Sunday, January 28

[gottawonder]

Today I am grateful for:

More beautiful weather for this time of year. I think the combination of warmer weather/more humidity/ longer days has led to some spectacular sun sets.

I talked with Sister E for a while, and told her about my Sweetie being in Ottawa. Somewhere in her own thoughts, she's wondering why SHE doesn't pop off to Ottawa to look at museums some weekend; she totally could.

I could too, but the animals do tend to keep one at home.

I went to see River, and the Sunday rider was there pretty much at the exact time I showed up, and that very rarely happens. It was nice, because we chatted the whole time, and neither one of us was in a rush to go anywhere, so it was very social.

It was also nice to have her and her horse in the arena at the same time. The chatting made me less "laser focused". River ended up doing better because I was likely less critical today, and the overall tone was more relaxed than usual, and I'm glad it was. We need days here and there where we change the pace and have more fun.

We still did our work, but the mood was better.

I came home and a couple of hours later my Sweetie got home. I tried to talk him into taking tomorrow off from work, but he is adamant that he should go. I don't know, he didn't even get to sleep until about midnight, you'd think that he could even just go to work for half a day tomorrow or something.

He brought me back a nice calendar and an art book from the National Art Gallery about their permanent collection.

Today I tried to learn something about Papua New Guinea.

People migrated there about 45,000 years ago, when the island was part of Australia when ocean levels were lower. When they raised, the island was cut off from the mainland.

It is the Eastern half of the Island of New Guinea, and a lot of small islands.

Japan fought the Allies on Papua New Guinea during WWII, mainly because Port Moresby was tactically important (Port Moresby is the largest city, and considered quite dangerous).

Currently it is a "Commonwealth Realm" (I guess they don't call them colonies anymore?) with Charles III as it's head of state, though it also has a Governor and an elected Prime Minister.

It is the most populated region of Oceania, though the population is not known for certain, it is estimated to be around 11 million.

Their currency is the Kina, named for a shell once used as trade.

There are over 800 languages in this area, and people communicate with a type of pidgin English.

Some regions are still very traditional, and live mainly by subsistence farming and fishing. Some ancient practices like black magic and cannibalism are still present.

Yams are the most important crop.

It is ranked one of the worst places in the world for treatment of women, rife with rape and abuse. There is also no protection at all for LGBTQ communities.

There are multi-cultural groups; mainly Chinese and African.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea

Comments

[ratunderpaper]

There's a big Keith Haring exhibition at the AGO here, and we used to have a family pass... but it expired during the pandemic.
I don't love Keith Haring's work at all, but he's culturally important, and I don't feel like missing everything because "I just didn't get a chance to go".


They grow coffee beans in Papua, New Guinea as well! I had to draw maps for a coffee label a few years ago.

[gottawonder]

Yeah, Keith Haring leaves me cold, but there is no denying the influence his work has had on modern graphic art. I mean, it almost looks like the kind of figures used on signage, but I remember too all of the original "clip art" all kind of looked like his figures. That style has now embedded itself in all kinds of places.

I kind of like the perfect spacing of his denser works, but it doesn't make me feel anything.

My problem is with Basquiat. Everyone LOVES his work, but to me, it's that kind of thing where there is this "deep meaning" behind it, but I can't see it in the work itself.

If his work were just a paragraph about the meaning, I tend to agree with the idea. Then I look at the work, and it's just this ugly mess. I sure wouldn't want it where I had to look at it every day.

I guess I would still go see his work if it were in the local gallery, just to give it a try.

I did finally care a bit more about Rothko after I considered that once again, his works might feel different if you were in a room with them. I quite like some of them just purely from the colors used.

[ratunderpaper]

Agree, Haring.
Agree, Basquiat. I can see why Andy Warhol wanted to associate with both; they were marketable and sensational in a streetwise way that seemed to be important at the time.

I've been in a room with a Rothko, and though some people don't get the point, I like it; it's an experience. When I started rescuing the doll house gallery, I imagined it with prints of the last Rothkos in it.

(I'm having difficulty attaching the doors, but it will be done.)

I've decided that all the artwork in that doll house gallery will be original and not sweet. The concept of a doll house gallery is sweet enough; I'd like this to be a surprise, with serious paintings inside.

Even though I painted the interior, it's still chipped, nasty and rough. I'm not going to make it charming, but I will make it neat - a nice backdrop.

[gottawonder]

I very much like the idea of a doll house that is not sweet.

If one were to start fresh, it might be fun to make one in the image of something like Freida's Blue House, or Van Gogh's Yellow House, or perhaps Maud Lewis's lovely home (though that is fairly sweet).

