There is a current attitude towards art that reminds me of when the U.S. patent office at the turn of the century proposed to close because they felt that there was nothing left to invent. Do we really think that we will never see "original" art again? Have we really charted, graphed and analysed the entire art spectrum to the point that we have no more to discover?. Humankind has populated the ° tg be : - entire planet. We have sattelites in | U r eC : Nn rl | Nn qd j the sky that can see every square inch of the entire planet but yet our scientists continue to find new spe- cies of insects, fish, and plants, and by Jim Stamper are continuosly unlocking the secrets of our existance. Are the leaps and bounds of move- ments of the past now diminished to baby steps, or even to the speed of basic evolution, or can we still explode forward? Can we as artists escape the trap of ‘post modernism’? When we.use our art to continually critique the theories that have been the basis of the art world-for the last 100 years we are purpetuating the Canon. We are choosing to be victimised by our self analysis. We are supporting the "enlightened false conciousness". There is more than likely a space in our academia for this concept, but to believe that "it has all been done" doesn't give us a chance at finding the "original". Are we wasting our time by looking for the new by studying the past? How can the original ever be created by looking at what art is now and then doing the opposite? When we directly rebel against the current movement we are inherently including the past into our new work. When we study our visual history it appears that large leaps forward forever change the art world, and we easily forget that most movements actually took hundreds of years to develop. Now, in the 20th century movements seem to follow on the heels of eachother to be measured by decades, or less. We attribute parts of the change in speed to the increased speed in communication. But, why is it now, with the fastest communication ever that we seem to have stagnated? If all things in life can be described as a rhythm then it follows that the expansion of the arts also has a wave length. With the curve of art over the last 50 years it would make sense that we have hit a plateau. This doesn't symbolize the death of originality but more of a pause, a breather, a time to reflect. Maybe art is resting in order to get a good footing for society's next great leap forward. CU Rant by Kristina Bumphrey Recently, after being called upon to defend my right to consider equality and women's issues subjects for art making in contemporary society, | was forced to answer certain questions. | was forced to reevaluate my reasons for making this one of the driving forces for my becoming an artist. (One, among many, of course.) Certainly, this was a man | was engaged in debate with—and he is one of respect and honesty—so he sits outside the boundaries of empathy. We discussed the issue excitedly for a while, asking ourselves two questions, “Is this still true?”, “If nowhere else in this world, is there not an equilibrium established here in North America?" Despite my locally meager successes, and a foreign glance at my middle-class lifestyle , but mostly just for argument sake, I'm saying no. We still have a long road ahead. Not to say that there aren't any women that don't enjoy awesome success. The Margret Atwood's, Dianne Sawyer's, Adrienne Clarkson's and Hillary Clinton's of this continent would certainly disagree with the notion that they are inequal now. I'm sure, however, that they faced many male obstacles @) 16 | along the way. Indecent proposals aren't just something that happens in Thereisa current attitude towards art that reminds me of when the US. patent office at the tum of the century proposed to close because they felt that there was nothing left to invent. Do we really think that we will never see “original” art again? Have we really charted, graphed and analysed the entire art spectrum to the point that we have no more to discover? Humankind has populated the entire planet. We have sattelites in the sky that can see every square inch of the entire planet but yet our High Hurdle in Originality scientists continue to find new spe- cies of insects, fish, and plants, and are continuosly unlocking the secrets of our existance. Are the leaps and bounds of move- ments of the past now diminished to baby steps, or even to the speed of basic evolution, or can we still explode forward? Can weas artists escape the trap of ‘post modernism’? When we.use our art to continually critique the theories that have been the basis of the art world-for the last 100 years we are purpetuating the Canon, We are choosing to be victimised by our self analysis. We are supporting the “enlightened false conciousness". There is more than likely a space in our academia for this believe that “it has all been done’ chance at finding the “original” concept, but to doesn't give us a ‘Are we wasting our time by looking for the new by studying the past? How can the original ever be created by looking at what art is now and then doing the opposite? When we directly rebel against the current movement we are inherently including the past. into our new work, When we study our visual history it appears that large leaps forward forever change the art world, and we easily forget that most movements actually took hundreds of years to develop. by Jim Stamper Now in the 20th century movements seem to follow on the heels of eachother to be measured by decades, or less. We attribute parts of the change in speed to the increased speed in communication. But, why is it now, with the fastest communication ever that we seem to have stagnated? If all things in life can be described as a rhythm then it follows that the expansion of the arts also has a wave length. With the curve of art over the last 50 years it would make sense that we have hit a plateau. This doesn't symbolize the death of originality but more of a pause, a breather, a time to reflect. Maybe artis resting in order to get a good footing for society's next great leap forward. Cl Rant @-® by Kristina Bumphrey Recently, after being called upon to defend my right to consider equality and women’s issues subjects for art making in contemporary society, | was forced to answer certain questions. | was forced to reevaluate my reasons for making this one of the driving forces for my becoming an artist. (One, among many, of course.) Certainly, this was a man | was engaged in debate with—and he is one of respect and honesty—so he sits outside the boundaries of empathy. We discussed the issue excitedly for a while, asking ourselves two questions, “Is this still true?”, “If nowhere else in this world, is there not an equilibrium established here in North America?” Despite my locally meager successes, and a foreign glance at my middle-class lifestyle , but mostly just for argument sake, I'm saying no. We still have a long road ahead. Not to say that there aren't any women that don’t enjoy awesome success. The Margret ‘Atwood's, Dianne Sawyer’s, Adrienne Clarkson's and Hillary Clinton's of this continent would certainly disagree with the notion that they are inequal now. I'm sure, however, that they faced many male obstacles along the way. Indecent proposals aren't just something that happens in