I Call Dibs On The Monkey Bars! | The paintings of Josée Aubin Ouellette have a way of climbing inside your imagination.
This week, Jill and Mandy return to the YMCA, where Josée Aubin Ouellette is proudly presenting Playground Architects, a collection of precocious paintings of playgrounds as part of The YMCA Community Canvas WORKS initiative.
Mandy: The new paintings that Josée Aubin Ouellette has on display at the YMCA are large, colourful, transparent objects about objects. She’s painted playgrounds and jungle gyms and environments that make you want to be in the picture climbing all over and within them. But her use of acrylic paint on muslin creates a kind of floating quality that seems to run counter to this physicality. What did you think of them, Jill?
Jill: I’m certainly drawn to the story behind this exhibition; Ouellette references the “adventure playgrounds” that were built during the Second World War as a way of sparking children’s imaginations and instilling a subconscious aesthetic for beautiful architecture. Ouellette’s paintings are life-sized, two-dimensional representations of these ideas.
Mandy: But do you think her representation of the idea is successful? I’m drawn to the works here that concentrate more on one or two specific visual elements, such as the wood grain patterning in “Adventure Playground, 1943” or the triangular repetition of colourful striping in “Drop City.”
Jill: I think some of these works are more successful than others in that respect, for sure. In particular, I’m thinking of “Drop City,” and maybe “Climbing Frame, 1928,” which are less about creating playground-like environments and more about creating objects or environments that look like they might be played with. They are much more abstracted than their counterparts — especially “Drop City,” where you’re not entirely sure what you’re looking at, especially if you don’t know the background behind the piece. This figurative abstraction allows viewers to tap into their imaginations as they regard the image, which is an interesting nod to the playgrounds that inspired the exhibition in the first place.
Mandy: “Drop City” does stand out as one of the strongest in this five-piece series. I actually remember playing on structures like it when I was a kid — those big half-domes that are like hollow, metal turtle shells. And that link to memory is a pretty important ingredient in the experience these paintings give. They are nostalgic. As we were looking at this show, an elderly man walked by and stopped to look with us. I asked him what he thought of the show, and he said, “Reminds me of kids, and happiness. Too bad there aren’t any little heads popping up here and there.” It’s something I haven’t really consciously considered about Ouellette’s work before — the complete lack of people, or children, or “little heads.”
Jill: Is that a bad thing, though? At least with these works, the lack of a human presence heightens the ambiguity of the structures, allowing more room for interpretation and “imagination.” And these objects — playground structures in particular — are creations built specifically for people to use them. Do we assume these structures will host people at some point in the future, so we don’t miss seeing them now? Or does the lack of people open up these objects to further ambiguity? Or do we just feel a lack when we look at them?
Mandy: I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all. I find it kind of bizarre that this is something I’ve always taken for granted about Ouellette’s work, when it’s a huge part of what she does. I think you’re right about the lack of human representation opening up the interpretation of the structures. It also puts the viewer in an interesting positioning: we’re the reason this playground structure is here, but we’re no longer children, so we just get to quietly observe an image of it rather than physically play on it.
Jill: You’re also not physically able to play on it, since it’s a two-dimensional painting. I think that’s partially Ouellette’s intention; that is, I think she is purposely using this paradox to introduce her ideas of humans, imagination, communities, and environments.
Playground Architects will be on display at the Don Wheaton YMCA (10211-102 Ave) until October 2009.
Comments: 35
Anonymous wrote:
I Call Dibs On The Monkey Bars! | The paintings of Josée Marie Ouellette have a way of climbing inside your imagination."
Is that Josée Aubin Ouellette's sister? It must have been confusing for them, growing up...
"Jill: I’m certainly drawn to the story behind this exhibition; Oubliette references the “adventure playgrounds”..."
Mon nom est Jill. J'ai oublié(tte) le nom de l'artiste.
