Julianna Yau’s blog

Because I need to feed the geek in me.

 

Keep the Portrait Gallery in the Capital

Paul Couvrette to take a portrait of Ottawa-Gatineau Residents

May 12, 2008, OTTAWA – NDP MP Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre) announced today that he will host a public rally to show public support for keeping the Portrait Gallery of Canada in the Capital on Friday May 16. Dewar is joined by Ottawa photographer Paul Couvrette and the Canadian Artists’ Representation/Le Front des artistes canadiens (CARFAC).

“Friday May 16 is the final day of submissions for the portrait gallery location. This is our opportunity to gather together and show the cabinet that people in the National Capital Region and across the country want the portrait gallery to stay in Ottawa” said Dewar. “I invite everyone who cares about this project from the arts community to the tourism industry, from my colleagues in parliament to the City Hall, to come together for Ottawa”.

World-renowned Ottawa photographer, Paul Couvrette, will take a portrait of community members attending this historic event. Couvrette will donate this portrait to the Portrait Gallery of Canada. Canadians from across the country will be invited to submit their self-portraits online.

CARFAC affiliates from across the country have indicated their support for keeping the gallery in the capital. Even Allison Argy Burgess of Visual Arts Alberta Association – the only other province with bids for the portrait gallery – has said: “The Nation’s Capital is where a National Portrait Gallery belongs”.

Dewar is urging local media in Ottawa and Gatineau to publicize the event announcement so that our community can send a strong message to the cabinet before the final decision regarding the location of the portrait gallery is made.

Details of the event:

When: Friday May 16, 2008, 12 noon to 1 pm

Where: NCC InfoCentre Terrace, right across from the Parliament buildings on Wellington Street

- 30 -

Tags: , , , , ,

Related posts

Filed under : art, arts administration
By Julianna Yau
On May 14, 2008
At 8:16 pm
Comments : 0
Print This Post Print This Post

 
 
 

Visual Arts Summit - Day 3 - Closing Remarks

The closing remarks by the panelists in the afternoon were wonderfully powerful and reaffirming.

Shawna Dempsey has become one of my new heroines. Her speech was not merely insightful and eloquent, but immensely powerful and provided artists with the much-needed voice for the Summit. She reminded us that one of the stark things missing from the Summit was any direct discussion of the position and concerns of the individual artist. She remarked on the fact that we were all struck by the low artist income figures from Kelly’s presentation but that it was never mentioned again—that we seemed to almost be in denial of the fact that artist wages are so low. She also noted that there was no discussion on the conditions under which artists produce and live, and asked why so many creators of culture live below the poverty line. She brought our attention to the fact that artists subsidize the creation of their own work, and that society perpetuates the concept that current living conditions of artists are acceptable. And she reminded us that there will be no true change if the needs of individual artist are not considered.

Gerald Beaulieu, the President of CARFAC National, recapped some of the themes of the Summit and reminded us to think forwards from the Summit. He repeated the quote that “there is nothing creatively rewarding about not being paid”—a sad reality for some artists. He reminded us of the importance to maintain the momentum of the Summit and to build relationships. He also made specific reference to things we can do after leaving the Summit, such as work on realizing the Exhibition Right Fund and urging the Canada Council to have their artists’ grants refocussed on the research and creation of works rather than on the career stage of the artist because the Canada Council is not in the business of career development.

Hank Bull presented his closing remarks in the form of a wish list, which he dubbed “Hank’s List”:
1. Cultural diversity
2. Internationalism—both taking art and ideas outside of Canada and bringing it into Canada
3. Having the National Portrait Gallery in Ottawa (ed note: the nation’s capital, after all)
4. Strong national Museums Policy
5. Strong Support for Aboriginal Arts
6. Reaffirmation of peer juries
7. The National Gallery to take a leadership role
8. Solidarity from the Summit
9. Another Summit in 2 years
10. Universities to accept arts credits at the same level of other high school credits (ed note: I’m paraphrasing because he appended this to the list during the question period)

Tony Luppino reinforced that there needs to be real action coming from the Summit. He urged us to remember the importance of putting numbers to the things we want—to not simply ask for “increases”, but to ask for the actual amount of increase that we need to achieve our goals. He hoped (and I, too, hope) that from this Summit will come the formation of committees and action groups. He indicated that we need a real strategy for what to do with the National Portrait Gallery, rather than pitting cities against each other. He said that collection agencies should not call themselves that if they do not have a collection budget, and reinforced the need for more work to be done on the issue of education. He also asked us whether it would be beneficial to take up the issue of artists’ rights as human rights issues.

