Seattle art has a Vancouver problem. The two cities are close:
Vancouver is only 136 miles away, just across the Canadian border.
They’re comparable in size. But Vancouver art is better. “Better” in
this case means (a) Vancouver art is connected to the larger world, and
therefore to universes of issues, peculiarities, styles, and ideas that
serve the artists as well as the audiences, and (b) Vancouver art is
connected to its own art history.
Vancouver: If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.
That’s the kind of city it is, according to Seattle curator Eric
Fredericksen. He’s right: While Seattle artists often find themselves
trapped inside the city—or move away, to Chicago or New York or
L.A., in order to expand—Vancouver artists have both local and
international careers. Paradoxically, this expansiveness is fueled by
self-reflection: Vancouver art is known to itself. In Seattle, nothing
seems to stick, but over the last half-century, Vancouver art has
consciously developed and stretched its own art history—in
landmark exhibitions and great public debates, in writing and teaching
by artists. During that same time, Seattle art has been marked by
fascinating experiments followed by wholesale forgettings, ultimately
forming a sequence of events with as many losses as gains.
For instance, how has Seattle art built on the legacy of 1969, when
Lucy Lippard filled the whole city—starting with Seattle Art
Museum and moving outward—with the unbelievably experimental
conceptual-art exhibition 557,087 (titled after the population
of the city at the time and including artists whose names in the
intervening years have become hallowed internationally: John
Baldessari, Eva Hesse, Vito Acconci, Dan Graham, Sol LeWitt, Daniel
Buren, Walter De Maria, and Adrian Piper, just to name a few)? How has
Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Park, on a formerly oil-soaked
site, followed up on the way King County led the national discussion
about earthworks and abused environments in a 1979 symposium with eight
artists, which culminated in major commissions out in Kent and SeaTac
(by Herbert Bayer and Robert Morris, respectively) now barely
acknowledged? There’s also an entire buried history of experimental
performance art that raged through 1970s Seattle—a history that
seems unknown to contemporary Seattle performance-based artists such as
SuttonBeresCuller, Greg Lundgren, PDL, Wynne Greenwood, and Anne
Mathern, probably because it was barely documented, let alone passed
down in art schools, museums, and artist-run galleries.
Seattle has been a great art town at various points in its history.
But today, the city’s art scene has no such signature. No signature at
all, even—except “pluralism,” that horribly genericizing umbrella
that encouraged the complacency of every so-so art scene in the country
through the late ’90s and early ’00s. (Aside! Believing that humans
should have equal rights does not equate to believing that works of art
are created equal: In art and culture, unlike in class matters, elitism
is merit based.)
Today, Seattle artists seldom show abroad, and when they do, they
are noted only for their anonymity. Reviewing a Philadelphia group show
in the New York Times last month, Roberta Smith named local star
Jeffry Mitchell one of a handful of “artists with little art-world
profile” (why don’t you lend him some, Roberta?).
“So, have you guys heard of Jeffry Mitchell?” I asked
Kathleen Ritter and Daina Augaitis last week in Vancouver. The three of
us were sitting high on a set of salvaged-wood bleachers built by the
father-sons artist collective Cedric, Nathan, and Jim Bomford. The
Bomfords are included in the exhibition How Soon Is Now, a group
show of new art from British Columbia at Vancouver’s art museum,
Vancouver Art Gallery, curated by Ritter. Augaitis is the chief curator
at the museum.
No, they hadn’t heard of Jeffry Mitchell.
Meanwhile, the leading lights of Seattle curating (and attentive
Seattle audiences) all know these names: Tim Lee, Mark Soo, Kevin
Schmidt, Hadley + Maxwell, Isabelle Pauwels, and Gareth Moore. These
are some of Vancouver’s young(ish) artists, two of whom—Pauwels
and Moore—are on the six-person short list of the Henry Art
Gallery’s new $12,500 Brink award, along with two Seattle artists and
two from Portland. The winner of the award will be announced April 17.
Whoever wins, by crossing the border the Henry is implicitly
encouraging Seattle to compete on a higher level, to step up its
game.