Instead of hiring so many bad art writers, do you think maybe you guys should just actually hire one good editor?
on May 21st, 2009 at 2:35pm Report Abuse
PaulMatwychuk wrote:
on May 21st, 2009 at 4:04pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
As I was saying, one good editor might solve all your problems.
on May 23rd, 2009 at 7:29am Report Abuse
PaulMatwychuk wrote:
on May 23rd, 2009 at 4:59pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Do you think the paintings are exceptionally early in their development, or do you think they are exhibiting mature qualities at an unusually early age?
on May 24th, 2009 at 1:59pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
did you call Josée personally to apologize? Did you try to explain to her that these errors were due to "typos" and "bugs"? Did she fall for that?
Did you also explain to her why the name of her exhibition, and the dates it will run for, were omitted from this column? And, did you explain to her that this was due to "typos", or to "bugs"?
on May 25th, 2009 at 9am Report Abuse
CaptainObvious wrote:
You are getting into a habit of inflammatory attacks that are obviously intended to publicly shame SEE and Paul. Attacking his personal characteristics on an anonymous forum IS cowardly and you're just supporting his claim. He responded to the errors. He's even fixed them. He apologized to you and to Ms. Ouellette.
What possible purpose does your last comment serve other than an inflammatory attack?
If I had the power to remove your comments - I'd start with the one above and probably trim quite a few from your other thread.
on May 25th, 2009 at 2:24pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
So, I'll just mark you down as 'pro-censorship', shall I?
on May 25th, 2009 at 3:23pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
1. The errors I pointed out have been fixed! Yippie! We all agree, that's good, right?
2. Maybe (just maybe) writers and editors will be more careful in the future. That's positive too, right?
3. Maybe (hope, hope!) some deeper thought might be expended by these same people in the future, with the result that they not just avoid obvious elementary errors, but maybe even just improve their writing chops to something a little closer to a professional standard (and a little further away from public embarrassment).
Wouldn't that be great, too?
on May 25th, 2009 at 3:37pm Report Abuse
CaptainObvious wrote:
Although, I don't see typos as being terribly serious so it never bothered me much anyways.
You know, you should send 'em an invoice. They already offered to pay you for writing - maybe they'll pay you per error you help them find and fix.
:P
on May 25th, 2009 at 4:02pm Report Abuse
PaulMatwychuk wrote:
on May 25th, 2009 at 4:12pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
But, I've said this all before.
To Cptn. O, do you REALLY think calling someone the completely wrong name qualifies merely as a "typo"? Captain What? Captain Who? Oh, nevermind... you'll never get it.
Re: the "job offer": SEE has a reputation for offering to pay writers, but not following through on those promises. That alone would be enough reason to not accept a position with the paper, but more than that... You think I'd have any of these knobs as MY BOSS? Who on earth would I report to? What, would their current editors read my columns and decide if they were good or not? How? Clearly, they're clueless.
Honestly! What an amusing notion...
P.S. You're all welcome.
p.p.s. It's a slight shame that Jill and Mandy have now retired. I was still hoping they would tell me if they think Ouellette's paintings are exceptionally early in their development, or if they think they are exhibiting mature qualities at an unusually early age?
I thought they were trying to encourage critical dialogue?
Well, ok, I didn't think that's what they were trying to do, REALLY, but it is what they always say, so I thought they might like to pretend a little more.
on May 28th, 2009 at 7:17am Report Abuse
PaulMatwychuk wrote:
on May 28th, 2009 at 9:59am Report Abuse
CaptainObvious wrote:
Semantic debates are always fun. I especially like the people who start them and then that provide no evidence in support of their claims.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typo
"A typographical error (shortened as typo) is a mistake made during, originally, the manual type-setting (typography) of printed material, or more recently, the typing process."
So, if they made this mistake during the 'typing process' - I'd classify it as a typo.
Oh, oops - did I just make you sound dumber than you already sound? Sorry - didn't mean to do that. But they don't call me Captain Obvious for nothing.
ps. I got your "Captain What? Caption Who?" joke - just in case you were wondering.
on May 28th, 2009 at 3:32pm Report Abuse
CaptainObvious wrote:
Oh, and to continue down the semantic road - let's pick on very specific words that each person chose, I should also point out that you said they got her name "Completely wrong".
