Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

A tale of two shows

SARAH MILROY

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:09 AM EDT 04/10/07

While an abstract exhibition in Unionville delivers admirably on the museum's mandate to educate, the McMichael's Robert Bateman show is a betrayal of public trust, Sarah Milroy writes ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Fram Framson from Tronna, Canada writes: Woooo no bias there, none at all.

    I'm hardly a Bateman-lover, nor am I anti-modernism, but wow... I think I could taste the venom! Who peed in Ms Milroys cheerios, I wonder? (Robert Bateman, from the sound of it!)
  2. JEANNE FARINE from Vancouver, Canada writes: Almost didn't need to comment. Having lived on Mr. Bateman's Island for many years, I've heard rants as vitriolic as Milroy's many times over from the jealous, the envious and the just plain uninformed. Whatever you do, DON'T put Milroy on my contact list. Bottom line: Bateman is a success BECAUSE he paints what the majority of sane and unpretentious viewers recognize, appreciate and understand.

    Milroy and her audience, if there really is one, not only revel in the abstract because they truly believe that their 'comprehension' of the incomprehensible marks their superior understanding of 'ART', but are SO happy to be able to distance themselves from the normal folk. And they do succeed in that endeavour, not by rising above, but rather by disappearing into the miasma of egoistic 'self-expression' of the painters who are recognized as artists by their pretentious advocates and by themselves, of course. For the rest of us, Batemen needs only to be viewed to be appreciated...If he makes a lot of money, too, good on him. He shares his good fortune with his community and the world in many enlightened ways...

    May Milroy find a truly illuminating abstraction of 'Black-on Black' to cool her angst. Ugh...
  3. J. Levine from Owen Sound, Canada writes: Perhaps a better headline to Sarah Milroy's article should have been A Wail about One Show. While she contends there is a 'tricky balancing act' that 'rural communities' have to perform, 'real discussion' is vital. Her article this morning left real discussion behind when insulting the tastes and values that differ from her own. She may better serve the reader and gallery-goer by attacking issues rather than individuals.
  4. Ryan Ginger from ottawa, Canada writes: Thank you, Sarah Milroy. That was probably the best gallery review that I've read all year and I wish that more reviewers could be as frank, intelligent and courageous as you. I have to agree that 'Queen Anne's Lace and American Goldfinch' is perhaps Bateman's finest painting. In any case, the McMichael clearly needs better direction.

    No doubt people will disagree with your scathing review of the Bateman show; they will probably call you 'just another pretentious art snob'. This will, of course, confirm your whole point.
  5. jim thomas from burlington , ontario, Canada writes: I agree with the writer of the article. I'd like to know the present mandate of McMichael's. I thought that it had to do with the Group of Seven and that era? I can see a thin connection via nature and how Canadian artists interpret its beauty as a connecting point to Bateman. Those that admire him are shallow romanticists of the worse kind who equate Harlequin books as great literature. Bateman is a controversial figure who is placed much, much, much lower in comparison to other contemporary artists. His crass exploitation of the photo mechanical reproductions has made him rich. His originals are flat as the writer describes him. I also have heard that his support of the environment can be questioned when examining where and how he lives. That is of no significance though. It is his art practice that is being discussed. She is right on the money.
  6. Christopher Kiely from Canada writes: Art critics like this is why most people don't give a damn about art anymore and the arts community has some of the reputation it does.

    Art is like wine, the best kind is the kind YOU like not what some high and mighty reviewer wanting to push old men down flights of stairs for their opinions on art says you should like.

    People don't like Bateman because he makes art to make money... a cardinal sin among some art folks. That is fine, don't buy his prints, don’t go to his shows, but to criticize the man to this degree in a national newspaper is despicable and petty.

    'Just another pretentious art snob' Ryan? Yes... At best.
  7. Jane Rudge from Hamilton, Canada writes: Well, I'm not exactly an art expert, but it's about time someone spanked Bateman in public. He commits one of the worst crimes an artist can do... he bores me. That's not art, that's framed wallpaper.
  8. Carol-Ann Ryan from Toronto, Canada writes: Ms. Milroy is absolutely right and I applaud her honesty. As an art history instructor, I find the basic point she makes here a most difficult one to explain to students. It is the artist’s job to view the world around them and interpret it through new eyes offering new perspectives. Their contribution to society is the creation of new vocabularies and modes of expression.

