While there have been numerous developments as a consequence of Diana Poulsen’s criticism of Vantage Art Projects, I have been content to let Diana report those updates on her own follow-up post. Even at the expense of much dramatic name-calling and editorializing of certain actionable phrases, the value of the dialogue is clearly demonstrated in the fact that Vantage Art Projects has added an FAQ to their Call for Submissions that addresses what, in my mind, were the most fundamental difficulties in their process (i.e. artists can now learn what the submissions requirements are before paying the price of admission).

What makes me revisit the theme now was a comment I found awaiting me this morning on my own post discussing the Gatekeepers project from Mia Johnson, the developer of artist-curator Angela Grossmann’s website, requesting the removal an image of Angela’s drawing from that post. Like any semi-responsible blogger engaged in art criticism (and therefore in the presentation of appropriated images), I was already fully aware that my use of the image falls under the Fair Dealing exception in the Canadian Copyright Act. Fair Dealing allows for “the use or reproduction of a work for private study, research, criticism, review, or news reporting” as an integral part of the Copyright Act, preserving a necessary balance between the rights of the owner and the public interest of the user.

Perhaps most tellingly, this airing of this copyright issue addresses one of the concerns that Diana and many other artists raised in regards to the Gatekeepers call. What Mia herself didn’t seem to understand is that Angela’s work isn’t copyrighted just because she slapped her little note at the bottom of the webpage - its copyright is guaranteed under Canadian law from the moment of its creation. As such, any artist submitting their work to Gatekeepers or any other project retains their copyright by default, unless they choose to formally sign those rights over to another party. And given that Vantage Art Projects isn’t offering any sort of compensation or royalties for the use of their images, the expectation that Vantage would demand such rights is ludicrous. Though not impossible, and I would still maintain that more organizations need to make that expectation clear in the early stages of a call for submissions - frankly, it’s not just Vantage that is guilty of that sort of omission.

Paul Butler, Toronto Now Suite detail, 2008. Because he didn’t object when I used this image in a mini-review of his MKG127 show in 2008.

Although I ultimately substituted the image of Angela’s art with one of the artist herself at Mia’s insistence that the post was not about Angela’s art, I still maintain that Angela Grossmann’s primary occupation as a visual artist is a large part of what went wrong with this call for submissions. Miscommunications and the disputed allocation of responsibility are just some of the possible consequences when an artist is inserted into a curatorial role for the first time. There’s a professional lesson to be had here, insofar as the curator’s responsibilities extend far beyond that of artist-theorist or even juror.

Vantage Art Projects’ previous exhibition-in-print curator was Paul Butler, who ironically is also well-positioned to respond to the notion of gatekeepers in contemporary art - the statement for his 2008 MKG127 show practically reads like a textbook for the Gatekeepers open call without the condescension. His choice of curatorial theme for Vantage’s first publication, however, was ‘Lateral Learning’ - a theme that both spoke directly to the book as format and more importantly did not exacerbate the inevitable tension generated by the submission fee.

In light of the comment thread generated by Diana’s post on this subject, I can’t help but feel that there is an undeniable learning curve in the artist-to-curator transition that cannot be taken lightly. Paul Butler, who has previous curatorial experience and administers The Other Gallery, was far better equipped to take ownership of the issues inherent in this call. Conversely, Angela’s attempts to realize an earnest idea within the terms established by a third party has left her project vulnerable to criticism; perhaps the most reprehensible element of this episode has been the extent to which Angela has engaged in the dialogue at Diana’s blog while Vantage Art Projects has kept silent save for a self-serving attempt to promote their upcoming book launch.

I’ve no doubt that, given their intimate knowledge of the creative process, any number of artists could make brilliant curators of exhibitions and special projects. But it’s a transition that cannot happen without a certain degree of mentorship and support. And just as Vantage appears to be taking advantage of submitting artists, I wonder whether Angela’s name and earnestness has been similarly exploited for the sake of this project.

Share This

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « David Shrigley’s Pringle of Scotland animation
• » Tomorrow: Art Museum Wager Resolved… oh, and Superbowl XLIV, too

• BROWSE / IN Canadian Art Government and Art Lifestyle Professional Practice
• « Professional Practice Bonus Feature (with props to Diana Poulsen)
• » Professional Practice Postscript: On the spending and making of money