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/completely
"having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full"
They originally had: "Josée Marie Ouellette" the correct name is: "Josée Aubin Ouellette"
From my count, they got 5 out of 22 characters wrong - or only 27% of it wrong. This is pretty far from "completely" wrong.
Or, from a different resolution (is that word too large for you?) they got 1/3 of her names wrong - 33%.
This is fun - want to keep it going?
on May 28th, 2009 at 3:36pm Report Abuse
CaptainObvious wrote:
I just don't like the way you say it. Admittedly that's likely due more to how I interpret your tone - rather than your fault.
I'll make an effort - I'll try to keep my comments on topic. That is - if you're critiquing an article - I'll try to address that only.
You in?
on May 28th, 2009 at 4pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
or
Captain Insurgency vs. Captain Establishment
but then I read Cpt. Obvious's last post.
I thank you for supporting my tantrum theory, Cpt. Obvious; however, I wasn't really trying to win an argument. I thought that was quite obvious albeit quirky; in fact, my sentiments pretty much echo your thoughts from your 3rd sentence in the last post. Though I do so enjoy cussing when it's deployed for effect but not when it's meant to be hateful towards another individual.
For Anonymous's sake, I have to wonder if SEE is reaping all the rewards from his critiques. Because he remains Anonymous, he isn't given credit the for his satire or his editing yet I suspect readership has likely increased due to the interactive entertainment value his dialogue has spurred on. If I was Paul, I'd be sitting at my desk thinking, "Suckaz".
Also, big ups to SEE for the Cadence Weapon articles. Gosh, I love hip-hop and it's about time it was recognized in our community. On that note, I'd like to mention my biggest pet-peeve with SEE: I read SEE because I am not looking for conservative mainstream reporting yet it seems like more and more that this is the kind of content that I find within the weekly. How come Edmonton's Underground Music Scene receives no support from SEE? For example, the electronic music scene.
on May 28th, 2009 at 6:08pm Report Abuse
PaulMatwychuk wrote:
I would love to run more articles about "underground" music in SEE. I suppose one of the reasons there hasn't been more coverage in that area is that I tend not to get a lot of press releases about upcoming events in that genre. I try to cover a wide spectrum of genres in the music section, but often bands in more mainstream genres are simply more organized and more savvy when it comes to dealing with the press. (What I'll often get instead from a local band is a terse three-line e-mail saying they're in a band that's doing a show a week from now; can SEE write an article about them? No bio, no photo, nothing that I can latch onto as an editor and go, "Say, *that* sounds like an interesting story.")
Also, I hate to keep on generalizing in this way, but as far as electronic music goes, I've had enough interviews with DJs fall through to make me a little wary of assigning preview articles about them.
All that said, if underground music is something you'd be interested in writing about for SEE, please give me a call at 430-9003 or send me an e-mail at pmatwychuk@see.greatwest.ca, because I'd love to talk to you about it. Or if you know of a reliable, talented writer who might be right for us, please encourage him to approach me.
Thanks again for the comment! I hope to hear from you soon, if only to chat further.
on May 28th, 2009 at 6:47pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Paul what if I wrote freelance for See in the past, but was bot paid? That would poke a pretty neat hole in your assertion, I'd guess.
Ann, be careful , or else everyone here will figure out our "good cop, bad cop" routine... shhh!
I'm sure I'm getting credit for my comments in the quarters where it counts (regardless of my anonymity), and yes, Ann, I'm well aware that my comments are more enlivening and entertaining than most of what gets published by See, and I'm glad to see that you agree.
I doubt, however, that readership has really increased at all. I'm sure it's just the same clique of See writers and their circles of friends who read this junk, just like the paper itself. It's like (preaching to the) Choir newsletter, and I'm the drunk guy who wandered into the church to get steal your wine and make fun of the priestly vestments.
on May 29th, 2009 at 8:32am Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
A bit sexist, don't you think, Ann? What... a woman can't be a Captain? Or Anonymous?