    I also agree that it is the duty of publicly funded museums to educate people on this age-old pursuit. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the work of a successful Canadian artist like Bateman, but contextualizing his work within the larger dialogue of modern painting is a weak, if not false, proposition.
  9. B D from Canada, Canada writes: I find the affectations in several of the above posts rather amusing. Carol-Ann - 'it is the artist's job to the view the world around them and interpret it through new eyes offering new perspectives.' I would agree perhaps if the artist worked for you and that was the mandate you set out for him or her. But artists who work for themselves can do whatever job they feel inspired to do, whether they bring anything new to the world or not. I suspect that this is why there are so many starving artists out there.

    To the art snobs out there, I equate Bateman's work to that of JK Rowling. While they may not be works of artistic or literary genius (according to the academic community), their popular appeal has introduced millions of people to the joys of art and reading. They may be the equivalent of harlequin novels, but at least they are being read - unlike the works of great literature and art that sit collecting dust.
  10. R McLelland from Guelph, Canada writes: Question - what is the essential difference between a museum's mandate and a gallery's mandate? I really don't like Bateman's stuff (her comments are bang on), but surely the mandate of a gallery is to display pieces of interest to the public (of all sorts), whereas a museaum's mandate may be more clearly defined as educational/restorative/curatorial (although there is plenty of bias in museum displays as well, but that's another tangent for another day). While the Varney show sounds fabulous, and I will go, despite the lack of paintings from other areas of the country, is it really the job of a gallery to educate?
  11. r d from Canada writes: Great article! And to me it didn't seem so much 'scathing' and weary. Bateman's work is just not very accomplished. In short, he's an okay painter but he's sloppy (more so as he gets older, weirdly enough) and he has some unethical practices with his print runs and sales.

    But the main point is that many Canadians don't have a lot of access to art and don't have many chances to really engage in discussion about it. I don't think that's snobbery -- I think that's a lack of understanding based on a lack of arts education in schools, and a general apathy or fear/distrust about art in our social fabric.

    By giving us a glowing example (the Varley museum) of a show that strives for something more, Ms. Milroy is giving me hope that if curators and their audiences reach a little, it doesn't have to be that way.
  12. J M from Realityville, Canada writes: Next up. A Look at The Life's Work of Thomas Kincaid
  13. Robert Tomas from Toronto, Canada writes: I share in Ms. Milroy's disappointment, as I remember being equally disappointed at the ROM displaying first, a history of Coca-Cola advertising, then a history of baseball, to finally cap it with the contents of Moses Znaimer's attic. No wonder art is being debased, underfunded and treated as unnecessary frill, if our museums convince the public that there is no thin red line between Bateman and Rothko, between Coca-cola ads and Roy Liechtenstein, between weaving baskets and Jana Sterbak. You don't have to be an art snob to have a sophisticated taste and since when is sophistication a four-letter word? To the admirers of Bateman, there are enough commercial galleries shilling his stuff and besides, it would be much more in its millieu next to balck-velvet canvas and 'sofa-sized' paintings than in the wonderful rooms in Kleinburg. The only saving grace is that some visitors to this atrocious exhibit will stumble upon the wonderful collection of the aborigibnal and Inuit art.
  14. J M from Canada writes: Thank-you Ms. Milroy for an illuminating article, and to Jim Thomas, Carol-Ann Ryan and others for a good explanation of why Robert Bateman's output is so frustrating to so many people.
  15. Karina_I (my art at windstream.ca) from Canada writes: I always enjoyed articles by Sarah Milroy and this one is no exception. I think she nailed the criterion by which some artists transcend time and space and others, while skillful just stay in their periods. Real artist has to 'push the medium forward, give it personal inflection, reveal interesting thinking about the relationships between man and nature.' Every time when I look at the works of an artist I always think - is there a unique personal touch in the works, something that would make me later to recognize his/her works among thousands of others, the same way I recognize works of El Greco, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Turner, Kandinsky, Blake, Dali, Escher and etc. Artists in some way like scientists - some make major discoveries and create history, while others just use existing techniques to mass produce items based on the discoveries of others, in case of artists I call it 'manual' photos and while it requires a lot of skills and many people would enjoy it I doubt it would belong to the museums, rather to the dens of people who buy it for pure enjoyment. Many might disagree, but in today's Canadian market so far I found one artist whose works are not only enjoyable, but glow with the unique 'recognizable' light - her name is Trisha Romance. Unfortunately I can not afford her originals, but even reproductions have that rare quality of personal touch.
  16. David Brown from Canada writes: Sarah Milroy, you are the little art snob, aren't you. Unfortunately your rant simply illustrates the shallowness of your understanding - nothing below that thin layer of pedagogical intellectualism.