I have somewhere, gift wrapping paper done in Morris patterns, and if you had anything similar to that, it would make lovely wall paper for your wee housie.

Or use fabric on the walls? Or create a Chinoiserie on heavy paper?

Or cut outs from sacrificial decorating magazines?

I too, understand how certain artists were "of the moment" and somehow culturally relevant, since that's why most artists become important, but a lot of the modern ones are just not good artists, and there seems to be little connection between what they say their art is about, and what you get from looking at it.

I like being able to look at art, and see the connection between the little sales pitch on the wall and the work itself.

[ratunderpaper]

I've got real wallpaper samples from Farrow and Ball and can use these. Or, I can paint over the wallpaper. I would like the miniature paintings to be the real focus of the house. I have a few tiny semi-abstracts that I look forward to framing. I'm also going to sew some prints into miniature books that will be stacked on tables. I hadn't thought of sculpture until now, but a room of miniature sculptures would be a good idea!

I'm amazed that Bridget Riley, the queen of op-art, is still alive... and Yayoi Kusama.
What do you think of Yoshitomo Nara - quite the pop star in Japan, but I very much like most of his works.

[gottawonder]

I looked up Yoshitomo, and I'm not sure it's for me, but it is an interesting take on little girls, in that they don't look to be "sweet", which is fun. They look like they're all nursing a good grudge and plotting revenge.

I really do like Yayoi Kusama, and her works often encompass entire rooms which is just so immersive.

[ratunderpaper]

I don't like all of his work, but some of the dog stuff (the pup cup is over 7' tall) is great fun.

I suppose I don't like the body of work of any living artist - David Hockney, Luke Edward Hall, Yoshitomo Nara - and heaven help me, I never got into Norval Morrisseau.

When I was a kid, I was unimpressed by the Group of Seven, but admired Glen Loates and Ken Danby because they were REALISTS.

I still like a lot of Ken Danby serigraphs. A shame he died so young.

[gottawonder]

I don't know that it's really possible to love everything an artist has done, they all go through stages, and not everything is going to be their best work.

Morrisseau is interesting, but again, whether or not it's something you relate to is a different story. I really like Alex Janvier (I find the colors and sinuous shapes mesmerizing), but it's not always easy to see what the painting is about, without some kind of explanation. To me, the most important thing about their art is simply to have their views given a place among other Canadian artists, and given the same consideration.

I actually AM impressed by the Group of Seven, though I thought it was weird that they were basically a hand picked "boy band" meant to promote Canada in the international art community as having our own real culture.

I like some Ken Danby. I'm not big into hockey, but can appreciate the realism. I like his landscapes, and there's one painting of a guy in a yellow poncho in the rain with a cigarette that I love. A print of that painting has always hung in my sister's house (her husband's influence) and when I was a kid, that was more "actual art" than I'd ever seen before (prairie homes tended not to be too sophisticated art-wise, lots of prints of "Blue Boy" and prints of grain elevators).

I still love it on it's own merit, mainly for the sneering expression on the subject's face, and the realism of all the rain droplets.

| didn't see much art as a kid, other than local artists (grain elevators, mostly) and lots and lots of "prairie art", Ducks Unlimited type stuff, horses and wagons and so on. Those are great, but left me unprepared for anything challenging. Sure, books had images of things like portraits of queens and such, but other than being "nice", not that challenging either.

I did always like art as a kid, and I started feeling like I could go to art galleries after I was a janitor in one for several years (it was a "community building" that had the art gallery and the public library, a pottery studio in the basement, some guys who hung out in the basement all night and painted, and so on). It was in Brandon, Manitoba in the '90's, and at that time it was actually run by a very good, connected art director who was somehow able to bring in galleries that were really more than he should have been able to attract (it's really gone down hill since then).

As the janitor, and a weirdo with night owl syndrome, I would just go sit in the art gallery at night by myself, and got to see work by Robert Bateman, incredible pottery, calligraphy, one woman who did glass cast sculpture with duck feet that I forget her name but she's well-known, Joe Fafard, on and on. The galleries changed fairly often.

I had a few conversations with one of the directors.

[ratunderpaper]

In grade 6, I could not understand the point of the Group of Seven. Even though I drew all the time, I had little to no art education. I knew that praise was offered if one could draw well, i.e. realistically, representationally, and it took many years to shake that early notion.

