Something about this recent article by Sky Goodden responding to some other article by Brad Phillips is making me want to respond. This is surprising since in many ways I have stopped caring about circular conversations, but for ol’ time’s sakes, let’s see what happens:
As a summary, Goodden responds with an impassioned and obvious rebuttal to Phillip’s essay about the lack of important artists in Canada, a text I would have never read otherwise. My reasoning behind this is that I don’t care about this topic that promotes the flawed idea of nationhood and the self-congratulatory shroud of international success. I also don’t find Phillips’ voice to be a voice I want to hear. It is a simple enough reason, and after reading his essay, my reasoning remains to be true. I prefer reading voices that have something unique to say, that are researched and processed beyond their immediate social circle. I am not familiar enough with Goodden’s writing to say either way where she falls, but in contrast to Phillips, she is the stronger writer in tone and logic. While Goodden’s article rectifies the gender gap in Phillip’s poorly constructed essay, my concern is that this fiery reproach gives the original text too much credit. This isn’t necessarily even a debate, as one writer did a poor job and another writer is calling him out. This is all good and part of the dream about having healthy criticism; but this is the part that I actually feel compelled to respond to: that this ongoing “crisis” in Canadian art and the state of criticism is being fanned without ever talking about the root issues.
To be clear, this is not a crisis. It’s barely a problem. The real issues I find problematic is the unchallenged notion of “Canadian” art. What is that again? Group of Seven paintings? Photoconceptual exploitations? Settler colonial postcards? I already miss Richard William Hill’s “Close Readings” column in the now defunct FUSE Magazine. Identifying a lack of critical art reviews on Indigenous exhibitions, he chose to articulate close readings of exhibitions through a lens that both challenges any notions of “Indigenous aesthetics” and “Canadian art” by expanding the ever limiting parameter of the exhibition review format. These were smart reviews, partly because they opened up the ways we can see and talk about art and the world, which is what criticism should do, if it should do anything. I am tired of reading criticism about criticism that does not connect back to the socio-political context of what it means to manufacture art and writing today.
Goodden and Phillips also talk in their own ways about the differences between Vancouver and Toronto, which are many, but the main difference I would wager is that Toronto can actually support a freelance arts writer while Vancouver cannot. The unfortunate part of this situation is that Vancouver actually has the far more critical scene of the two, one that can be suffocating at times in its unsaid rules of rigour on how to perpetuate the legacy. I have disclosed before that when I first arrived in Vancouver, I was whispered a warning, that I should be careful who I write about and what I say. This is still funny to recount, because it’s still true. That doesn’t mean you can’t do or say what you want there, you of course can, but this just means you may never be included in the old boys club that determines who rises and who doesn’t. It’s a sick system and I grew tired of the games. Still, I don’t think Goodden gives a reasonable assessment of Vancouver as lacking critical circles, as she visited in August when most galleries are closed. Vancouver has nothing but critical circles, and not all of them are open to visitors. I also don’t see an endgame in comparing these two places, because ultimately, it’s a lateral conversation.
If we are to really ask the simple-minded question of why there are not enough important artists in Canada, we should begin by asking who and how determines an artist’s importance in this place we call Canada.
Also, I feel I am just going to tattoo this across my face because I’m tired of writing it down, but the real issue isn’t the lack of quality criticism; the real issue we need to structurally address is the ongoing lack of living wages for writers. Full stop.