    Interestingly you note that the Robert Bateman gallery was crowded. This reflects that what Fine Art graduates regard as culture is not culture at all but rather is a set of symbols to confirm their moral and intellectual superiority over the masses. It is a fascistic type elitism which leads Ms. Milroy to thoughts of pushing an old man down the stairs.
  17. Michael Kaczorowski from Ottawa, Canada writes: That Ms. Milroy dislikes artist Robert Bateman's work is witheringly obvious. Fine, that is her choice. What is unacceptable, however, is her risible condescension and barely contained contempt towards those people who do like Bateman's paintings. Clearly, in Ms. Milroy's view, such people are ignorant rubes who know nothing of 'real' art. She represents precisely the type of cloistered art critics in this country who for years shunned artists such as Ken Danby. I believe the public outpouring of admiration for Ken Danby following his untimely death speaks volumes about his impact as an artist and as a Canadian - just as it says everything that needs to be said about critics.
  18. Fluorescent, Yellow, Plastic Bowl from the dollar store from Japan writes: Big issue here. Sure Bateman is wallpaper but you can`t blame the regular folk for feeling alienated from contemporary art which can be very conceptual and 'getting it' for the most part requires a fairly extensive knowledge of art history. At what point should the contemporary art world take some responsibility for driving the masses towards Bateman? I think that it`s too bad that so much contemporary art feels so exclusive, and that it would be wonderful if the regular folk could have their lives enhanced by contemporary art and for contemporary artists to have a large audience as well. It`s time to somehow bridge that rift a little more, to save people, so desperate for an aesthetic hit, from Bateman. Look how hungry they are. They`re eating Bateman. Rather than lambasting Bateman why not do something to temper the elistist, isolationist trend where only the teensyist fraction of the population has any meaningful contact with what today`s artists are creating. I`m not saying artists should dumb it down but why not stretch themselves a bit and see how well they can communicate and not just conceive.
  19. Albin Forone from Toronto, Canada writes: More than Ms. Milroy's evaluation of the subject works (Bateman is essentially a very good nature illustrator, I may drive up to see the Varley abstractions) I was taken with her unabashed assumption that North of Highway 7 the good folk in check shirts and calico need text balloons around 'difficult' art or else they will revert to the unreflective habit of good illustration. In fact, Bateman could successfully show for an uncool downtown Toronto constituency that dares not speak its name, but the Varley show, if it's as condescending as described, would have to be presented by a more respectful curator.
  20. Thirstin Howl from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Who's the snob? The exhibition presents Bateman as a great misunderstood genius on par with VanGogh? Hilarious. ...I've always found it odd that he sells his posters as 'art prints' as if they are some great investment. Does he even know what a 'print' is?... Well I guess they are 'printed'. What a scam.
  21. Ian Folkins from Halifax, Canada writes: The reviewer is free to trash Robert Bateman's work, but she is inconsistent in seeing the public as needing to be educated to experience abstraction. If the public has a moral obligation to appreciate abstraction, where does this obligation come from? Why are her opinions more objective than others? That's the strange patronizing part of the review. Seems to reflect a lack of maturity.
  22. Some Guy from Canada writes: I wanted to push Ms Milroy down the stairs.
  23. David Langan from North Vancouver, Canada writes: After seeing the Vancouver Art Gallery's fantastic exhibit of impressionist and abstract painters - I wondered what type of critiques they must have faced for breaking the rules of the day. I guess I just found out. Leave empty rhetoric to the politicians please.
  24. Rocket Doctor from Vanc, Canada writes: Yes, Sarah, I loved your vitriol. And i agree with the other guy that while you are flaying best sellers you need to review a Thomas Kincaid retrospective.
  25. Michael Lloyd from Kanata, Canada writes: Great article! And as for those of complaining about Ms Milroy being an art snob - that's part of the job description - so deal with it. What's really good however, is that we have all this impassioned discussion over an art story - with no mention yet of Harper or Dion ... until now (sorry).
  26. Vincent LEAHY from Burlington, writes: Robert Bateman is probably appreciated by most people beyond the confines of the 'art world' that Sarah Milroy inhabits ......... The Irish have a lovely expression that aptly describes the snobbishly negative comments in this article about Robert by Sarah .......'What a load of shite' !
  27. Surf City from Canada, Canada writes: Ms Milroy's review of Mr. Bateman's exhibition at the McMichael is right on target. Mr. Bateman's work, while technically competent, is tired, flat, and extremely boring. That it takes no risks in its conception or execution is self-evident. His work may be popular but that only speaks to his commercial success, not his artistic legacy. And quite frankly, he does not have much claim on that account - I would be quite surprised if he is remembered for anything more than the sappy romantic naturalist that he most surely is. What is unfortunate is that Ms. Milroy chose to contrast Mr. Bateman's exhibit with that of the historical Canadian abstraction show at the Varley. No doubt that the Varley exhibit does a fine job of educating members of the public regarding the development of abstraction in the past century. But the contrast of the Varley show with the Bateman exhibit is never going to do anything more than add gas to the fire that is the realism vs. abstraction debate. As we can see above, the defenders of the realist approach will take the bait every time. If Ms Milroy wanted to take Mr. Bateman to task, my preference would have been to compare his work to that of other Canadian 'realist' artists. Perhaps a comparison with the photo-conceptual artists from Vancouver such as Jeff Wall, Rodney Graham or Roy Arden would be appropriate. Their exploration of what is real, and how that realism is depicted, is a serious intellectual pursuit that Mr. Bateman ignores completely. The enormous distance between Mr. Bateman's 'illustrations' and the work of these fine contemporary artists should be quite obvious. That is the comparison (and the failure of Mr. Bateman’s art) that needs to be made, not a re-hash of the realism-abstraction debate.
  28. Robert Tomas from Toronto, Canada writes: I am actually heartened by the number of posts coming to defence of Ms. Milroy. The admirers of Bateman and his folksy, pre-digested doodles for mass consuption are a predictable crowd. What is a big surprise is the number of Canadians with a discernment and art appreciation to actually eloquently argue against Mr. Bateman's 'art lite'. I also applaud the point of not comparing Bateman with Varley, but rather more representative painter. Well said. As for the images of nature by Mr. Bateman, they are no more 'art' by being displayed in an art gallery than your old hairbrush is an 'antique' by being sold in a roadside curiosity shop.
  29. Robert Vincent from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I'm astounded at the level of vitriol expressed by the writer. Is this so significant to the passage of history to warrant such bombast!? Get a life, for crying out loud. How do you feel about Bateman in comparison with Ken Danby? or Alex Colville? or Pratt? All of them realists, but painting with a different motivation and with great success commercially.