I'm impressed by Yayoi Kusama because she's not timid. None of the forerunners, the originals, are/were timid. But - and it's a big but - you don't have an easy life if you aren't timid. Timidity is what makes an artist an illustrator - not all of them, to be sure, but you get the point. Illustration answers questions for its viewers, and art asks questions of its viewers.


I saw the original "Poncho" at a library in Don Mills, not too long after seeing the Group of Seven stuff. Ken Danby was selling his first book there. I decided to draw without concerning myself with abstractions if they were not coming easily to me.

So -we're late with education, but at least education is ongoing.

[gottawonder]

I'm okay with learning art on my own, probably a less biased way to learn (though as an adult I would still enjoy an art history class if it were rigorous and allowed lots of opinions).

Kusama IS very bold, and I know that all of the dots come from compulsion and anciety, and that she has lived most of her life in a type of mental health facility.

I know we aren't supposed to feed the "tortured artist" trope, and lots of very good work has come from fairly stable people, but the really amazing, odd stuff comes from those with some issues.

Do you just find the work of the Group of Seven to be boring, or just the commercial aspect of them to be strange?

[ratunderpaper]

Neither - I like the Group of Seven, but I didn't have the sophistication to understand why they were important back when I was eleven.

The sous chef says that in teachers' college, they are told that the Group of Seven is part of the patriarchal and white privileged society, and should not be given much importance when teaching about art. Can you hear my eyes rolling?

[gottawonder]

There's all kinds of things that I didn't appreciate when I was a kid. Art only being one of them.

I can appreciate how the Group of Seven is indeed a colonial construct, meant to solidify the idea of a new nation. I see it for the propaganda that it was. I still like it. Love some of it.

I don't know that the individual painters really cared about all of that, I feel like they were painting their own vision, and if labeling it got them a good gig/exposure, then fine. I feel that Emily Carr, most of all, kind of called it what it was, given her inclusion of West Coast people's culture.

I think they WERE important, as they figure quite large in our own vision of ourselves, they were all quite modern painters at the time, and they were showing the world that Canada wasn't some backwater country with no culture.

I don't see any reason to cancel them, instead, they should just provide the information about the movement, talk about how our vision of Canada is broader now, and carry on.

Canceling them for what they were at the time would be like cancelling all the art from Rome because they were bully conquerors, or all of the Dutch art for the same reason, or refusing to show anything Viking in nature.

There has been a lot of great art produced under the umbrellas of conquest, by people who were not angels at all, in times of conflicting moral values.

If they haven't cancelled Picasso or Diego Rivera for how they treated women, or Audobon for owning slaves and being a white supremacist (https://www.audubon.org/news/the-myth-john-james-audubon#:~:text=The%20National%20Audubon%20Society's%20namesake,to%20bring%20to%20the%20fore.) and on and on, then maybe we can accept the Group of Seven for what they were.

[ratunderpaper]

I'm not going to say that everyone should be able to separate the artist from their work, but most of the time I can. I don't look the other way in the art gallery when I see a painting by Gauguin, Picasso, et cetera. It's a great big movement now to erase everything that has colonial underpinnings - very wrongheaded.

I hear that Lawren Harris was a bit of a doink. (Jane Urquhart's The Underpainter was supposedly written about him.) I do think about him more than I do the others in the Group of Seven, as there's a street in the Distillery named after him. The book is very good, by the way. Highly recommend.

[gottawonder]

It's funny, because I am more than willing to cancel modern artists. I loved Louis C. K., but I am fine with him never having a career again. I think Cosby should have been hung. I wouldn't matter to me if their art were material instead of ephemeral.

If Picasso were alive today, I would be okay with him being cancelled.

So, is it just okay because those artists are dead that we can separate the artist from their art?

I agree that with the right treatment, "problematic art" should still be displayed, but it's a strange territory. I mean, I wouldn't want to buy certain art portraying, say, an early American slave market or slaves harvesting cotton. I'm not sure how it should be handled. It still tells a story though, and oddly enough we're all okay with ancient art that portrays slavery.

I mean, somehow it's fine to buy a picture about something like slaves building the pyramids, or the slaves belonging to the ancient Celts, because it was just longer ago? Heck, lots of the art in cathedrals involves slaves, such as those who left with Moses.

No idea what should be done, but I don't think getting rid of it is the answer either. Maybe it can be removed from public spaces and buildings, because maybe it sends the wrong message to have some giant image of a famous slave owner right in the middle of your town, or being the name of your school (and you're a descendant, perhaps).

I am not in the position of being a member of an historically enslaved/oppressed nation who has to be reminded every day that the white guys won, and that maybe not being so very long ago. They do deserve to not continue to have these oppressors looking at them everywhere they go, or to have these figures lauded.

