His web site is a thumbs down as far as design is concerned (if you ask me which you didn't anthony but I am telling you anyways)

He has a good eye for work though ;

http://www.hollingercollins.com/

Most of our talk centred around what ails the provincial and to a larger extent the Canadian arts scene.

His discontents stem from the same place, as mine, which are informed by three years working at a government funded arts organization.

In both places established artists are pushed at the expense of young artists.

His (commercial) take was interesting, young artists whos work is vibrant are treated as window dressing while the work being sold is by the riopelle and hurtebise etc..

The roles are similar as far as public art is concerned young artists create work (on relatively small budgets) that makes the canada council look like it is doing a good job of pushing the envelope but the artists who get significant funding are the established ones.

So I am excited to think that maybe someone will really support up and coming artists who make saleable work in the city. Half my friends fall into that category and they ( we if I include mis-registered prints of animals doing weird things) need a champion who will really get our work into the scene.

I really feel like going on about what Anthony said that made sense., but I am supposed to be doing homework. bUt his final point that was really neat was that not only does work by young artists need to sell it needs to become part of the critical landscape (not terrain I am very familiar with to be honest - i spend too much time reading blogs ). Which it isn't.

Oh yeah and Sefi stopped by and she is curating at the green room now, and wants Lauren and I and all the other nice people from this show to put together something for there. Which sounds like a fantastic idea and maybe this time we will be able to have our own dj's. I am sure it is less important for Lauren she needs to focus on a solo show but maybe I can put something together.

Now to completely change the subject;

I should be reading my marketing report about the NHL by the way but surprisingly enough I cannot muster even one iota of enthusiasm. For one thing the language used in the paper is hurting me. for example;

"Montreal, hockey's winningest team of all time, reeled of five straight cups....."
what does that mean? what is it supposed to mean?

When was it made okay for a university to make me pay $18 for a photocopied booklet which contains travesties of english like winningest.

Worse yet here is how the same paper describes hockey;

"Ice hockey is played with six players one each side: the object of the game is to put a round disk called a puck in the opponents net using L-shaped hockey sticks."

What do they think we are, aliens? Or worse yet, idiots?

I am also picturing some aliens trying to play hockey based on this description and I see some tentacled creatures balancing discs carefully on l-shaped sticks and then carefully dropping them into a net and than asking themselves where is the fun in this strange earthling game???

I can't believe I just spent 1.5 hours talking to a real gallery owner about current trends in the canadian art collecting scene, as comared to public arts funding and the possibility of an emergent third tier where artists in canada doing less typically commerical work can still find support from the private sector.

Which is all highly relevant and topical W.R.T my future plans and ideas.

And than I have to go and read this horseshit paper from Harvard Business school about marketing the NHL.

I should have handed Mr. Collins $100 that's probably how much my marketing prof gets an hour for teaching.

Okay I am going to finish reading - sigh.

Posted by Miriam at October 25, 2004 04:46 PM Posted to printmaking