    I note a generous (by comparison) acknowledgement of Robert Bateman's efforts towards preserving nature. Can we not acknowledge that aspectof his work as speaking through his art, as using his talent for setting and composition to speak on significant issues to the viewer of his work? Can we not also look at his work with an eye to its inspiration being from more than a single dimension: what he sees and what he has enjoyed from the efforts of others who have paved the way in the evolution of his art? After all, no scientist would ever claim that he or she alone was responsible for a discovery of any kind.
  30. David Langan from North Vancouver, Canada writes: I would have loved to see the critique that Surf suggested. In the meantime... does anyone else see the irony that impressionism and abstract art was birthed from a desire to bring art out of the ivory tower and to the masses?
  31. Robert Fisher from Canada writes: This article proves two points very clearly. First, the appreciation of art is entirely subjective. Two, if anyone wants to see an example of 'pretentious silliness', all they need to do is read Miss Milroy's piece.
  32. Shamus M from Canada writes: THe author wanted to push a person down the stairs because they have a different view on art? Imagine if Bill O'Reilly said the same thing. Well, he probably has about other things, but it's scary no matter where it's coming from. Brutal.
  33. Jeff Holmes from The Big Smoke, Canada writes: Hmmm – I like Bach and Brubeck, Schoenberg and Santana, Orlando di Lassus and Ornette Coleman. What has always vexed me is the “Who’s Better” game played by the semi musically literate who insist that their favourite genre is the only acceptable one. The same is true of art lovers – Giacometti is better than Bernini, or Whistler kicks Lichtenstein’s butt.

