As ample local coverage reminds us, the CONTACT Toronto Photography Festival — which is apparently, now the world’s largest photo fest in terms of number of venues — kicks off officially this week.
And while there’s a slew of urban-themed photo exhibits amongst more than 200 on view, I’m going to hold off discussing those for now and instead address the issue of why CONTACT has cut its transit-based installations in half this year. (Full disclosure: I was a writer and editor for the festival magazine.)
Now, as I hinted at in my piece on London UK’s terrific Platform for Art program in this week’s edition of NOW, art on transit platforms and in transit shelters can be a really great thing. Not only is it generally more appetizing than looking at stairways transformed into globby seas of pizza cheese, as is currently the case at a few of our TTC stations, but, when curated imaginatively, it can be a low-cost opp for non-AGO-member citizens to see great art up close. What’s more is the art can even be used to comment on the transit experience, or on experiences of public space.
What’s great about this year’s official transit art program for CONTACT is that they’ve chosen artists who are really direct, accessible and humorous in their way of working. Erwin Wurm, for instance, hands off random objects to volunteers and instructs them to make “instant sculptures†using the objects in interaction with their bodies. And Philippe Ramette creates these dreamy, impossible-looking actions, like walking up a tree trunk, that are actually not Photoshopped at all, but created with ingenious concealed prostheses. Douglas Coupland‘s work, with its collages of flowers and guns, is a little more thinky, but he’s a big name that people can relate to, which is nice. But overall it’s the kind of stuff that you can like even if you supposedly “don’t like art†and it also helps us reimagine city and park spaces in a different way.
But what’s not so great about this year’s official transit art program is that they can’t afford to install in more than one TTC station (St. Patrick) and five transit shelters (on Queen West between Ossington and Gladstone). The reason? The ad rates for arts orgs were, according to festival organizer Bonnie Rubenstein, jacked up 400% last November by CBS-Viacom.
In a slightly different spin on this issue, the OneStop Network (you know, the company that runs those video screens at TTC stations) is trying to up its public profile by doing a CONTACT-related project that encourages Torontonians to upload their “mini-narratives†of the city in still photos, which will be broadcast every ten minutes across the system.
While it’s nice to see an opportunity to use the OneStop screens for a different purpose than straight advertising and ADD-styled news reportage, it’s notable that the works are not by professional artists. Why? Because then OneStop would likely have to pay for them. This provides free content for their screens, basically — and ample debate among public space advocates about whether the project is a good thing (ie. bringing art by actual TTC users to transit stations) or a bad thing (ie. a cop-out/PR thing).
Ultimately, Toronto needs more art in its transit stations. But if CBS-Viacom (or, in an actually shelling-out sense, OneStop) isn’t supportive of this, we have to find other ways to make it happen — either by using spaces that the ad co’s don’t, like the covers of transit maps or selected ad-free walls as happens in London, or by perhaps initiating a kind of 1% for Art program for advert co’s, just as we have for condo developers. For the latter, the ad company in question (could even be Astral now, right?) would have to donate a certain sq. footage or funds per year to public art.
At least then we might make contact with something other than commercialism during our daily commute, and bring a bit of art out of the not-always-welcoming white cube too.
10 comments
On the subway and streetcars, I suggest that the TTC gives up some of the reserved spaces it fills with its own internal advertising (including endless plugs for the Special Constable force) and “donate” it to the art project FREE. This is space they are not getting revenue for today, and it could be put to better use holding art.
On a related note, while fighting against the street furniture program, did anyone take the trouble to ask that the city include a reservation for “x” percent of the space for its own use? Space that the city could dedicate to art?
Or was everyone too busy opposing the plan to look at “plan B” — what to do if it is approved despite the objections?
Steve
Many European cities use their subway systems has art galleries. Moscow’s subway system is probably the most famous one, but you see art in subway systems from Berlin to Lisbon.
Again, I do not believe that this is something that would work in this city. Toronto is a frugal technocrat place, ask the common Joe if he thinks it is worth spending money on art and he will start crying that art is a waste of money when there are need in the health care system and that we should be spending that money on social housing.
Let’s just face it, Toronto is not a place that sees beauty has a need. Most people in this city don’t want art in the streets, they are happy to keep it indoors like the AGO or ROM. This is a city that doesn’t see architecture as an art form, so what do you expect?
Dang, terrible spelling. Sorry about that…
Yes!
It’s a pity that even a wonderful, gently informative site such as spacing must have its disappointing writers. Why so negative? Why always tooting your own horn? Apart from the festival guide, and your article in NOW magazine, why didn’t you mention everywhere else you’ve written while you’re at it? AND STOP BASHING THE AGO!!! It’s one of Toronto’s artistic jewels, frequently visited by many of the city’s REAL artists on wednesday evenings, when admission is FREE. Perhaps if this government of ours valued the arts a bit more, and increased funding, the regular admission fees won’t be quite so high. But PLEASE, enough of this “I’ve just graduated and I’m armed with a slew of big words and anger against the world and I’m going to use them” because it’s soooo yesterday’s news. A bit more optimism, please.