The Henry should step up its game by exhibiting all six short
listers rather than just the winner, while the Seattle, Tacoma, and
Portland art museums should all start reconceptualizing the meaning of
“regional,” like the Henry is doing, and quick. (The “inclusion” of
such places as Idaho and Montana in Tacoma Art Museum’s biennial, for
instance, reflects a fake constituency and has fake results. Art is now
and has always been a city game. The art “region” is along or connected
to the I-5 corridor, and in most ways, Seattle has more in common with
Los Angeles than Spokane. Also, while 30 Montana and Idaho artists
applied to this year’s TAM biennial, zero made it in. This makes no
sense. And it helps to explain why TAM’s biennial this year, as in the
past, also makes no sense and provides few advantages for the artists
or the audience.)
It’s not that Vancouver is a romantic place full of geniuses,
although it does have a crush of world-famous artists led by early
photo-conceptualists Ian Wallace, Ken Lum, Jeff Wall, and Rodney
Graham. But the success of today’s developing Vancouver artists is not
their links to those guys. It’s that they are
connected in all
directions—to other times as well as other places (especially
European centers; Vancouver, the only major West Coast city, is
Canada’s Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, and L.A. all in
one)—while Seattle artists float. The fact that Vancouver does
not have a strong commercial art market has endowed the city with more
experimental art (as has a vigorously federally funded
artist-run-center program that puts artists in the roles of presenters
as well as creators). It’s rare for a Vancouver up-and-comer not to be
represented by a gallery in, say, Berlin, or Rotterdam, or London, or
Munich, which means the artists spend time in cultures not their
own.
“Being an artist in Vancouver kind of pushes you into realizing that
there’s a larger world,” Vancouver curator Augaitis said. “When we were
doing studio visits for the Baja to Vancouver show”—it
surveyed art up and down the West Coast of North America, showing at
Seattle Art Museum in 2003—”the artists here were just so much
more articulate. They had not only a knowledge of their history here,
but also of international practices.”
The observation she’s making about Seattle artists might be made of
Americans in general.
So what is contemporary art in Vancouver really like? One of its
marked features is a relationship with popular culture, especially
music and film. A highlight of How Soon Is Now at the VAG is a
Hadley + Maxwell installation that combines historical footage of the
Rolling Stones, figurative sculpture made by arranging recording-studio
equipment, and a geometric painting with a lightbulb that depicts the
rest of the installation in miniaturized abstract. The installation,
which changes its format every time it’s exhibited, is tight, funny,
clever, and improvisational. It quite rocks.
You might say Vancouver art is more fashionable than Seattle’s, and
this happens to be true right now because of the way the city’s
photo-conceptual tradition lines up with what Times critic Smith
calls art’s current “religion of Minimal-Conceptual-Relational art.”
The weakest works in How Soon Is Now do feel like trendy,
compulsory replays of classic moves from the conceptual-relational
line.
But plenty of other works are art-
historically informed and
also brilliantly topical, ranging in subject matter from poverty in
East Vancouver (Paul Wong) to a First Peoples heritage (Raymond
Boisjoly; other Vancouver artists not in this show, such as Brian
Jungen and Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun, also tackle tribal traditions
using very contemporary means), the invisibility of economics (Antonia
Hirsch), the death of a tame jaguar named Richard (Allison Hrabluik),
trusting your senses even inside a museum (Mark Soo), and the
difference between the Democratic National Convention and Burning
Man/the problem of white men wearing Tupac shirts/whether art
historians are god (Dan Starling). Even when Seattle is the subject,
Vancouver artists are sometimes more on top of it than we are: In last
year’s survey of young Vancouver artists at the University of British
Columbia’s Belkin Gallery, one of the subjects, explored in photographs
by Alex Morrison, was the scene in the Vancouver streets as the
Hollywood film Battle in Seattle was being filmed. No Seattle
artists were on the scene—another case of its own history passing
Seattle by.
