October 23rd, 25th, and 30th:

I forgot to write a new post for a couple classes - nobody is perfect. These classes all pretty much covered the same content though so I thought it would be alot more effective to just group them together rather than pull my hair out trying to think of something to say each time.

Emily Carr, Emily Carr, oh Emily.

I am actually really happy that we covered Emily Carr so much, even though I am definitely sick of her and don't want to talk about her ever again for a solid amount of time. At least for the rest of semester.

Coming from Vancouver I have definitely heard her name a few times. [Side note: what shocked me was how so many of my friends here didn't know who she was when I mentioned I was writing an essay on her!!] She always seemed like this great mystical person when I was younger because I always saw the swirling magical forest and totem scenes from the later part of her life that she has become so well known for.
I never knew the controversy surrounding her.
Ive taken a handful of classes at Emily Carr University of Art and Design, but even when I was there not a single instructor even mentioned her name.
The time that Carr was producing was not the best time to be a native in Canada - they were considered as a dying race being over taken by the Great White North. But, did Carr share the same opinions as those that have judged her so harshly for being discriminatory and inconsiderate? She was the most common essay topic, so there must be some type of magic about her.

This song by Hannah Georgas for some reason just really makes me think of Emily Carr. There is a magic in her. They are both coming from Vancouver, their arts are obviously about very different things, and yet they are both things that they care passionately about, so how different are they?

Why are we still judging people based on their passions or how they identify themselves? Weren't we supposed to be past this 100 years ago?

Emily Carr may not have been native, she was an outsider observing them perhaps - but she saw magic in them and she wanted to be a part of it. I respect that alot. I understand that alot. I don't think its something that needs to be argued at all anymore.

My contribution to today's panel discussion. 

Oh good.. more about the Group of Seven.

The most interesting thing that I found in this class was the process of designing the logo for the group. It's just a 7 inside a circle, but it took many more tries and designs before it got there. My notes from today pretty much consist entirely of 7's inside circles and other shapes.

I also noted down "positive & negative space, coexist on one plane". I think it was in reference to a Tom Thomson painting. I'm probably putting way too much into this quote because it's getting a bit late and I'm getting a bit tired - but it, in a way, is really deep and pretty much sums up everything that I like about the Group of Seven.

Yes, there were a bit gendered and all similar types of people, but from what I can tell, they were all very open to working with other artists for the betterment of the craft in general.

I also found it really interesting that alot of them became war painters. In their depictions of trees and mountains you don't see any of the danger or anger involved in war. Maybe one of the reasons that they all loved going to the woods so much was to escape the violence of the time.

Zegirja Rexhepi - Destroyed Violin

I started looking into this a bit more and found an article by CBC about wartime and its effect or relationship with arts and culture - if you're interested you can find it here.

There goes the neighbourhood... here comes the Group of Seven with Tom Thomson blazing their path!

As a child whenever I used to go to art galleries with my mom, I would always run straight to the most abstract or most colourful or most obscene work in the gallery. She would take her time looking around for the more classical pieces, then, coming upon a work from the group of seven, she would say:
"Look Rachel, look at theses ones, and read about them. These are really important to your history and to Canada"
Or something along those lines. Honestly, I never saw it. I never really understood why what I was looking at was so significant or so much better than the works that I liked so much better.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is that I am glad we have finally breached this subject in class. Here's the thing though - I think, knowing more about them, I like the group of seven even less.
It sounds to me like they were really just very masculine men, but not in so much of the attractive way.. a bit more conceited then that. I don't dispute that they are an important part of Canadian Art History, I am just so sick of them always being what everybody talks about when you mention the topic.

There are way more interesting canadian artists out there. 

I will admit, I do like some of their works. They are all very aesthetically pleasing and well done. They got the reputation they did for a reason. 

Personally, just not really what I am in to. I appreciate learning more about them, but I think i am already done with that, ready to move on please. 

If you didn't catch this from my last post, I am not pursuing a career in fine arts. I am however a woman, and I am pursuing a career possibly in art history, or possibly architecture which is its own type of art. So, obviously, the education and advancement of women in arts, especially in canada, is very important to me. Like broke and living on the street versus have a well-cared for life doing what I love important.
Yea, that's big.

Painting I did in High School... not significant or terribly impressive, just representing right now how I feel about the future. Slightly nervous? Like going to school without any clothes on? That sort of feeling. 

The class today was about women artists and their education... I don't really think that females have a particularly difficult time getting educated in fine arts nowadays... In fact I think that its almost reversed in that it is more difficult for men because of stereotyping in the society. That being said, being educated and being successful are two completely different things and, as I am sure is the norm with most students at this time, there is the constant thought running through my mind of:

What happens after school, what do I do when I graduate, What if no one hires me, What do I want to do, What can I do, What if I just get stuck working at Mcdonalds for the rest of my life?? Stress dude. 

It sounds silly and over-exagerative, but this literally is all I think about. So yes, it is sort of a big deal. A little bit at least.  

Supposedly Homer Watson was the first Canadian landscape painter to see Canada as it truly was, and not as some dreary european-stylized painting. I do very much appreciate that he included people in some of his works, even if they are minor to the landscapes. I like that Watson depicts Canada in images that actually show it as somewhat developed, not some rural wilderness. Unfortunately, up until this class I still had not heard of him, and still it is the group of seven's works that are pushed as examples of Canadian landscapes more so.


I always love artists that are self-taught. It makes me feel like one day I might actually have a chance at significance. I know it is very unlikely, but I am studying Art History for a reason... Being that I never got around to sending my portfolio on time for fine arts. I do love Art History though, in all seriousness. Still, it's nice to dream about something different on occasion.

The Royal Canadian Academy of Arts is not what it used to be. In 1880 it was incredibly important in Canada in giving artists a way to convene and work together, as well as to gain recognition and publicity.
It still does this.. but today the RCA has over 700 members operating in more than 20 art forms..... I don't even know what all 20 of those art forms would be! I checked out the website, but unfortunately it wasn't generous enough to tell me what exactly all twenty of these visual art forms were, without repeats. Though it does range from architecture to filmmaking to fine craft.
Two things.. OKay, I wouldn't have said architecture in that list of 20, though it definitely is acceptable! Also, what exactly is fine craft??? I hate these vague terms that seem to be applied to the arts because no body knows how to explain something so broad and progressive. I just thought that on a big list like that it may have gotten a bit more specific.
Oh well.
There is an RCA medal that gets awarded to, well I would assume to those of exceptional warrant within the academy. One of the first ones was awarded to Viljo Revell, an architect. I had never heard of Revell before this, but having an interest in architecture, he jumped out at me.
Turns out he is a finnish man who designed Toronto City Hall. And yes, that is apparently the only significant building that he designed in Canada. Good-job Royal Canadian Academy. What am I missing her? Some nationalistic sentiments or something?

Toronto City Hall (this image makes it look significantly more pleasing as a result of the HDR, its really quite grey). 

I don't think I've ever noticed the city hall the few times I've been in Toronto... it is evidently very modern in style, but also very very grey. It is supposed to resemble a large eye in plan and so has been nicknamed the "Eye of the Government". Okay, it's a pretty cool city hall - the one thing I just don't really like about it is that it has a pretty good view looking over the water, from what I can tell, and yet it seems like all the windows more so look across at each other. Who wants to look out the window from  desk and see more people working? Maybe it increases productivity with the employees through some sort of Panoptican effect?

Anyway, turns out that Revell died a year before the building was complete... so thats pretty unfortunate and also still leaves me wondering why he won the award. Maybe I'll have to do some more research on this. If anybody wants to save me some time and fill me in that would be great!