do and it defines a specific space. The arms of the
hugger are lines in space, enclosing the huggee in
another space. Drawing is everywhere. You just

. have to look closer and in a slightly different frame
of mind than what we left high school with.

The other 3D piece in the show is by Doug
Scott. | wish more of you 3D’ers had taken the lead
of Karen and Doug and ventured out of the wood/
clay/metal/plastic rooms with some surprises for
the rest of us. Doug
Scott obviously sees that
drawing really has no
boundaries. His line is
bent steel, his colour is
three dimensional blue
and white. His drawing is
linear and repetitive. |
think of the work of
Joseph Cornell and his
romantic vision of a Eu-
rope that never was.
Once again, | was a bit
disappointed in the way it
had been displayed. It
sort of seemed like some
sort of art orphan, adrift
in the middle of the floor
of the Gallery. More 3D
work would have
strengthened the pres-
ence of the pieces of
Karen and Doug and of
the whole show.

The four piece
drawing ( quadtych ?,
quiptych ? ) of Lianne

| Varnam that dominates
Karen Opas __ the Concourse Gallery
immediately brings to
mind Picasso. Closer inspection reveals not
imitation, but imagination. Her four big drawings
are full of depth and warmth, mystery and once
again, Fun. No VEGETABLES, but lots of colour
and shapes, lines and overlapping space that
suggest Picasso’s Minotaur etchings, but without
the angst. This piece is presented as the final
stage, a work of art, not as a study for a painting of
sculpture. It shows a spirit that is not subdued by
Big Oil Paintings by guys from New York.

Off to the side of Lianne’s fourplex is a mixed
medium drawing employing colour photocopying
and graphite. It is by Patricia Baun, who seems to
be exploring the representation of female beauty in
the mass media and its effect on the self-image of a
woman. This is one of the few pieces that employs
a modern image making technology and enriches it
with a very open and personal statement. It stands
out for these two reasons alone as well as its
simple beauty. The inclusion of more similar work,
(computer generated work was evidently absent),
would have enhanced the entire show and given
the viewers of the Drawing Show

~

‘*» is commonly regarded as neutral or negative space
» comes out at us as white paint on the white sur-

~ piece vibrate with life. A work by someone who

sense of the possibilities of drawing.

Veronique Corme also employs a mechanical
means of image making with her small hand
coloured photograph. Using the Van Dyke method
of printing a photo on watercolour paper, she adds
to the sepia toned realism careful colours of pink,
blue and green. The drawing with coloured pencils
is not arbitrarily applied, but is used to draw
attention to the surface of the paper. A strange
dichotomy is created with the realistic three dimen-
sional space created by the photographic image
and the expressionistic pencil strokes that can
almost be seen as the artist’s signature. This work
as with all the works in the show was only labelled
with the artist’s name. No titles were given and no
materials or methods of execution were mentioned.
The exclusion of a title from the label would be
acceptable given that the aim of the show is
education, not exhibition. But if educating the
viewer about drawing processes is the aim of the
show, then would not some explanation of the
materials and methods used be helpful to those of
us who may not know exactly what the
Van Dyke process is. ( later on,
Veronique explained to me that the Van
Dyke process involves coating paper or
fabric with a chemical solution, placing a
negative over the paper or fabric, putting
the whole thing between a layer of glass
and a firm support and then letting this
whole contraption sit in the sun, or
under a bright light in order to develop
the positive photograph on the paper or
fabric. You may have seen many a
photo student, with what looked like a
picture frame,out on the smoking
balcony patiently waiting for the weak
sun of a Vancouver winter to come out
from behind the clouds. That’s how they
make a VanDyke print. Van Dyke is also
a beard and a popular comedian from
the sixties. It is not a VEGETABLE.)

Heidi Hueniken, who may or may not
be a VEGETARIAN, also employs photo-
graphs as a drawing tool. Or so one
supposes when one looks at her two 8
by10 photos of a black figure lying in the snow. It is
not these two photos that are the drawing, but the
act that they record. Remember making angels in
the snow when you were a kid ? Well, you were
drawing. Creating an image on the blank space of
the newly fallen snow. Heidi has co-opted a page
from Performance art and has used the human
body as the marking tool and the snow bank as the
surface. She then makes another drawing by
documenting the act with photography. By giving
us two photos we can get a hint of the four dimen-
sional element of her drawing. At a glance, the two
photographs look identical, but closer inspection
reveals subtle shifts in light and time.