It’s true that Vancouver has a cooler relationship to materials than
Seattle (given Seattle’s craft history in ceramics), but there are
established exceptions, such as Liz Magor (who showed painted gypsum
sculptures recently at the Henry, and whose tutelage has influenced
generations of Vancouver artists). How Soon Is Now is not all
videos, photos, and clever conceptual setups. There are figurative
expressionists, too: The standout is Luanne Martineau, whose dangling,
twisted, and severed body parts of yarn and wool are part Francis
Bacon, part Philip Guston, and part ’60s handbag.
Another Vancouverism evident in How Soon Is Now is the warm
relationship between museum and artists. Artists known for, say,
abstraction or photography experiment with text or sound in the museum
show, obviously feeling free. The museum is unfazed by permeatingly
loud sounds, piles of dirt that have to be moved every few weeks, and
elaborate constructions that break through walls—and a giant flag
by an artist (a late-night-TV test pattern by Aaron Carpenter titled
Good Night) flies on the flagpole out front. The art generally
behaves as if it’s at home.
In Seattle, museums seem to grant legitimacy to local artists
grudgingly. At the VAG, Vancouver artists have a vital place: Upstairs
from How Soon Is Now, contemporary local artists are mixed
naturally into a show of canonic abstract art. One great moment has two
gargantuan painted black circles, a 2009 work by Neil Campbell, staring
down a violet disc by Robert Irwin, one of the holiest relics in
postwar American art. And conversely, when the museum presents a
touring exhibition—like WACK! Art and the Feminist
Revolution last year—the city’s artists, art lovers, and
other art institutions rally together to create a sustained focus on a
series of issues. (The VAG also added ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s Vancouver
feminists to its installation of WACK!)
We—I include myself—have work to do. I am not quite sure
what it is, but I think it starts here.
Coming from Minneapolis and seeing the lack of diversity amongst galleries large and small, there is seemingly no doubt that art is one of the lowest priorities to people around here. Disregarding the issue of craft and personal taste, there just isn’t even enough opportunity to put down roots and try to make it here. Though an artist has never been defined by the space they work in, a city full of boring Microsoft millionaires and further douches driving expensive cars for no other purpose than vanity, I have to ask the question. People of Seattle, can you justify your existence please?
Vancouver has qualities that Seattle will never have: it has by far the most temperate climate in the entire country; and it’s part of the British Commonwealth, with historical connections stretching from places like Hong Kong and Singapore to the European Union. There are also connections between the best working artists and their art schools, so art students have access to intelligent conversation and connections to quality exhibition spaces. If Seattle artists want the same kind of scene, they should move to Los Angeles.
It’s great that this article created a lot of conversation – it’s too bad the majority of it is negative. I guess that is human nature to gripe about how bad everything (and everybody) is but not think about ways to come up with some suggestions in how to make it better. I believe that was one of the main points of Jen’s article is how do we make it better here?
I know there is a budding movement of alternative art spaces to band together to start exploring this very idea. It’s called S3A. So far it’s in its infancy of cataloguing the spaces and feeding information into one spot at: http://www.s3a.us
The evolution of S3A is to further encourage communication between artists and art spaces and to bring more awareness of emerging local artists to the attention of the general public. I’m not saying this is the answer, but it’s a step in the right direction.
I loved the public art scene when I was in Seattle last year. The installations in the buildings along Broadway which were closed due to pending train construction were brilliant. I can’t imagine a Canadian city having the funds to commission site-specific art to brighten empty windows and enliven the streetscape.
The grass is always greener… The Vancouver Art Gallery has turned it’s back time & time again on local artists. Don’t let “How Soon Is Now” fool you. They put this show together to beat off the cries from local artists who were pissed off about none of their tax dollars supporting local arts. Vancouver artists will tell you that the reason they’ve gone international is because there is nothing happening here, and that most of our local artists are moving to Toronto or Montreal.
Seattle, hang in there. I’ve always found great art in Seattle, don’t belive the hype. The grass is not much greener up here. If anything it’s just astro turf.