Tsk, Tsk.
on May 29th, 2009 at 9:03am Report Abuse
PaulMatwychuk wrote:
If you did indeed do work for SEE that you have not been reimbursed for, I strongly urge you to contact us, either by phone or at invoices@see.greatwest.ca, tell us the article you wrote and the issue it appeared in, and we'll get to the bottom of the problem.
on May 29th, 2009 at 9:58am Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Really, the amount is too paltry, and from too many years ago, to worry about finally getting paid (with interest? Hmm...) after all these years.
Clearly , much has changed at SEE since then...
on May 29th, 2009 at 10:09am Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
“It looks like two…..” = A hypothesis
“There’s two…” = A statement of fact.
Do you see the difference, Anonymous? Oh Snap!
Anonymous: “What... a woman can't be a Captain? Or Anonymous?”
Now you’re just fishing.
If I remember correctly, and I believe I am repeating myself here, didn’t you tell Adam that you would allow him to perform fellatio at his leisure on your male parts. Unless your penis is imaginary and only cited for dramatic effect…..
Discuss amongst yourselves.
on May 29th, 2009 at 11:31am Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
Misogynist!
on May 29th, 2009 at 1:36pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
Regardless of the gender that the whole identifies with, the part in question remains biologically male by definition.
on May 29th, 2009 at 2:12pm Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
So, you literally have nothing relevant to add to the conversation then, Ann?
Seriously?
Nothing to say about the work in the show, or Jill and Mandy's critique?
Did you really just come on here to help supply lame backup to the other depressingly impotent retorts against me? And in the end, this was the best you could muster? Pathetic.
These are sad, sad times in Edmonton.
on May 30th, 2009 at 8:55am Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
I just disagree with you sometimes.
I have little expertise on visual arts, which is why I refrain from critiquing their critiques.
My concern is mostly with the music content. I've e-mailed Paul with my thoughts, if you really must know.
on May 30th, 2009 at 10:05am Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
And yes, that's fine Ann: your admitted inexpertise reasonably excuses you from the discussion, if you'd prefer to sit out. Not that you have to be an expert: it certainly doesn't stop See's freelancers from sharing their ruminations!
And no, I'm not concerned with your music related emails. You thought I might be? How strange.
on May 30th, 2009 at 12:03pm Report Abuse
Serius wrote:
on Jun 3rd, 2009 at 12:54pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
I hope my own obviousness was as obvious as I obviously intended it to be.
Oops. That was redundant.
I gotta stop putting Baileys in my coffee.
For the benefit of Sharoesp, I’ll provide a proper English translation of ‘gotta’ for those who aren’t fluent in MCGB and/or EOFMD dialect: Gotta (Got to) = Have to.
In conlusion, I would just like to say to that I’m sorry I wasn’t worried about maintaining a pretentious persona. I will, in the future, try to be dishonest about who I am. Afterall, one must not be human.
Sheesh, I was trying my very best to leave it be. But the Spawn of Satan brings out my inner Lucifer-like qualities. Damn him to hell!! Oh wait, he already resides there.
on Jun 3rd, 2009 at 2:52pm Report Abuse
Ann wrote:
But in seriousness, I took time out from my research Serius to watch your videos. I liked them. Keep at it.
on Jun 3rd, 2009 at 2:53pm Report Abuse
Leah Scott wrote:
on Jun 15th, 2009 at 9:44pm Report Abuse
adamwb wrote:
on Jun 16th, 2009 at 10:23am Report Abuse
Anonymous wrote:
http://www.nesw.ca/studiosavant/2009/05/josee-o-uellette-invited-me-to-take.html
on Jun 20th, 2009 at 1:12pm Report Abuse
blind51de wrote:
I'll have to drop by.
on Jul 10th, 2009 at 11:32am Report Abuse
Post comment: (Login or Register)