Closing: Yhe Canadian Museum of Contemporay Phototography

[Daniel Grenier]

Another Fine Art Photography institution takes a beating!

The Conservative Government of Canada unceremoniously announced this week that the CMCP will be permanently closing its doors and be "dismantled". The CMCP had a gorgeous home downtown Ottawa. This museum opened in 1992 and was temporarily closed due to some water leak several months back only to be dumped into oblivion by a government that has little but contempt to the arts in general.

[Toyon]

The collection will be moved the National Gallery of Canada. Though Canadian banking regulations have allowed Canada to weather the financial crisis with a strong banking system, the same parsimonious attitude has extinguished an excellent small museum. Couple that to the oil and extraction industry "western" dominated government's suspicion of the arts and artists and the result is a contraction of cultural development. Its still well worth visiting Ottawa's incredible museums of anthropology, fine arts and history though. Also, Canada's ubiquitous Tim Horton's coffee shops makes great and inexpensive coffee.

[darr]

Sorry to hear this.

[DJGainer]

That's a shame. Did the government solicit any commentary from the public before closing the museum?

Maybe if there is enough backlash from the community it could be reopened if not now then at a later date.

[Daniel Grenier]

That's a shame. Did the government solicit any commentary from the public before closing the museum?

Maybe if there is enough backlash from the community it could be reopened if not now then at a later date.


None was solicited and none is welcome, no doubt (this is a very conservative government) and given the state of global economy, I doubt any significant uprising from the arts community would do anything.

It should also be noted that strangely enough, this museum was created by the Conservatives (Miinister Masse under the Mulroney govt... the somewhat left-leaning Conservatives at the time). Now, this big C conservative govt is canning this museum, Not only that, but they are actually taking over the space themselves as the close-by government offices are undergoing repairs !!!

This very same outfit also canned the National Portrait Gallery which they had promised to support. Unless it smells like crude oil, they're not really interested, one could argue.

[jeroldharter]

That's one problem with the arts community in general - dependency on government handouts. Don't know Canada's constitution, but hard to imagine its founders had in mind that a reasonable purpose of taxation was to display photographs. If there is enough outcry in Canada, why not open a private museum?

[redrockcoulee]

That's one problem with the arts community in general - dependency on government handouts. Don't know Canada's constitution, but hard to imagine its founders had in mind that a reasonable purpose of taxation was to display photographs. If there is enough outcry in Canada, why not open a private museum?

Our constitution was re-written in 1982 so most of the founders are still with us and the Constitution Act was written long after the establishment of many of the galleries. It is a tradition for governments at all levels in this country to fund public institutions such as galleries, museums, libraries, hockey or curling rinks etc.

I hope this is not construed as a political statement but there is more than one way to construct a society. Private museums are a rarity and for an example one of the largest I had seen was the Reynolds Museum in Westaskiwin but when it became to big for the Reynolds family to operate the PC government bought it and it became another provincial museum. I think it is the largest collection of farm equipment but this is getting off track.

The portrait gallery that was proposed had many cities bidding on it and I think that Calgary was one of those cities. Hope that it is true that the photographs are going to an existing gallery.

[jeroldharter]

Our constitution was re-written in 1982 so most of the founders are still with us and the Constitution Act was written long after the establishment of many of the galleries. It is a tradition for governments at all levels in this country to fund public institutions such as galleries, museums, libraries, hockey or curling rinks etc.

I hope this is not construed as a political statement but there is more than one way to construct a society. Private museums are a rarity and for an example one of the largest I had seen was the Reynolds Museum in Westaskiwin but when it became to big for the Reynolds family to operate the PC government bought it and it became another provincial museum. I think it is the largest collection of farm equipment but this is getting off track.

The portrait gallery that was proposed had many cities bidding on it and I think that Calgary was one of those cities. Hope that it is true that the photographs are going to an existing gallery.

Of course, it is your country.

I don't believe that tradition is a sound philosophy for government. I imagine that Canada would collapse in flames of hell if not for government funded curling rinks. We certainly have our problems down here. But what would constitute pork-barrel funding in Canada? Perhaps your government could start buying our mohair?

[Bruce Watson]

Another Fine Art Photography institution takes a beating!

The Conservative Government of Canada unceremoniously announced this week that the CMCP will be permanently closing its doors and be "dismantled". The CMCP had a gorgeous home downtown Ottawa. This museum opened in 1992 and was temporarily closed due to some water leak several months back only to be dumped into oblivion by a government that has little but contempt to the arts in general.

Merde!

[Clarence Rhymer]

Et tabarnac !, if that is not considered a religious comment.

[redrockcoulee]

Of course, it is your country.

I don't believe that tradition is a sound philosophy for government. I imagine that Canada would collapse in flames of hell if not for government funded curling rinks. We certainly have our problems down here. But what would constitute pork-barrel funding in Canada? Perhaps your government could start buying our mohair?

