Wow the last week has flown by and I have yet to post about the conference, so it’s time to get going…

My first day in Halifax I began with a bit of gallery hopping before the conference started that afternoon and took in, among other things the exhibition “On the Table” at the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia, which was a fairly good overview with a nice catalogue, fun to go through, and definitely worth it, but the mood I was in it wasn’t challenging my controversial, I’m here at this conference to think and be inspired nature.

There was however works by Shary Boyle‘s in the Sobey Art Award exhibition, which were great to finally see in person.

As luck would have it later that day I found all the controversy I could have asked for. At St. Mary’s University the gallery was presenting an exhibition of Leopold Foulem‘s work which had enraged some students since it’s opening reception and that day was hosting a discussion panel about the work inviting the public to attend and voice opinion about the exhibition with the artist in attendance.

The specific piece in question was one of his Santa series which made reference to the history of ceramic collectibles produced which represented stereotyped and racist imagery of African Americans. The piece by Leopold was a santa glazed in matte black with large glossy red lips and turned into, through the inclusion of found objects, a teapot. I’m choosing not to post an image of the work here as I am interested in the debate raised by the work, yet do not wish to cause any further upset in the public sphere through distributing imagery of the work in question. A web search of Leopold’s work will most likely take you to the specific piece or others in which he makes similar references.

So there were a few things about the discussion that I found interesting as a practicing artist. Firstly the importance of being responsible for the work you put out into the public sphere, and it’s adequate contextualization for the large variety of potential audiences that will view the work, either in person or in print or online. The crowd that attended the discussion drew obviously from two groups, one an audience academically knowledgeable in craft history and practice and the other, an audience made up of a more general public which although highly educated and well spoken, were not versed in ceramic history and context. To the latter group this work simply and without proper reasoning referenced a very hurtful and oppressive past, which still resonates in contemporary context on a daily basis. Being confronted with the imagery in a public gallery to them spoke of further stereotyping and oppression, rather than a reference to a disturbing past with the aim of furthering dialogue regarding the issue. The pairing of racial stereotype with the imagery of Santa Claus, a made-up commercialized figure also made the historical reference/narrative seem imaginary, or less serious.

Basically an issue to be dealt with was whether it was possible to separate representing racism from being racist. And was it possible for an artist of Caucasian dissent to work with such visual imagery and ideas with a thorough and respectful understanding of context and impact of such imagery.

While admittedly Leopold was confronted by a group of very angry audience members who were very challenging and questioning of his motives with the work, I felt that the artist, and this is regardless of how I feel personally about the artist or the work, did a poor job of properly contextualizing his work for the audience. He continued to re-iterate that the work was about the art/craft debate and the stereotypes and prejudices that exist in that discussion, but could not justify or clarify his motivation for the use of this particular visual imagery. He stated that he did not like to self-censor his work and that he often worked intuitively with ceramic imagery and history. I guess that made me question my own practice as I do self censor, well maybe better stated as self edit works after they are made based on how I perceive them to be read by the viewer. If a work has the potential to be mis-interpreted to the extent of having an opposing reading to that which was intended I would be likely to edit the piece. That is not to say I’m not interested in multiple readings of work, in fact I love to discover new interpretations that viewers have of my work, but when dealing with more charged and confrontational imagery, one has to be more careful and responsible in my opinion.

I guess what I really noticed in the discussion was the way in which the exhibition was limited in its ability to reach a larger, less elitist audience with the theme and content of the work due to poor contextualisation of the work by the artist and the gallery. But then should the work not speak for itself? Must we question the role of the gallery/artist statement to frame the work and is that what we want to rely upon to get our ideas out? Or is it the work itself that should speak? So what happens when that backfires and the work says things we don’t intend, when it takes our audience down a path we did not wish for them to travel down? Are we responsible for this turn off course?

One of the audience’s comments struck me in reference to my own figurative work where in I try to speak of global humanitarian issues through my own framework and positioning relative to the events rather than from a stance of empathy or mere re-representation which I fear can further victimize. He stated that being apologetic for history or events but still using that particular imagery and stereotypes from your position of privileged doesn’t make it acceptable, since you can’t remove yourself from that distance and that position of power and privilege. Does this mean though then that only minority artists can speak of racial issues, only those in war torn countries can speak of the horrors of war? Must we as artists only speak to issues of which we have first hand knowledge? For me that would be problematic as I want to engage with larger issues than the pettiness of my own privileged life. I think that the engagement and presentation of different perspectives is what contributes to greater understanding of our humanity and what is taking place in the world; also providing the potential for future change, growth and the end to such problems and injustices. But what I really walked away with that afternoon was a understanding of the grave importance of contextualizing your work, of being responsible for any and all readings of that work, and of the artists’ responsibility to their audience, and not just the ideal audience which will bring a similar wealth of experience and knowledge to the work, but to any audience member, with their own perspectives and history. I guess it reminded me about why I sometimes despise academic art for it is elitist and limited in its scope. It is the reason that I love to make functional work as well as sculptural work, because I feel a need to invest in dialogues that impact our everyday, which we can each relate too, contribute to and grow from.

I don’t know, there is still a lot for me to digest from that discussion. And alot of questions I need to answer for myself, especially now as I’m in the process of developing a new exhibition of figurative works, engaging a variety of topics, many controversial. I know that in the back of my mind at all times will be my responsibility as an artist, in this privileged role, to say something of interest and relevance in an appropriate and respectful manner.

All in a day’s work right?

More about the conference to come so stay tuned…