Well it’s nice to know that someone likes Vancouver’s art scene. I feel like there’s always a grass is always greener feeling and so I think most Vancouverites are quite pessimistic about their art scene. Everyone wants to move to Portland! 🙂
Canadians are constantly trying to define who/what we are as a nation. Vancouver is constantly trying to define who/what it is within that nation. And once you think you know what you’ve got, something changes (internally or externally) and you’re forced to revisit. Maybe it’s just constantly asking questions and interpreting the answers you do/don’t get that make good art?
Also, lately, the new thing is to stop complaining about what we’re lacking in Vancouver and start contributing. Everyone’s got an opening, a show, a gig… It’s great. The more the merrier, right? I can’t think of a more vibrant time for “stuff” in this city.
Also, the parties/people are pretty great up here, despite what some sad-sacks are saying. The Emily Carr University Grad Show is in early May. I extend an invitation to our Seattle friends. Come look at some stuff a then we’ll go to an after party, shotgun beers, watch the sun rise.
Also, haters: Your Vancouver bashing is making me zzzzzZZZ. So boring. See 2nd paragraph.
Vancouver is full of great MUSICAL art. As far as “art” art is concerned, there is lots of it, but who’s to say if any of it is any good? Sure, Arthur Erickson comes from here, and his bulidings dot the landscape. He’s well-known and such, but he is an anomaly.
But what Vancouver does have are countless amazing bands. Because Vancouver’s bands are handcuffed to a certain extent by its geographical location and are unable to branch out to similar big cities without driving really long distances, Vancouver has developed a diverse and thriving music scene full of really creative bands that work together, more or less.
So could you please inform all the DJs and bartenders in Seattle that they are third-rate provincials competing to be decidedly second rate?
i know…it’s very easy to come in like a lion and think that just because someone says try this on for size… a brush, as in paint…. you can just step right up and see the show (about to) begin… and yes dear Jen your list IS ever and more so ever impressive because… look at all the names of people who create art…. it’s every where and when and why.
Personally speaking… It is so overwhelming that I think I’ll just stare at the wistful side line pictures of love lab because … well.. yeah your right… just get a digital camera and connect… right?
oh, what i mean to say is “create a profile ” and then “connect”.
A couple of comments.
First, the fact that an article about why Seattle doesn’t value its own artists and doesn’t actively foster a vibrant “art scene” is titled “The Vancouver Problem” is so very typically “Seattle-ish.” At least the article itself didn’t actually wallow too much in the “poor pitiful me why doesn’t the world recognize my greatness I’m gonna cut myself and mope until they do” esthetic so typical here. But it is kind of sad that a rather thoughtful article had to be sold with a “it’s them what’s doing it to us” title.
Secondly: to me the basic problem Seattle artists have—pros and poseurs alike—is that they are living in a city with a general populace that doesn’t really like Contemporary Art. And I’m not just talking about Mom and Pop Suburb, I’m also talking about the educated, the hip, the creative, the cool—those who should be paying attention to the visual arts in general and Contemporary Art in particular. Beyond the insular “art scene” (translate that as those who make, sell, and/or display visual art, along with their relatives, friends, and people they screw) the other creative types in Seattle just don’t give two cold shits about “Capital A” Visual Art. And to be honest, I’m not sure they necessarily should. Everybody doesn’t have to like or be good at everything, and this goes for cities just as much as it does people. In Seattle, music easily wins the poularity race, with literature and theatre fairly distant runners up (and film wheezing along just ahead of visual art, which is sitting by the side of the road with its hair in its face, absent-mindedly noodling with its iPod.).
And I don’t think that any amount of promotion or “support” from the museums and other established Art institutions or luminaries is going to be able to change that. You can’t shame people or cities into pretending they value something that they obviously do not.
With that said, if Seattle’s local artists can’t continue to make art just because it is “too haaaaarrrrd” to get people interested in it, then they don’t really have the calling anyway. If they’ll just get out there and fight the apathy with all they’ve got, they’ll end up making better art than they would if they were smothered in praise and support. But if that passion doesn’t exist—“they’re always hiring at the Post Office.”
