Shock art: the disappearance of artist run culture.

The enormous plurality of subject matters that exist in Canadian visual culture is simply amplified by the multiethnic character of our country. It is taken for granted that everything and any thing can be a subject matter. In fact anyone examining the divers activities taken place at artist run centers knows this. Furthermore the transparent and fair process of selecting art shows or other activities through a rotating selection committees constitute the basis of a just and credible peer recognition that has been adopted by all serious activities where decision have to be made.

In all creative scientific or artistic activities where excellence and originality is the most valued basic notions of evaluating achievements. It is easily argued that if someone has produced an important body of work and has the recognition of her peers, but is systematical ignored, then we can say that this avoidance is equivalent to censorship.

We live in a postmodern time, where diversity and plurality is present in the Canadian artistic community. Virtual each and every artist produces unique and original art. Our visual community demands transparence and accountability when a choice is made on who is to exhibit or perform. We don’t want to be told that the art we do is not new or not cutting age or traditional. These are modernist concepts, and in fact Canadian visual culture is not modernist. The avant-garde in Canadian art hardly ever existed. From regional art we moved into a partially modern derivative art, and this came crashing in the seventies when postmodern activities surged a head. In fact Canadian art as a concept does not exist. What we are is a nation that contributes some outstanding visual art.

Because of our democratic and free postmodern culture it stands to reason that some artwork and some artists because of their subject matter will be considered controversial and shocking. This is inevitable, shock art is inevitable. It can be locally shocking like Carol Ho. She exhibited at the provincial museum in Red Deer Alberta. The exhibit was based on the shooting at Columbinen High School in Littleton Colorado. Or Tamara Zeta Sanower-Markhan’s installation “ultra-Maxi Priest” a robe made of maxi-pad was removed at the last minute from the municipal gallery in Oakville Ontario. Or it could be national like the work of Mark Prent. In 1974 and 1978 both of his shows at the Isaacs Gallery were closed by the Toronto police and he was charged. Another example was Jana Sterbak’s meat dress displayed in 1991 in the National Galley in Ottawa. But the most frightening was the charges brought against Eli Langer and Mercer Union Gallery’s director Sharon Brooks in 1993 under the child pornography law. In fact in all art and scientific fields shocking results are suppose to be an important contributor to the research that is taking place, not a threat to the those respective communities.

To all of us who are involved in visual culture the last thirty years have been interesting, puzzling and at times peculiar. Developments that often defy explanations appeared and then often forgotten. It was always obvious that modernity or postmodern philosophy has in a certain way the ability to describe and explain certain contemporary visual art in part but not in whole. Contemporary art exists as an activity, independently of what is said, and not because of what is said.

In all activities disturbing news generates some discussions, as the saying goes good news is no news. I know from personal experience and from talking to my friends that self-censorship is a valid concept. It is hard to prove but can be convincingly argued. Here is an example. In the last ten years I had over one hundred shows with close to fifty solos or major showings most in artist run centers. People always ask me why I do what I do. Why make ugly art? They always confuse the artist with the narrative of the artwork. They wonder if I sl;eep at night. Do I have small children? One person asked if I like kinky sex.

I on the other hand cannot get a serious show in a university or museum galleriy. No serious articles have appeared in serious glossy publications. Hardly any announcements where printed. Obviously there are reasons for this. I often suspect censorship. From the comments that people write it is obvious that my art is controversial and at times shocking. Here are some examples, Latitude 53 found it important to put the following on the wall, “ please be advised that this exhibition contains mature content.” Here is another, when I hanged my show in Artcite and the public started to complain, when they saw an S&M drawing of a women chained and hanging by a rope, depicting in a violent way a consensual sexual activity. The gallery requested me in a nice way, to move it to the back away from the store front. But the best example was in a showing in Montreal, when I went to the washroom someone asked my friend if he was part of a sect. He also wanted to know if I was teaching and working with children.

Often it appears that artists understand what other artists do and that they are more understanding than the public but that is only an illusion. My most difficult encounter was with an artist accusing me of celebrating violence. His argument was that if anyone commits a violent act after seeing my pictures then it is fair to hold me responsible for that act. Why is this happening to many artists? Why are artists left alone to defend their art?