I was only trying to explain how funding works here and about the assumption about the writers of our constitution. As far as you question goes there are major differences in how parliamentary systems and republican systems (systems not parties) write and pass financial bills. Please everyone do not read that statement as a value judgement it was meant as a statement that there are procedural differences. I would answer your question on a PM if you wish but to do otherwise would be getting political which I hope I have successfully refrained from.

On cold Canadian prairie winters there are a lot more people curling in small towns than using large format cameras :)

[Richard M. Coda]

Merde!

Sounds like what our government is trying to feed us down here! ;)

[Dave Aharonian]

This sucks. Another bonehead move by our fine minority gov't!!!

[walter23]

That's one problem with the arts community in general - dependency on government handouts. Don't know Canada's constitution, but hard to imagine its founders had in mind that a reasonable purpose of taxation was to display photographs. If there is enough outcry in Canada, why not open a private museum?

Art will always exist whether it's publically funded or not. It'll be on the streets, in galleries, whever there's a possible outlet. So the death of art isn't an issue to worry about.

However I grew up in a Canada with a rich amount of public funding for the arts and media (national film board, anyone?) and it's really sad to see that dying out. Arts funding gives talented artists the opportunity to develop their craft. I see little to lose from it and a lot to gain. It's not like art is a very lucrative business. Thomas Kincaid, Anne Geddess, and "I CAN HAZ CHEEZBURGER LOLCATS" (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/10/07/the-i-can-has-cheezburger-book-on-shelves-nao/) - that's what makes money, sadly enough. I'd often rather go to a public gallery and see some publically funded art which is therefore pretty free to explore different styles - not just financially lucrative ones. I'm sure you can all imagine at least one piece of art that you saw that was absolutely stunning but that you know you'd never buy (and in fact probably nobody ever would), or that would be impractical to put in an average-sized private gallery, or whatever. I know I can. For example I've seen some fantastic stuff at the Musée d'Art Contemporain De Montréal (http://www.macm.org/fr/index.html) (in, uhh, Montréal). Most of that place is publically funded and they have some fantastic exhibitions. Of course some of it is crap, but nevertheless crap you wouldn't get to see otherwise ;) I've only been to Montréal twice and both times I absolutely loved it there. It would be a serious shame to lose a place like that or have it become a commercial venture.

But art, and interesting art, will persist regardless of public funding... it's just public funding makes it more accessible. And more is always better :)

However I do *hate* crappy and permanant municipal art. Like the absolutely hideous and enormous (2 or 3 stories tall) canoe stuck in a bed of tulips that got put up in a square here recently (Bastion Square, if you are familiar with Victoria).

[walter23]

I don't believe that tradition is a sound philosophy for government. I imagine that Canada would collapse in flames of hell if not for government funded curling rinks.

I'm only 33 but even I have seen a lot of changes with respect to how we view public institutions and I wish we'd turn back the clock a bit. It's not about tradition or a "sound philosophy of government" but rather my own sense of aesthetic and lifestyle preferences. Publically funded instututions and arts really gave Canada a character that I suspect Americans (raised on McCarthyism or Reaganomics) maybe wouldn't be able to appreciate - you probably imagine monolithic black concrete buildings emblazoned with hammers and sickles rather than what I've seen firsthand growing up here.

I think Quebec might maintain a bit more of it than the rest of Canada, and sometimes watching how we're uncontrollably drifting towards a semi-American style of culture (thanks a lot, TV!) I don't blame them for wanting to maintain a bit of cultural distance from the rest of us.

[redrockcoulee]

Toyon

I just wanted to bring to your attention that the Alberta government has an excellent program The Alberta Foundation for the Art (AFA). A disclosure that my wife has had a small grant from them and some of her work has been selected in their art purchase program. At least once she was asked to sit on the committee that judges and purchases artist's work. Even commercially sucessful artist feel pride in that their art was chosen by a group of their peers to be owned and displayed on behave of the people of Alberta. But Alberta's suport for the art pales compared to the support by Saskatchewan.


To All

My wife is currently working under an exploration grant of Canada Council to push her work in a new direction. Those grants are also selected by a group of primiarly artists from a broad geographic and artistic range. It is not a bunch of beaucrats nor do I think of her as a mediocre artist. Without her involvement in the arts I would not have a clue as to how Canada Council works either.

I myself was the receipant of a NSERC when I was an undergrad allowing me to spend a summer doing scientific research instead of working construction jobs. Many of our top scientists have had NSERC grants during their undergrad and grad days.

Our former PM who as finance minister ran 12 consecutive surpluses stated that govenments get their bigs bang for the buck when they finance culture.

