh for responding! |
Ron Taylor's response: January 9, 2011
Ron Taylor A great discussion here...I think Anh and Meg have been very articulate in outlining the roots of the issue. |
Posts
