In the course of preparing this show there were countless occasions when,
to satisfy someone's curiosity, I had to run through the names of the eight
artists in it. What never ceased to surprise me, as I listed the European
artists, was that the majority of my peers had never head of Poliakoff, Van
Velde or Vieira da Silva. The name Hartung usually brought a glimmer of
recognition, but rarely more than that.
...
The invisibility and ignorance is of course the result of the long-standing
critical consensus in New York that nothing of much value was done by European
abstract painters in the 40s and 50s. And that in turn was the result of
the successful promotion of Abstract Expressionism as infinitely superior
to anything being done in Europe at the same time.
ABM: So, in Canada, we copied the Old World paradigm of the largely
British model for our art museums. We began to collect, preserve, display
and educate as they did in Britain (which is a thesis in itself). This explains
the NGC and to some degree the MMFA. The explosive growth of the outposts,
the satellite museums in sundry parts of the country, were the result of
1967 Centennial fever and loose government spending. And with this growth
of art museums in Canada came the "professional curator" who picked
up the banner of "more cultural objects equals a greater civilization"....
you're right this is a huge question and sweeping generalizations only beg
more questions.
However, you suggest that with the rise of the professional curator, came
the beginning of the end of the 4-cornered old paradigm (collect, preserve,
display, educate). The curators have, over the last few years, actually
undermined the foundation of the museum -- and this foundation was the unquestioned
value of history. History has become such a confusing place given the "revisionist"
wave -- i.e.. looking at history through the eyes of the feminist, the Marxist,
the socialist, the suppressed minority, etc. Many histories exist simultaneously.
OK, I think I understand this. It is a shocking change, the neglect of history.
Can we describe the new paradigm as curator-centred as opposed to object-centred?
How has the withdrawal of significant government financial support for Canadian
cultural institutions affected this new paradigm?
And I'm going to ask you one more question. What is in store for the outpost
Canadian art museum over the next 5 years?
IH: The old paradigm may have been British in tone, but it is also
important to note our envy of the American model ... the vulgarity of new
money laundered by the purchase of master works and then channeled into
marquee promotion. This is not to say that European museums are not beyond
promotion, but the tone is different. I recall an exhibition at the Basel
Kunsthalle 20 years ago which "threw together" a dizzying proposition
of historical, modern and contemporary ... artists' flying machines by Da
Vinci, Tatlin and Panamarenko. Such an exhibition is not possible in the
thin cultural soil of the New World, especially if that soil is transplanted
from the Old World.
To continue, the American envy hangs on as the old paradigm wears the mantle
- or climbs into bed - with the new paradigm. The recognition and promotion
of "many simultaneous histories" is an important and critical
distinction ... but it cannot constitute the only model, lest we suffer
a
rhetoric of the month. This is my Old World conservatism coming to the surface.
Another consciousness-raising experience (damn those experiences!), driving
(as a passenger), from Paris to Prague. This was my first real overland
experience in Europe. Staring out the window at 180kph, I asked the driver
(a German architect), in a moment of dumb struck fatigue, why the landscape
looked so different than that of North America. His answer was simple and
to the point, "because the land has been cultivated for a thousand
years." Of course. It doesn't make it better (necessarily), but different.
This may be an answer about my "neglect of history" comment. It
is impossible to neglect history in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa,
Russia. You have to deal with it, even if it is abused and revised.
So you suggest that the new paradigm is curator-centred as opposed to object-centred?
Of course!!! The new paradigm-ers want to distance themselves from the devotion
to objects, and objects get in the way of curatorial propositions (the fast
lane). For the most part, they're not even "our" objects ... and
those modernist objects which we can lay claim to, are cast aside as poor
versions of Euro-centric desires (i.e. John Mays' "criticism"
of the Canadian Impressionism exhibition in Hamilton). I must, however,
admire the curator-centered approach for its tenacity and maneuverability.
It just keeps going and going ... and if things are repeated, who will remember,
or care.
ABM: How has the withdrawal of significant government financial support
for
Canadian cultural institutions affected this new paradigm?
IH: Don't know, but I don't think it has affected it too much. Declining
government financial support is putting the lid on the remains of the old
paradigm - research and scholarship, educational initiatives, collecting.
These are the first things to be cut. In fact, the diminishing financial
support may be giving the new paradigm curators a second wind ...independent
curators roaming the streets in packs with their quick and cheap goods (although
tech-geek shows are not cheap to produce), preying on embattled institutions
looking for a new lease on life (okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit).
ABM: And I'm going to ask you one more question. What is in store
for the outpost Canadian art museum over the next 5 years?
IH: I'd say the future is grim unless there is a sustained economic
boom which pumps private money into these museums. I can't imagine governments
returning to high levels of support. Some museums will simply have to admit
failure and close. I can't say which ones, but they're out there. Others
will be resourceful and find the means to determine their own future and
destiny without government money, establish partnerships and forgo the vanity
of stand alone operations. How this translates into "service"
to the community and public is anyone's guess, but how effective is the
"service" in the current situation. A small gallery often takes
on many roles - a collecting museum, a loan exhibition space, promoting
and supporting regional artists, and a community centre with education and
workshop activities. Is it necessary for every gallery in every town to
collect, when the results are, in many cases, duplication. Perhaps a more
reasonable approach would be a regional storehouse for collection objects
which could be drawn on for loan exhibitions, or allow for the "re-distribution"
of works to places where objects have the most resonance. I would also hope
that enough galleries come to their senses and work towards sharing and
pooling other resources. Perhaps there will be a move to privatization.
END