So, maybe mostly remove truly offensive works, store them all somewhere, maybe have a "Museum of Real Jerks" to educate the public?

I still wouldn't feel that the works of something like the Group of Seven to be that offensive, I mean, they painted mainly landscapes, though admittedly with the notion of it being "our nation of Canada".

BUT, it's not at all in the same category as all of the "Birth of a Nation" type art portraying the gracious estate with it's sweeping lawns full of slaves that were just part of the bounty of the new world.

[ratunderpaper]

There are times when I resent a body of non-elite judgment making decisions that have cultural impact. Yet when the decision involves a criminal act, I think differently - i.e. Bill Cosby, Mike Tyson. (As an aside, there are many men who support Mike Tyson and canonize him in spite of his rape conviction.)

If someone doesn't like Keith Haring's art specifically because they cannot accept his sexuality, does it also apply to Tchaikovsky, Schubert, DaVinci, and people whose orientation is indeterminate or speculated? (I suppose that would be Schubert.)

I wouldn't want someone deciding to pull Woody Allen films from circulation because some believe him to be guilty of a criminal act he has denied.

The Group of Seven happened to be a wealthy lot. But does it shift the value of their artistic work?

There are people who resent child music prodigies because they have the privilege of attentive parents and/or affluence. Does this make prodigies less gifted?

[gottawonder]

Right? All are interesting considerations.

There are some people that I give a hard "no" to, others that are kind of grey, many that just annoy me and that's fine, I don't need to cancel them, just not interested.

I'm sure there are also lots of people who would cancel (or do in terms of their own interest) an artist who is LGBTQ or atheist, or used drugs (sometimes this one bothers me because of the influence some artists have), or whatever.

[ratunderpaper]

That's the thing - I can think of any number of people who might feel qualified to judge the public viewing of art, but I am not always likely to agree. And if I don't agree, I'm liable to think the judgmental types are lacking in solid judgment.

I've met people who think the Freedumb Clownvoy folks were just peachy, and from the sledgehammer "humour" I am using, you can tell that I wouldn't want these people making decisions involving health, art, culture, or just about anything. (They still squawk mightily about being told to wear a square of cloth across their faces to protect others, thus disabling their "freedom". Oh dear, I'm on a roll.)

One day I drew a caricature of Brett Kavanaugh dressed up like Pinocchio, with the caption "It's not like it's his first lie". (This was in reference to his part in overturning Roe v. Wade while referencing the case dealing with the accusation of sexual assault against him.) But someone who always wishes to disagree with my so-called "leftie" principles (they are not), claimed that they didn't "get" my drawing. I do not believe this at all!

[gottawonder]

Art should be treated like a court jester; free to say whatever needs to be said.

Without that voice, you don't have anyone to call out the emperor's new clothing, so to speak.

Not just in politics, but art as a reflection of life. It's meant to speak of feelings, ideas, experiences, moments in time.

Again, I don't know what to say about art that maybe depicted torture, violence, or something like that. There always seem to be limits.

Then, there is also some political art out there that is just hateful and misleading.

We rely on an educated viewer, but there aren't enough of those.

Then, whenever you get a regime change, like the Nazi's, they go out and burn whatever doesn't work for their ideology.

I shudder to think of what was lost, and has been lost in so many of these political events.

I imagine that the convoy folks would probably do the same thing, or at least cut funding to the arts in every area, since they likely value or understand any of it, are afraid of most of it, and we'd be stuck looking at nothing but Ducks Unlimited prints listening to modern country.

[ratunderpaper]

The Moral Majority was never something with which I was aligned, but I've not felt the need to blast opinions on that. What was his name? Jerry Falwell? I found him odious, but I kept quiet if and when people of the religious right persuasion expressed their admiration for him and for his peculiar values.

Getting into arguments has never been a pastime. But creating pointed drawings with sharp edges always is. "I don't get what your point is, here," usually means that yes, they do - and they don't like that I have expressed it cleverly through art.

Remember Robert Mapplethorpe? His shock art was meant to do exactly that, and I think feather-ruffling was his specialty.

[gottawonder]

I have been argumentative from time to time about things like religion with peers when I was younger. That's what your 20's are for, is to fight everyone and figure out who you are as a result.

Once you have a better idea of what you believe and who you are, I think you are more likely to live authentically, knowing you aren't going to change too many other people's minds.

Mainly, I just try to be around people that I can tolerate, though that often means limited friendships that maybe don't go that deep.