Hmmmm. Thanks JV for that stunning example of positivity. I’ll have to remember to emulate it in the future. Oh, and the lack of anger thing too. You really nailed it!
Also, how is mentioning the AGO necessarily bashing it? I do think the $2.75 entry fee for the TTC is generally cheaper than the exhibition fee there. Uh… right? At least, last time I checked…
As for other commenters, thanks. I do feel ambivalent about raising these issues at a time when there are other heavy transit issues at hand, particularly (and sadly) worker safety. But as people will likely be seeing some of these installations around, I thought they were worth both highlighting and discussing in a critical way.
On the subject of the AGO or the TTC as an appropriate place to display art:
There is a fundamental difference between:
A gallery, beautiful and extensive though it may be, which can only be viewed (a) by visiting it and (b) when it is open. (c) It is usually to visit specific works that are on display, not a visit by chance. You don’t walk through the AGO enroute to anywhere.
A subway station is not so beautiful, but is open to all at all hours of the day. The whole idea of art in public spaces, especially art that changes now and then, is that it changes the way people appreciate the space.
At Museum, we are about to get a static pseudo-classical platform level design, and the rotating exhibits from the ROM will only be at mezzanine level where passersby on the trains won’t see them.
Major artworks change and define the spaces they are in — a mural, a sculpture, a piece of architecture, whatever, and often the character of the piece and the space change over time of day and season, changes of light, reflections from wet pavement, and so on. The surprise comes in seeing the familiar object in changing surroundings.
(As a simple example, think of the moods of Moore’s Two Forms by the AGO, a much-loved piece judging by the well-word surface where people sit to slide and have their photo taken. By contrast, The Archer at Nathan Phillips Square is a bit too much on its own to define anything, and has to compete with the City Hall itself, although it nicely complements the curves of the towers.)
For smaller scale works in the subway, the change would come with the works rather than the seasons, and new works can redefine the stations they are in.
We may be a frugal and technocratic city, but if enough people have enough “aha!” moments, the benefits will be obvious. Also, we have a large and growing community from cities where public decoration of space is common, and we need to embrace these traditions.
That’s why we need public art.
Well said Steve. Art should be everywhere. We definitely need more of these “aha!” moments in Toronto. Food for the soul can be as important as food for the body. I just wish that more people in this city believed in it.
> JV – it is common practice for Spacing Wire writers to cross-post or cross-reference their publications in other media when they are relevant to the subjects covered by the Wire.
In this particular instance, I personally encouraged Leah to reference her article in NOW because it was so relevant to the subject of this post, and also because I thought Wire readers would find it interesting and enjoyable (not to mention optimistic and positive), since it is right on topic with the issues we discuss.
Note that is is also standard best practice for writers to disclose any potential conflict of interest with a subject they are writing about.
Thanks for taking the time to explain, Dylan. You must understand, however, that to the uninitiated, the constant reference to her own writing does render the writer’s style a bit self-absorbed, and lowers the standard of the blog. It just doesn’t read well.
In defence of my own comment, and in answer to a few of the comments above, here is, in more detail, what I was talking about.
Ms Sandals has a writing style which depends on simultaneously putting one thing down and discussing another. This is evident in the article above, as well as the other article about the Parkdale/nuit blanche copycat project that she’s since posted. Ms Sandals failed /chose not to mention that CONTACT was actually helped with their case by a very kind philanthropist – a positive spin that she could’ve included. After the reader is exhausted with the good/bad variations in her content, ending on a good note would have left the reader uplifted somewhat.
As for dissing the AGO, she did it here, as well as in her article in NOW magazine, and having looked up her article in the Spring issue of Spacing magazine, her article there ends, out of the blue, with “Can’t find that at the AGO”. This type of writing is very common in undergraduate research papers. It is a misconception to assume that to be “socially responsible” is to relentlessly criticize the big organizations, not-for-profit or not.
In answer to the other comments, I understand that public art is relevant here as it is a public spaces issue. However, I do not appreciate the devaluing of art itself, through unqualified discourse. Not all public expression of creative energies is art. Most of what people refer to as “public art” these days is merely public decoration. And my point here is amplified by the comments of Steve Munro, who transposed the words decoration and art and used them in equal measure. But perhaps this is a debate for another time. I worry that, as Spacing is becoming such an excellent resource for planners, city staff, and interested citizens, its art content is without distinction. It angers me, that on such sites, art is always the topic that is left over for the amateurs.
And finally, Dylan, I am a fan of Spacing. I do not enjoy sarcastic rebuttals, however. I understand your commitment to your writers and your obligation to defend their skills. I apologize for the offence I have caused.