Gillian Davidson’s pieces look like straight
drawings if you kind of glance at them as you are.
hurrying through the Concourse to buy the 1990
ECCAD t-shirt ( on sale now, hurry, they’re going
fast. 5 beautiful and life enhancing designs to
choose from .) But, like the song goes, “ you gotta
stop and smell the roses “. Likewise with the
figurative/abstract drawings of Gillian. Closer
inspection reveals that the surface has been
treated in a multitude of ways. Realism is hinted at
with the figure of a child. Reality is expressed with
a row of real metal staples holding one piece of
paper to another. White is used as a colour. What

Geoff Topham

of the reasons for my near exclusion of my own sex
could be that the majority of work was done by
female students, so naturally, by applying the law
of statistics, my review should skew towards
women. But to be honest, I chose to highlight the
work of my fellow students who aren’t fellows (
what’s the female equivalent of “fellow “ ?) because
none of the work that was done by guys really
stood out or met the requirements of the show,
which was to explore and explode the boundaries
of drawing. There were exceptions to the rule, such

bie

as the work of Geoff Topham and Doug Scott. |
would also, sort of , maybe include Brian Jungen’s
line drawing of lonely onions, Alan Hindle’s
charchol ode to Dante’s Inferno, Lawrence Thor’s
big black,black charchol and conte egg and the
loose study for a possible silkscreen print by Paul
Kusmin, but these guys tended to play it safe
compared to Christine, Karen, Lianne, Patricia,
Veronique and Heidi and Gillian.

Perhaps the guys should be eating more
VEGETABLES or something.

face. Colours such as red and blue and chartreuse :
are absent, but the manipulation of blacks, greys aes
and whites and the use of subtle 3 dimensional aa oY
effects and shadows combined with the merging

of realism, reality and abstraction makes the whole

knows where to take drawing.

| just realized as | sit here typing at the so
called “ user-friendly “ mac computer, that I’ve
been talking mostly about the work of women. One

Patricia Baun

to look closer and in a slightly different frame
‘of mind than what wo left high schoo! with

The other 3D piece in the show Is by Doug
‘Scott. |wish more of you 3D'ers had taken the lead
of Karen and Doug and ventured out of the wood!

clay/metalplastic rooms with some surprises for
the rest of us. Doug
‘Scott obviously sees that
drawing really has no

three dimensional blue
and white. His drawing Is
linear and repetitive. 1
think of the work of
Joseph Cornell and his
romantic vision of a Eu-
rope that never was.
Once again, Iwas a bit
disappointed in the way it
ed hhad been displayed. It
3 sort of seamed like somo
sort of art orphan,
. = In the middle of the floor
of the Gallery. More 3D
work would have
strengthened the pres-

Karen and Doug and of,
‘the whole show.

The four piece
drawing ( quadtych 2,
quiptych 2) of Lianne
\Varnam that dominates
the Concourse Gallery
immediately brings to
‘mind Picasso. Closer inspection reveals not
imitation, but imagination. Her four big drawings

fe full of depth and warmth, mystery and once

‘again, Fun. No VEGETABLES, but lots of colour

apes, lines and overlapping space that
st Picasso's Minotaur etchings, but without
the angst. This piece is presented as the final

a work of art, not as.a study for a painting of
sculpiure. it shows a spirit that is not subdued by
Big Oil Paintings by guys from New York.

ide of Lianne’s fourplex is a mixed

ing employing colour photocopying
. It is by Patricia Baun, who seems to

presentation of female beauty in
nd its effect on the self-image of a
woman. This is one of the few pieces that employs
‘a modern image making technology and enriches it
with a very open and personal statement. It stands
‘ut for these two reasons alone as well as its
‘simple beauty. The inclusion of more similar work,
(computer generated work was evidently absent),
would have enhanced the entire show and given
the viewers of the Drawing Show a more broad

