Supplied

Critical Contrition | The Edmonton arts community doesn’t need more Anton Egos; it needs more dialogue between artists and audiences.  Ratatouille image courtesy of walt disney pictures

Last week, Jill and Mandy talked about the BFA grad exhibition, a column that elicited a belittling anonymous post in response on the SEE website. (You can read the original column, as well as the reactions to it, by going to www.seemagazine.com and looking under “Hot Discussions.”)

Though useless in terms of actual criticism, it did get them thinking about whether they still consider writing this column useful and relevant in anyway. This week, Jill and Mandy discuss what writing about the arts in our fair city means, and what role they hope they serve.

Mandy: I know that when we started writing this column together, it was really an experiment to see if we could increase the degree of critical dialogue. But now that we’ve been doing this for more than a year, how do you view our position within the arts community?

Jill: I think it’s good that we’re encouraging our own dialogue, and encouraging dialogue in a casual way about art and the art community. I’m not saying that we’re looking at the work with casual interest, but rather that we approach the critique in a casual manner. Isn’t that what the conversational format is about? I hope we’re offering a way to communicate about art in a way that is not necessarily so didactic.

Mandy: Do you think though that our talking about the work in a casual manner is being mistaken for a casual attitude about what we’re talking about? It’s important that we discuss the work in a way that doesn’t alienate anyone who hasn’t gone through a BFA program, but maybe we do concentrate too much on the surface aspects of what
we review.

Jill: I can’t really say how the column is interpreted. But it’s worth clarifying whether we’re setting out to provide a critique of the work, or merely initiating a response to it, and encouraging people to see the exhibits and think for themselves? As a visual artist, I make work about very specific themes, and I have very specific opinions about them. But rather than tell people exactly what they should be thinking or feeling, I would rather give them enough visual information so that they can formulate their own opinions. I feel the same way about our column; I feel it’s our role to present people with information, not necessarily to tell them what the artist is saying. That’s probably contradictory to the traditional “art critic” role, but personally, I don’t always feel comfortable in that role.

Mandy: I’ve been approaching what we do partly as a way to develop my ability to coherently articulate my opinions about art — which will be an essential if I plan to dedicate myself to being a visual artist. And yes, giving exposure to our community is also a big part of what we do: a print review doesn’t just serve as a showcase for the reviewer’s opinions; it also raises awareness of that artist and their work. The whole point is to get people to see it for themselves, construct their own opinions, and hopefully feel interested enough to share them with others.

Jill: It’s been said before, but I would love if there was more dialogue about the arts in this city. There seems to be a pretty big communication gap between those who practice art and those who don’t. If our column does anything at all, I hope it offers a friendly, talkative gateway into the world of art. I know that for many people, “artspeak” is pretty off-putting. But our audience includes everyone who picks up the free weekly newspaper. I feel like we have a responsibility not to
exclude anyone.

Mandy: But maybe we’re underestimating the public’s desire for serious discussion about art. Anyone who reads our column is likely either interested in art, or amused by what I believe was once described as “our banter.” Or they will just think we are lame, and that’s fine too, but I’d hope we’re challenging one another either way.

Jill: Well yeah, of course. And I think that’s why we’ve kept the column going so long. The conversational format aids this process — it isn’t one of us simply writing a stagnant paragraph about the exhibition. It’s an actual conversation we’re having about what engages us (or doesn’t engage us) with the work. It’s more immediate that way. It allows for disagreements, as well as shared excitement. The real-time method of writing this column is our strength, I think, because it’s not polished or perfect. But it is, at the very least, genuine.

Mandy: And at the very, very least, it’s an excellent source of personal mockery.