    The sad truth is that the self-confessed cognoscenti are so insecure as to need to exert their intellectual superiority over the great unwashed by mocking their plebeian taste.

    Who cares if Bateman is or isn’t a genius or whether the average schmo would recognize a Nakamura if he saw one. Art is for pleasure. If what pleases me doesn’t blow your skirt up – well, I can live with that.
  34. John Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: I learned more about Canadian art from the comments on this page than from Sarah Milroy. Thanks!

    Art is a form of expression that is thought provoking. What is thought provoking to intellectual students of art might be "boring" to others. Ms. Milroy's displeasure with Batemen's work is fair. However, to suggest the gallery performed a "betrayal of public trust"----thats a bit much. We just wanted to see Bateman's work.
  35. William Hanlon from London, Canada writes: Thank you, Sarah Milroy, for an illuminating and provocative juxtapositon of two very different gallery shows. One reader, who left a comment above, blames "art critics like this" for the public's declining interest in art, as though to expose the great weaknesses of a populist sacred cow like Robert Bateman means that one is merely a "snob" who hates the public. On the contrary, it is cynical and money-hungry galleries and institutions that feed popular misconceptions and ignorance by giving a stamp of approval to snake-oil salesmen like Bateman that truly defeat the public interest and are ultimately responsible for its laziness and apathy in the face of modern art.

    And to the person who wrote above that the Bateman show is validated by its sheer number of visitors, I would ask this: If a Beanie Baby museum opened up next door to the Bateman show, which do you think would draw the most visitors? I rest my case.
  36. Larry Hill from Canada writes: I am not really qualified to argue art with Ms. Milroy...

    But if she considers Unionville to be "rural", I have to wonder what she considers the rest of Canada to be??
  37. Lita Powell from Fort St. John, Canada writes: I cannaot possibly believe the interpretation of this critique with respect to Robert Bateman. I personally am acquainted with Mr. Bateman, and completely contrary to the critique, Mr. Bateman's work, particularly his owrk on the African animals almost singlehandedly brought to the entire world's attention of plight of poaching and overhunting in Africa. Mr. Bateman has brought the wonders of the animals of North America into the homes of millions who simply do not have the resouces to access the natural habitat of our animals. Tomatoe or tomato - I am willing to accept both - it is extremely unfortunate that narrow-minded-ness is still alive and well in the artisy crowd.
  38. Joe Stratton from victoria, Canada writes: Hmmmmmmmm.... to my thinking, and as an actual artist, not one of the critics or supporters of the review would ever, in their lifetime be able to duplicate what Mr. Bateman offers.
    Clearly I understand they are not required to, but it's a little bit like the story about people who live in glass houses.
    Art IS subjective and NOT definative. Offer an opinion, but don't be abusive.
  39. Policy Wonk from Canada, Canada writes: Count me in Ms. Milroy's fan club. As stated by Surf City above, I too regret that she fell into the realism vs. abstraction pitfall. But as someone who is probably not schooled in the visual arts or art history, Ms. Milroy should be applauded for wading into the debate as effectively as she did. Bravo to her! Keep up the good work!
  40. Ryan Ginger from ottawa, Canada writes: Please everybody, spare us the pedestrian assumption that "taste is subjective". People retreat into this threadbare solipsism in order to avoid actual debate. The fact is, art is not subjective. There is good and there is bad. There is challenging art, and there is wallpaper. Bateman, I'm afraid, is wallpaper. (And please remember that Ms. Milroy actually pointed out a very good Bateman in her review, suggesting that, while most Bateman lovers sneer at the "art world hoity toities", the reverse isn't true--people like Milroy can actually appreciate a good Bateman when they see one.)