“In Seattle, museums seem to grant legitimacy to local artists grudgingly.”
This is the key to the Seattle problem.
It’s important to know that the major institutions in Canada, like the VAG, the AGO, The Powerplant, Musee d’art Contemporain, etc. are fully committed to serving the artists that live in their cities, be it Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal. This involves risk on the part of museum directors and curators, since Canadian cities along with Seattle, have a cautious, conservative populace genuinely nervous about art and the spending of tax dollars. When these curators rise to the challenge and produce shows that embrace the artists that live around them, something remarkable happens. The city begins to see itself perhaps for the first time in a larger context.
The SAM, The Henry, The Frye, etc. need desperately to devote more thought and wall space to the work that’s being done now by the artists that live here. Otherwise they can expect their own relevance to diminish along with Seattle’s artist population.
I completely agree that not only does Vancouver have a more thriving Art scene, but they have a better quality of life. It’s very much an International city and shockingly so when compared to Seattle. Every time I go there or to Portland, I find myself wondering why I stay here? It’s not for the infiltration of obnoxious looking condos that ruined Capitol Hill. Replete with annoying yuppies who look at ME funny when I’ve lived on the Hill for 5 years. All of my Artist friends have since moved out due to the cost of living increase brought on by the condos. Culture or Condos Seattle? I think you have made your choice to blandify the city and make it a yuppie hell. Shit
Fascinating. Here in Canada, all artists do is bitch about how New York artists get all the attention.
The assumption here is that art is a commodity, whether in a commercial gallery, private collection, or publicly funded display. To sell a commodity, it helps to have a brand identity, which in this case is the artist’s personality or ego. The brand is extended by association to other products in the same line, such as invented “schools” and “scenes”. Critics, curators, gallerists, and administrators all get a piece of the action, and a few savvy artists with the stomach for this unsavory system can actually make a living from it.
Conspicuously absent from this discussion is street art, which seems to be thriving. Stencils, graffiti, paste-ups, and stickers are in-your-face, anonymous to those outside the artists’ inner circles, and free of commercial aspiration. They disrupt the stultifying order of an increasingly homogenizing culture.
The health of a creative community isn’t gauged by what’s on gallery walls. To really get its pulse, walk down an alley.
Jen Graves, as lazy and contrived as this article was you still could have saved your time by merely posing the question without bothering with the erratic and useless elaboration. The question, though ridiculous, did spawn some interesting and thoughtful comments by some of the posters here, who rightly identify the lack of legitimate art criticism as one of the problems in Seattle. Instead of lists (Top 25 Ever, e.g.) and dubious comparisons, how about you go out and do some legwork? Why is it you either manage to review no new local art or spend way too many inches on a single artist or show? I think everyone would be better served by a handful of short straightforward reviews each week rather than your usual belabored puff pieces. Susan Sontag you’re not. Take yourself out of the profound thinker box and start writing more like a sports reporter–you know, colorful and descriptive of the action. There are fans here and your role is to excite them about the local team and get them out to the ballpark. No need to explain the rules of the game.
Art for the sake of art is almost entirely dead in our society. People dont hear a good song or beautiful painting anymore, they see a potential hook to shill their product or make them feel cooler than their “friends”
The only ppl that can afford to care about art are the idol rich and the poor souls who sacrifice all else for their creativity
As a relative newcomer (3 years) who has lived in several international art cities, I’ll add my voice to this conversation.
Sadly, I have to agree with much of JG’s argument: if Seattle and Vancouver were left to brawl it out in front of an international audience, it is clear that Vancouver would win. Vancouver has built itself as an international art city; Seattle has built itself as a Pacific Northwest art city. [Sighing, heart sinking.] I disagree, though, with her estimation that this disparity between the two cities is largely due to a higher quality of art and artists up north.
I’ve written more on my blog..
For the record, whoever made the comment about the Seattle Arts Commission only giving $3,000 commissions better do his/her homework. Grants and commissioned projects range from $1,000 – over $100K, depending on the project. There are many funding areas and a dense and extensive public art funding program that pays artists a range of amounts for their labor. Do your homework!