Firstly artists need to be surrounded by art critics art reporters and art historians. They need the support of the visual cultural community. Also the relationship between curators and artists is very important. It can be argued that overall the majority of curators are modernists or at best pseudo-modernist, when the artist community is postmodern. This explains the schizophrenic condition existing in Canadian culture. We know that the young Canadian artistic scene does not hold or subscribe to the notions of “cutting edge art” or the notion of “new art”. The pseudo-modernists do. The pseudo-modernists believe that interviewing the artist is unimportant. They claim that the art speaks for itself. For all practical reasons they believe that they can replace the artist name with “unanimous”. The are paternalistic in their approach to art. That is they claim to know what is good for the public. In fact the majority of art historians and art critics behave in a similar way. As a result of these attitude the public does not hear about interesting engaging and disturbing art. If by mistake they exhibit an artist that is controversial, the experts will claim that the public is stupid and needs an art appreciation course. They constantly are engaged in useless educational programs. They spend millions trying to educate the public. They don’t invite the artist to explain her work. They often claim that “we are all artists” and use it to further trivialize the contributions of the artist and pretend that they are doing the art community a service.

Give the Canadian public the art they want. Stop censoring disturbing art. The public is starving for strong art. They want to be moved they pray to be shaken and disturbed. Is it not obvious that the modernist art that is shown is boycotted by most of the public?  On a shoestring budget artist run get more visitors per dollar then museums. We can easily get more people to see good art if more people are informed in a timely fashion.

These accusations, that an important group of Canadian artist are censored because of the paternalistic view of the art establishment can easily be proven using postmodern philosophy. However I know that many artist don’t share my views. This is not surprising. They claim that I cannot prove my allegations. To this I say that just as homicide is used as a measure of how violent a society is, we can use shock art as a measure of the presence of contemporary art in Canadian culture. The more you hear of shock art the more visible visual art is in our culture. The other arts have realized this. They use controversial narratives to get the public to support their art whether it is the cinema, music or dance.

We need every year some visual art controversies. Shock art must be supported because some of it is good. In fact the notion that art evaluation is a subjective process could be used to explain the disappearance of art from the Canadian cultural scene. This idea that we cannot evaluate art is a weapon used against us. Postmodernism never proved that art couldn’t be evaluated. Some have argued it but I don’t accept these arguments.

For too long we lived with the view that evaluative process is futile because it is nothing but subjective nonsense. Time based art such as performance art needs no evaluation. Also ephemeral art because it never reaches a state of perfection does not need serious evaluation. It is more about process then the final installation.

But what about the rest of the visual arts? We constantly chose and evaluate but are afraid to admit it. To evaluate is not to exclude. It is to celebrate. To reject an art because its not cutting edge is exclusionary but to argue the merit of the work is not. Look where subjectivism landed us. We cannot talk about art in public. We are forced to accept everything. This can imply that art does not exist. Furthermore it is interesting and fun to evaluate art. This is what is happening any way. Others are doing it for us and we cannot respond. We are left to the mercies of stupidity. The time has come to talk and evaluate art and discuss it in public with the public.

We need art theories in order to discuss the importance of the subject matter that art deals with. For me, artists are disturbers of social and cultural peace. They are impartial and bias free when it comes to investigating visual truth. They are only driven by the subject matter and by some universal intuitive understanding of what work visually. This comes from intensive understanding and experience of the visual language.

We can argue, using the ideas of culture, that the visual arts contribute and enrich various disciplinary activities, such as sociology, political science, economics, anthropology, computer science, mathematics, architecture, environmental studies philosophy and other diverse studies.

The time has come to tell our stories. Without art reporters and art historian and critics standing beside us recording and reporting in a serious way our achievements we become invisible and the art that we do will be forgotten and in fact often is. We lost two generation of artist because of this. I have heard the modernist say things like “it is strange that no memorable art was produced in the last forty years” For them Betty Goodwin is probably the last great Canadian artist.

It appears that arguing for contemporary art is not proper. It is considered propaganda. The time has come to demand more. Visual culture is not just showing and exhibiting art. There must be a faithful relationship between what is shown and between what is reported, discussed and evaluated. Because this healthy relationship does not exist in Canadian culture when it comes to artist run culture, I claim that there is a systemic effort to censor and eliminate artist run and replace it with commercially derived copy art made of plundered parts and ideas.

Canadian artists have understood our past visual history, and are living the present. We don’t want to hear that so and so 50 years dead artist is important. We want to know what is done today. We want to celebrate present day visual heroes not the Warhol’s of the past.

Because of many shocking narratives taking place today it is obvious that shock art exist and must be supported. If it is good it must be celebrated. If it does not exist you know that visual culture was hijacked and is in danger of dyeing. God will never help art we must help our self. God gave us a head lets use it. Lets get the public involve lets liberate our self from the modernist exclusionary principles by getting involved in the discussion of what is good what is trivial and what is useless. If its done properly we will all benefit. So far we are all losers.