    The reason why Ms. Milroy's opinion "counts" is because she has taken the time and trouble to A) look at more art than the most of us, B) learn about the artist's background, ideas and theories, C) change her viewpoint when presented with better ideas.

    I think it's time that Canadians championed educated ideas, rather than popular ideas.
  41. Conceptual Art Lover from Canada, Canada writes: Regarding the many supports of Mr. Bateman that keep trying to defend what is, in my estimation, almost indefensible. Hang onto your worthless photo-mechanical reproductions of those almost innumerable Bateman prints. (Ever try selling one - you will be lucky if you can get the cost of the framing back!) As stated above, Mr. Bateman’s success is tied to a commercial marketing scheme that has evidently caught more than a few unsophisticated art patrons completely unawares – the romantic notion of the wilderness tamed is such a trite expression that it no longer has any appeal except to the naive. As P. T. Barnum is sometimes (mistakenly?) credited as saying, “There is a sucker born every minute”. I prefer art that challenges my understanding of how to view the world around me. Abstraction is certainly more challenging than most ‘realist’ depictions of pleasant, romantic scenes such as Mr. Bateman’s, but my real interest is in the post-modern expression of conceptual art. I am not an artist or an ‘art professional’, but I do take an interest in intellectual pursuits that actually reflect the times we live in, not some 19th century notion of acceptable taste. I am not interested in coffee table books for nature lovers or framed reproductions of staged wilderness scenes masquerading as real art. If you need a nice print to hang over the sofa maybe a Bateman is as good as any other, but please don’t try to tell me that there is any artistic merit or relevance to Mr. Bateman’s work. It is technically competent, but so lacking in originality that it is banal. And please don’t attempt to argue that Mr. Bateman’s wide variety of subject matter – i.e. different animal depictions – is evidence of his originality. Treated as they are, almost identically, his many different animal subjects are only further evidence of his artistic laziness. Sarah Milroy was right to take Mr. Bateman to task. His art is cliché and quite deserving of the criticism.
  42. Art Critic from Your City, Canada writes: OMG! I just watched the end of the National on CBC. Based on the clip they showed, the CBC is going to do a 'puff' piece on Bateman's show at the McMichael. As there is not a competent cultural critic among CBC's stable of reporters, one can only expect that Bateman will get plenty of opportunity to defend his artistic practices and complain about his reception in the art world. Will his critics get equal face time? Just wondering......
  43. cindy webster from Canada writes: I find this a rather telling quote: "Our arts institutions are empowered and funded to educate members of the public, not pander to their ignorance in pursuit of a quick profit." My feeling is that if one has to be "educated" in order to appreciate a work of art, there's something lacking in the artwork. Implying that if people were more educated in the arts, they would love abstract art is a fallacy. I have had an extensive arts education, and I find a great deal (not all) of abstract art to be unattractive and pointless. I also intensely dislike "installation art". I do not consider a light bulb in an empty room to be art- it may make a statement, but there is no talent required to produce it. I certainly do not consider dead animals hanging from a ceiling to be art...and I seriously wonder about the mental state of anyone who does. I'm not a Bateman fan, nor do I dislike him. I'm neutral, though I think he has a good eye and a great deal of talent. I do feel that beauty resides in the eye of the beholder, and that what we consider to be art is a highly personal choice. I used to subscribe to Time magazine. I stopped when an "art critic" (and I use the term loosely) raved on for 5 columns of very small print about a picture that I can only describe as a silver rectangle. It looked like sometime took a roller, loaded it with grey paint and rolled it over a canvas, then gave it a clever title. A couple of years ago, a woman in England submitted paintings by her young child to an art competition and the judges raved about them. When they found out how young the child was, they called him (her?) a prodigy to cover their embarrassment. My point? Some abstract art is terrific...it draws you in. And some of it could be produced by a child playing around...or someone with little or no talent who can come up with a clever title. But that does not give the "educated " person the right to sneer at those who do not like abstracts and prefer Bateman's realism.
  44. Jane Rudge from Hamilton, Canada writes: Ah yes... if you don't like (insert popular thing here) you must be a snob. It can't be because (popular thing) is actually bad. Bateman isn't fit to polish Glen Loates' shoes. His animals are dead, and mounted in shadowbox with suitably dramatic lighting standing in for life. I appreciate nature artists and landscape artists (and impressionists, not personally fond of abstracts, but I have a basic grasp of what the point is) that have a sense of what constitutes the essence of the thing.
  45. Lifelonglearner Fromtheschoolofhardknocks from Your City, Canada writes: I love it when the realist camp has to resort to the 'any child could do it better' or 'art is subjective' arguments in order to attack abstraction. Cindy Webster, your naivety is showing, and it ain't pretty! If you can't understand abstraction, admit it - then you might be able learn something from this discussion or from Ms. Millroy's review.