It was refreshing to see an article that challenges Seattle’s often mediocre art seen head on. I have thought for years that the art around here is more like wallpaper than truly challenging art. Seattle does not like to be challenged visually. Things need to be pretty in order to get recognized artistically around here (which translates to sales by the Gallery Mafia known as as Kucera, Howard, Harris, etc.) who rely on the tame tastes of local art collectors. Where is the really interesting video art? Where are the truly complex and interesting installations? Performance art beyond half assed festivals? It is not here. Lawrimore does a relatively good job art bring some of this to a cool space, but I look at the roster of arts and it is generally the same bunch that was sucking up to the above mentioned gallery owners. Same wolf in different clothing.
A quick perusal of the comments above shows only two or three that address the overall number of urban centers in Canada versus the States; and none of these note the relative populations of the two nations. Although Vancouver is roughly the same size as Seattle, the population of Canada is only a third of the U.S.; however, there’s no reason to believe that the there are any fewer fine minds and gifted hands — that is, persons likely to be drawn to urban centers — there than in any other region or nation. And it’s important to consider (and I don’t know the numbers on this, so it’s merely speculation) that the overall ratio of rural to urban dwellers is tilted towards cities anyway. This means that despite similar numbers in a census, you’re going to see a higher density of artists/writers/philosophers/professors/generally culturally literate actors in what — although it is a city equal in hard-numbers population — is actually much larger relative to Canada’s overall population. Factor this by the enormous economic and mass-psychological role that Canada’s south-lying juggernaut plays on its collective sense of Self, and you’re going to see communities form that are both more strongly-bound and intentional, whether they acknowledge it or not. And the products of such a community start to look pretty quickly like quality. But it strikes me that trying to gauge any kind of formal comparison on the merits of the two cities’ art, or any comparison whatsoever that is not strictly anthropological, is like arguing over the true nature of Blue — does the sky possess it, or is it the sea? — and detracts from more salient and productive discussions/
Seattle has awesome art alot of its underground (meaning these are new artists), you all should check it out because they are out there. I know several artists and they have some of the most awesome art that is out there right now. We might not have the best city sculptures, but Seattle is awesome and Vancover is boaring and drab all of there buildings look the same. At least you can take a photograph of Seattle and it doesnt matter weither its a throw away camera or some pricey high powerered lense it just seems to always look amazing. I love Seattle and we should all be creating more art to contribute!
Vancouver: if you make it there you can make it anywhere? Please, That only applies to NY. I was raised in Vancouver moved away a few years ago but go back 4 to 6 times a year (my mom lives there). Though Vancouver has picked up the pace with culture and art it is still way far behind considering it is a cosmoplitan city. Hurry up!!!
Have you guys checked out your Pacific Northwest Ballet? Come on! It is within the top ten ballet companies in the world today – with offshoots, like Whim W’him. Seattle is bathing in world class dance, schools and theatres. Vancouver is middling to none in this department.
Google Ballet BC’s 09/10 season to see the support it had. Do you think that would happen in Seattle? NO WAY, and it shouldn’t, because they are amazing artists. And, Vancouver Opera has severely over-projected it’s earnings and corporate donations this year, now laying people off left and right.
Vancouver’s art scene is as fickle and overinflated as it’s real-estate. I don’t even think Vancouver can actually say it boasts an arts scene. All that “fosters the collaborative blah blah blah” – grantspeak, grantspeak grantspeak just leads to a full class at Emily Carr for the artistically hopeful.
Vancouver is the greatest art town in the world. I think photo-concpetualismm or the so-called “Vancouver School” is the best thing since sliced bread…lol.
For an indepth and no-bullshit article about art and the Vancouver School, read my article called “Why Nobody wants a new Vancouver Art Gallery or gives a ratsass about photo-conceptualism.”
http://www.joecanuck.net/#!statements
happy holidays and world peace
Joe Canuck
http://www.joecanuck.net