I don't know what it would take to find friends that I can really let go of myself with, but I don't seem to find them anymore. I start being friends with people, and maybe they are NICE people, but man, most people are just so....precious.

There's another rider at the barn that I like just fine, but she has some kind of issue with normal human sexuality. As in would be terribly uncomfortable say, talking about sex in any way, shape or form. I've made TINY little jokes with the smallest amount of innuendo (dear me, we're adult women, here) and she squeals out in shock.

She's in her mid 30's and is a nice looking woman, but she might not ever even have had sex, she's so nervous about it. She claims to want to date, but then seems to have zero physical response to anyone.

So, that pretty much means it's going to be tough for her to be a friend I can be myself around, because well, I've been sleeping with my husband for 25 years and also had other relationships before that. I mean, sex is pretty normal in my life, not that I'm graphic about it. I joke about things a bit, that's about it, but I think it would damage her in some way if I were just to be my normal self.

I don't have any friends that are as BIG with my ideas and my comfort level with many things, and to be fair, I've spent a lot of time educating myself about art and culture and reading books and watching cool stuff on Youtube, and I've cultivated a big, hungry mind.

Does no one else do that?

Robert Mapplethorpe did some fantastic portraits. I think all he had to do to upset people at that time was to have images of LGBTQ people in his portfolio, and some of the same "scene" as Basquiat and Worhol, and that seemed pretty edgy and dangerous. There was S&M stuff too, I guess, and that is still not everyone's cup of tea.

I think that's fine, and people could just not look at it, right?

[ratunderpaper]

Even die-hard Libertarians have their freedom-squawks tied firmly to their own preferences. If you don't like something they do, they champion freedom. But if you stomp on their cherished beliefs (often of a moral nature that is inseparable from their chosen religion), then they will come after you to chop off your tail with a carving knife.

People are sometimes reluctant to discuss art with me because I make art as well as having somewhat of an education in it. Then there are those who wish to take the artist down a peg. They are the ones who like mall art because it's happy, and art is supposed to make people happy. Smiling and having the figurative syrup-coated trebuchet at the ready is a good plan.

[gottawonder]

I think everyone is defensive about their values. Me included. Some may not think that being an Atheist/Agnostic is a value, but the value is "freedom FROM religion" if one so wishes.

Same with being a vegetarian. I try not to preach, but I hate it when meat-eaters literally make it seem like people shouldn't even have the right NOT to eat meat. It's weird.

It took me a long time to feel any comfort or confidence at all to discuss art, and I am NOT an expert at all, just someone willing to give it a try. I think the vastness of it makes most people feel uncomfortable.

I totally understand why some people stick to "what they like", because really getting into the history, culture, politics, and so on is a big job and not something many people really care about that much. It's not really necessary, either.

What I don't like, is people who say that they ARE really into art, but they like just the most god-awful garbage like Thomas Kinkaide and make it like that makes them qualified to judge everything else to be substandard.

I get what you're saying about wanting to take artists down a peg; it's easy to be a critic, tough to actually try to do it yourself. I think people feel threatened by artists of every kind, and think that all artists are just "snobs".

I know I used to feel like the whole art world was snobby and inaccessible, and it kind of is. You just have to forge ahead yourself and there is so much that a person can do now with the internet that you don't have to deal with the snobs if you don't want to.

I would say that the public art museums are not snobby at all. It's the galleries that sell stuff that are snobby.

[ratunderpaper]

Oh good grief, Thomas Kinkaide.

[gottawonder]

No kidding. I would be okay with him having a career making nice images for cards and calendars, but people take him so seriously!

[ratunderpaper]

He'd have to study for many years to unlearn that tripe he called art. Then, maybe greeting cards. Nothing wrong with greeting cards, Thomas.

[gottawonder]

I don't even know if HE felt like he was making "high art", people just like what he does.

I am FINE with people loving his work, as long as they understand that it is sentimental kitsch. It's fine to like kitsch, but then don't pretend to "know art".

I mean, nothing wrong with having a "velvet Elvis" painting, or one of those kitschy landscapes printed on cardboard that everyone had hanging over their sofa, or WHATEVER. We like what we like. It's just not the same as knowing anything about art in general.

I am partial to fan art featuring Jeff Goldblum, but I know what it is, and what it isn't.

This image is our current screen for our computer: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fhow-to-instantly-fix-any-thomas-kincaid-painting-v0-uvoe7mh73ena1.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D953a13c2106f6170c4725d5370228ac14f91372b


My husband found it for me because I rant about Thomas Kinkaide too much.