We as societies lose out in the medium and long term when we do not fund the arts and the sciences. How we fund them as a society is a political discussion and is totally unimportant for this point (and what works in one place may not in another) but I think the lack of funding them in some manner is a determent to our society financially as well as quality of life. Photography is simply easier for some one to axe than painting or musuems. Having said that some galleries or musuems have been poorly planned or implemented and perhaps do not deserve continued funding. I have not been to the one in question and have only been to Ottawa once.

[walter23]

Hmm, my last post was moderated.

Frank said public funding leads to mediocre art, but I countered with the argument that mediocrity seems to be very commercially viable whereas a lot of much more interesting stuff can be found in publically funded galleries and museums. For example, selling hyper saturated crappy stuff with cute kittens for $3 / pop to calendars and poster reprints probably makes a lot more money than a lot of more experimental art, which I personally enjoy looking at. And in particular, look at successful commercial crap Like this! (http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.home.web.tk.HomeServlet)!

I guess the political thing (which I still think is worth repeating because it is pretty directly related to this topic and therefore to photography) was something like "semi-socialist institutions can coexist very nicely with capitalism, and in fact we've got to realize that either extreme (pure socialism or pure capitalism) simply doesn't work very well." Ideologues and fanatics on both sides need to reconcile themselves to the fact that their pet theories just can't be rigidly applied across the board (and in practice seldom are, anyway).

[Eric Rose]

The fact that the photography was moved to the National Museum underscores the present governments concern for and direct support for what the original museum tried to present to the citizens of Ottawa.

[claudiocambon]

I disagree with the idea that government funding creates bad art. Look at all the great pictures that were made in the 1970's because of the now defunct NEA individual artist fellowships, just to name one example among many.

I also disagree with the idea that funding the arts is a handout. An investment in artists, arts organizations, and the arts in general pays back very healthily in terms of not only the cultural enrichment of the community, but for example also raw market indicators like tourism. People spend money to go places and look at art, sometimes even buy it. The arts are no less a handout than, let's say, the military industrial complex.

It's sad to see this museum close. everybody loses, not just the immediate arts community around it.

[walter23]

The fact that the photography was moved to the National Museum underscores the present governments concern for and direct support for what the original museum tried to present to the citizens of Ottawa.

Yeah, I just like to join in on any bashing of Steve that I can.. especially now that I live out here in NDP-land where it's possible I won't be the only one doing it! (Although actually I'm a bit of a right-wing Alberta redneck compared to some people out here, hah!)

[russyoung]

"Government funding creates bad art..." hmmmm, no wonder all of those c. 1930 Farm Security Administration photographs have no value, either aesthetic or historic... or the first government funded photographic project, Mission Héliographique from 1851 and all of those trash salted paper prints of old buildings...

Nope, clearly government funding has a negative impact on art.

Russ

[jeroldharter]

Government funding creates good art.
Government funding creates bad art.

None of this matters or makes any sense. Artists make art. Others judge its merits. Legitimate reasons for governments to confiscate money from its citizens do not include art, my photography, you favorite issue, etc.

[walter23]

None of this matters or makes any sense. Artists make art. Others judge its merits. Legitimate reasons for governments to confiscate money from its citizens do not include art, my photography, you favorite issue, etc.

I think people often forget the enormous scale of a county and the enormous potential for a government to make a difference in the quality of life of its people. A bit of public funding here and there for arts, public projects, etc, costs each individual almost nothing, but has the potential to add a lot. I mean what's a couple million dollars to a whole country? It's absolute peanuts. You don't see me whining about government projects my taxes pay for that I disagree with because I understand that there are a lot of people with a lot of different desires in this country, and it's a give & take situation.

Too many selfish people around these days. Maybe it's indicative of a general unhappiness or something.

[Photomagica]

To get the formal perspective on this closing I recommend reading the April 9 press release at:

http://www.gallery.ca/english/540_2691.htm

In part it says:

"The Board of Trustees of the National Gallery of Canada has instructed the Museum staff to undertake a consultation with the photographic community across Canada on the long-term future of its affiliate the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography.

The Board approved in March 2009 the permanent move of the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography (CMCP) to the main Gallery facility situated at 380 Sussex Drive from its leased facility at 1 Rideau Canal.

“The Gallery decided that the CMCP should not return to its sub-grade leased space for environmental reasons” said NGC Director, Marc Mayer."

As a frequent visitor to the CMCP, I note that in its space almost hidden under the Chateau Laurier, it was a bit of an orphan on the Canadian and International cultural scene. Provided the collection is well presented at the National Gallery, photography will no longer be isolated from the other main stream arts as it was at the existing facility.

I urge Canadian and international photographers to participate in the consultation process. As the former President and CEO of a major Canadian museum I know senior people in the Government of Canada who appreciate the arts and are truly willing to listen. The government's support of the museum I was associated with, which in part addresses the arts, has been significant and generous.

I can attest that such support is only forthcoming if community makes a compelling case to government. There is work to be done by the photographic community to ensure the photographic collection has an appropriately prominent place in the National Gallery collection.