* plece vibrate with i

sense of the possibilities of drawin;
‘Veronique Corme also employs a mechanical
means of image making with her small hand
coloured photograph. Using the Van Dyke method
of printing a photo on watercolour paper, she adds
to the sepia toned realism careful colours of pink,

the artist's signature. This work
the works in the show was only labelled
were given and no
18 or methods of execution were mentioned.
‘The exclusion ofa ttle from the label would be
acceptable given that the aim of the show is
jucation, not exhibition. But if educating the
Viewer about drawing processes is the aim of the
show, then would not some explanation of the
‘materials and methods used be helpful to those of
tus who may not know exactly what the
Van Dyke process is. (later on,
Veronique explained to me that the Van
Dyke process involves coating paper or
fabric with a chemical solution, placing @
negative over the paper or fabric, puting
the whole thing between a layer of glass
and a firm support and then letting this,
whole contraption sit in the sun, or
tunder a bright light in order to develop
the positive photograph on the paper or
fabric. You may have seen many a
photo student, with what looked like a
picture frame,out on the smoking
balcony patiently waiting for the weak
sun of a Vancouver winter to come out
from behind the clouds. That’s how they
rmake a VanDyke print. Van Dyke Is also.
a beard and a popular comedian from
the sixties. tis not a VEGETABLE)
Heidi Hueniken, who may or may not
be a VEGETARIAN, also employs photo-
graphs as a drawing tool. Or so one
‘supposes when one looks at her two 8
by10 photos of a black figure lying in the snow. It is
Not these two photos that are the drawing, but the
act that they record. Remember making angels in
the snow when you were a kid ? Well, you were
drawing. Creating an image on the blank space of
‘the newly fallen snow. Hoidi has co-opted a page
from Performance art and has used the human.
body as the marking tool and the snow bank as the
surface. She then makes another drawing by
‘documenting the act with photography. By giving
Us two photos we can get a hint ofthe four dimen-
sional element of her drawing. Ata glance, the two
Photographs look identical, but closer inspection
Feveals subtte shifts In light and time.
Gillian Davidson's pieces look lke straight
{drawings if you kind of glance at them as you are
hurrying through the Concourse to buy the 1980
ECCAD t-shirt (on sale now, hurry, they're going
fast. 5 beautiful and life enhancing designs to
choose from.) But, like the song goes, * you gotta
stop and smell the roses “. Likewise with the
figurative/abstract drawings of Gillian. Closer
Inspection reveals that the surface has been
‘treated in a multitude of ways. Realism is hinted at
with the figure ofa child. Reality is expressed with
a row of real metal staples holding one piece of
paper to another. White is used as a colour. What
1s commonly regarded as neutral or negative space
comes out at us as white paint on the white sur-
face. Colours such as red and blue and chartreuse
{are absent, but the manipulation of blacks, greys
‘and whites and the use of subtle 3 dimensional
effects and shadows combined with the merging
‘of realism, reality and abstraction makes the whole
'Awork by someone who
knows where to take drawing.
{just realized as I sit here typing atthe so
called “ user-friendly * mac computer, that I've
been talking mostly about the work of women. One

3

‘could be that the majority of work was done by
female students, so naturally, by applying the law
of statistics, my review should skew towards
‘women. But to be honest, | chose to highlight the
‘work of my fellow students who aren't fellows (
‘what's the female equivalent of “fellow " ?) because
‘none of the work that was done by guys really
‘stood out or met the requirements of the show,
which was to explore and explode the boundaries
‘of drawing. There were exceptions to the rule, such

2s the work of Geoff Topham and Doug Scott. 1
‘Would also, sort of , maybe include Brian Jungen's
line drawing of lonely onions, Alan Hindle’s
ccharchol ode to Dante’s Inferno, Lawrence Thor's
big black,black charchol and conte egg and the
loose study for a possible silkscreen print by Paul
Kusmin, but these guys tended to play it safe
‘compared to Christine, Karen, Lianne, Patrici
Veronique and Heldi and Gila

Porhaps the guys should be eating more
VEGETABLES or something.

7

P