    Please read Ryan Ginger's comment again. He makes a great argument for the need to educate one's self on the merits of contemporary (i.e.. the art of THIS time and/or place, not some other century, as pointed out by the Conceptual Art Critic) art. Ryan Ginger also happens to be dead on with his critique of Bateman's work as wallpaper - easily dismissed for its repetitive and unremarkable execution.

    I can't speak to the merits of any installation work that involves a light bulb in an empty room, but if that artwork was poorly realized it only stands to reason that other work, including that of Mr. Bateman, could similarly miss the mark. Please don't base your opinions on the worst examples of modern or abstract art that you can find - it does nothing to strengthen your argument - it only proves your desperation.
  46. cindy webster from Canada writes: Hi lifelonglearner...you didn't read my comment very carefully. I don't dislike abstract art, nor am I part of the realist camp. I dislike a lot of abstract art because it is bad art; and some of it I admire a great deal...it depends on the individual work. (I prefer impressionism and surrealism as a matter of personal taste.) I did not say "any child could do it better"...I simply mentioned that SOME of it could be done better by a child...that is my personal opinion on some of the wretched work I have seen. I see no reason why I should be expected to prefer the art of THIS time and place simply because I live in this time...I don't choose what I read that way (don't read a lot of contemporary literature), so why should I choose art that way? I select what appeals to my eye and to my taste. If someone considers Bateman to be wallpaper that is their opinion, and they are entitled to it. I find his paintings beautiful, but they don't make me feel anything except admiration for his talent...my own hands shake too much to achieve anything remotely like that. If someone else thinks they are great art, they are also entitled to their opinion. None of us will know the truth, because only time will tell. The Great Masters endured the test of time, and in a few centuries some of the 20th/21st century painters will be recognized as the great painters of our time...who knows what our descendants will think worthy? As for the lightbulb in the empty room...that was the Tate Gallery- and (in my opinion, to which I am surely entitled) that is not art...that is a lightbulb in an empty room.
  47. Richard Ganton from Milton, Canada writes: Sarah Milroy’s article is an example of the arrogance and pretentiousness of the art community. She assumes that “we have not been graced with opportunity to learn better”. Some of us have and still don’t like most abstract art. It is not interesting or beautiful. Art should take skill and effort. A bunch of high heeled shoes arranged in a circle may make a meaningful statement but it isn’t art. It shouldn’t be in a museum. “Voice of Fire” is not art. If someone stole it and burned it to ashes very few people would miss it because it could be replaced the next day in a couple of hours and no one would know the difference. Richard Gorman’s Torrid Zone shown in the paper shows no skill and little effort. A high school art class could produce 30 similar pieces and no one would know the difference between the expert’s piece and the high school students’ efforts. Salvador Dali’s surreal art showed great skill and effort. Many of his pieces like the “Hallucinogenic Toreador” deserve to be studied for hours, even days. Most abstract art does not. It deserves to be carted away to the garbage just like what happened to one so called artist’s piece. The night cleaning crew mistook his work for a pile of garbage. What is the point of embracing the physical fact of paint on the canvas if it doesn’t take any skill and effort? Every year I go on the Milton Studio tour. To me great art is something that I stop and look at for awhile and want to keep coming back to. There was a painting of a single plant with a flower on a barren background. It was a beautiful use of colour. The art community represented by Sarah Milroy is poorer for being unable to appreciate art that most people like. We are not poorer for not liking most Abstract art. The sad thing is that the art community is like the Emperor with no clothes but people like Sarah Milroy are too pretentious too know that.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top