After these closing remarks by the panelists, many of the delegates also made pointed out items which still need to be addressed (my apologies to my fellow delegates: I was not able to capture names):
-publications not merely for broad audiences, but for specialized audiences
-support for the reinstatement of the art transport service
-raw studio space disappearing
-the need for an occupational health & safety report of the mental and physical health of artist work space
-the problem of artist advocates’ salaries being as low as the artist salaries
-the need to form a group to represent the sector, with an action plan
-the need for a government inquiry into the concerns raised at the Summit

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Filed under : art, visual arts summit
By Julianna Yau
On November 28, 2007
At 9:54 pm
Comments : 2
Print This Post Print This Post

 
 
 

Visual Arts Summit – Day 1

Edit 8-Dec-2007: I feel like such an art newb. I was flipping through the pages of Canadian Art to see Michael Awad, the delegate who asked all of the artists to stand. The post below has been updated.

Yesterday was Day 1 of the Visual Arts Summit. In the morning, I got my information package, which included the schedule, a list of the delegates, a name-tag (thankfully, it was on a lanyard and not a pin or requiring an adhesive) and a brochure about some of the arts destinations in Ottawa. The list of delegates has been very useful for a “newb” like me, because I simply haven’t been around (in every sense of the word) enough to know many people. I’m also horrible with names, so the name-tags have been very useful (although they always seem to get turned around when I actually need to make use of it).

In the early afternoon, I was able to attend the tour (organized through the Summit) of vault 34 at the Gatineau Preservation Centre. The vault contains several of the portraits held by the Portrait Gallery of Canada, which is the first national portrait gallery to collect not merely works of the “important men in history books”, but works of and by all Canadians. The director, Lilly Koltun, was our guide to some of the works and was truly a wealth of information. She had intimate knowledge of the portraits’ history, both prior to being acquired by the Portrait Gallery and the acquisition itself. Everyone I talked to who had attended one of the tours agreed that they could just sit there and listen to her tell us about the portraits for hours, days, or more!

The Summit began in the late afternoon with an open plenary session. The start of the conference was punctuated with the announcement that “a landmark agreement has been reached for the first time in over 40 years between the museum community and the artists’ organizations over fees for exhibition of artists’ works. The agreement puts an end to a long-standing impasse and will lead to a new era of cooperation.”

The organizers announced that there were approx. 450 participants—200 more than they had anticipated. This is the first major gathering of the players in the arts community (in Canada) in over 40 years, and I think everyone agrees that it’s long overdue. During the introductory session, I could tell by the murmurs in the room and the questions following the panelist discussion that everyone was extremely eager to jump right into things. At the end of the question period, someone (my most sincere apologies—I didn’t catch his name) Michael Awad asked all of the working artists in the room to stand up. This was a potent statement because one-third to half the room stood up! I think all of the artists were relieved to know that so many of their peers were in attendance—I know I was.

My hope is that we can use that meeting of the minds to direct the Summit and use this time to start and maintain a more open dialogue between the different aspects of the arts community. NAVA seems to have done a fantastic job at that type of cooperation, and shows that it is possible.

Tags: , , , , ,

Related posts

Filed under : art, visual arts summit
By Julianna Yau
On November 26, 2007
At 8:07 am
Comments : 0
Print This Post Print This Post

 
 
 

“Copyright obsession”?

On Tuesday, Cory Doctorow had an article published in the Guardian Unlimited arguing that [a]n exhibition of pop art at London’s National Portrait Gallery unwittingly celebrates a golden age before copyright was king. The article was brought to my attention through the Art Law Blog, and reading it posed many questions.

Firstly, Doctorow points out what could be seen as copyright hypocrisy on the part of the Pop Art Portraits project, or London’s National Portrait Gallery in general. Essentially, he argues that the portraits are employing creative reuse of existing work, presumably in violation of the copyrights of the primary works holders, but the National Portrait Gallery prohibits photography to protect the copyrights of the works on display.

I say presumably because although their programme does not say a word about copyright, this does not necessarily mean that the artists have used the work without compensation to the original artists, or that they necessarily need to (depending on various fair use issues). To my knowledge, it is not a general practise to include information regarding who has been paid copyright residuals in the programme for a show.

That being said, I would hope that copyright has been paid where appropriate, but doubt it. Mostly because I know the administrative web that needs to be untangled to clear all the copyrights for using anything in a magazine is complex and time-consuming. And I doubt Disney would allow the use of any of their characters for a price affordable by an artist or a publicly funded gallery.

Secondly, there is the whole issue of how much copyright enforcement is too much. That I’m not prepared to tackle right at this time, but it seems that excessive copyright enforcement is a combination of legitimate copyright concerns, a disregard for fair use and a dash of desire for censorship/control. The concept of copyright in itself is not a negative thing, but we certainly need to revisit the terms of copyright and the methods and extent of enforcement happening recently.

Tags: , , , , ,

Related posts

Filed under : art, copyright
By Julianna Yau
On November 15, 2007
At 8:25 am
Comments : 0
Print This Post Print This Post