26 Planet of the Arts / December 1996

-Diairibe vers

...continued from page 23

Below the pages Myre inscribed the
phrase “slander e¢ yellow journalism ¢ old
news”. And in addition to the yellow varnish,
Myre applied black pigment in broad brush
strokes onto the surface of Chiu’s article and
thereby further defaced the original content.
The brush work provided viewers with a
revised form of the nursery rhyme “Ba Ba
Black Sheep”, as follows:

Ba Ba Black Sheep Have you any wool?

Yes Yes four bags full

Then Ba Ba Black Sheep pull it over my eyes
So | won’t question or know real lies.

Myre refers to four bags rather than the
three in the original rhyme because Chiu’s
article was presented in four pages of the
newspaper. The textual references to black-
ness and yellowness together with corre-
sponding pigment applications in the actual
work itself evoke Chiu’s racial identity - it is
general knowledge at Emily Carr that Chiu is
of Asian heritage.

Myre claims she is not a racist and dis-
claims any racist implications of her work.
“Had | known the piece would have been
taken that way, | probably wouldn’t have
used that (accompanying text),” Myre says.

If we are to take Myre at her word,

certain conclusions offer themselves about
the nature of reactionary art. This sort of art
is often poorly thought out and, in its haste,
has a tendency to appropriate haphazardly
from the available stock of hot-button terms
and phrases. Through this process of appro-
priation, the reactionary artist comes to
embrace terms that are commonly construed
as intolerant and dehumanizing when they
are directed against people, as in the case of
Myre’s explicit denunciation of Chiu and her
article.

The haste and thoughtlessness that are
identifying characteristics of Myre’s piece can
be seen to resonate with the infatuation
(aesthetic and political) with slogans identi-
fied above in connection with Battie’s second
piece. A good reactionary slogan is quick and
dirty.

In terms of Myre’s other target, Planet of

the Arts, Myre DOrrows from
the historical stock of
reactionary politics:
physical destruction
and effacement of the
work as the chosen
manner to effect a
critique of it.

What is troubling about Myre’s three
pieces taken as a whole is how her dissatis-
faction with a specific article finds its outlet
by inciting contempt for the writer of the
article, then moves on to race hatred, and
culminates in the suggestion of a media con-
spiracy against right-thinking people such as
Myre.

About converting the October issue of
PoA into toilet paper on a roll, Myre says “It
(the work) was meant as a joke.” Its alleged
humorousness was Myre’s pretext for having
no substantive comment to offer about it to
Planet of the Arts facilitator Jonathan
Lander.

Reactionary humour in the form of
sarcasm seems to be the starting point for
“Why? Because we like you”, a piece by
Linda Szasz. Szasz borrows the phrase for
her title from lyrics to the Mickey Mouse
Show theme music.

The piece consists of an 18 inch plush
Mickey doll positioned above the main
Concourse Gallery space and holding the
cross-bars of marionette strings. The strings
are actually 15 foot ropes.

The scale of the piece invites the viewer -
presumably an Emily Carr student - to step
inside and become a puppet. The point of
the piece is not hard to decipher:

Capitalism-with-a-
grinning-face (and
big ears) will reduce
the unsuspecting art
student to a
corporate wage

slave.

The weakness of the piece is
that the problem it poses has an
obvious solution: avoid corpora-
tions such as Disney if you don’t
want to work for them. (Now
there’s a clever political maneuver.)

Unsurprisingly, no one got
tangled in Szasz’s ropes during the
Re:Action Show. So why as an
artist put forward the stunningly
obvious? And why give it the most
central location in the Re:Action
Show?

The answers seem to have
something to do with platitudes.
Platitudes are clichés that a person
can use to avoid energetic think-
ing and yet pass themselves off as
politically wise. Clichés and plati-
tudes also make for good slogans,
and reactionaries are only as effec-
tive as their last slogan.

If you only have a few days to
put together a piece for a
Concourse show and the piece is
supposed to be political in a good
old reactionary sort of a way, why
not trot out some clichés.

What distinguishes the clichés in Szasz’s
piece of work besides their staleness is the
interrelationship between scale and tone.
The translation of cliché into form and space
seems to encourage size as a compensating
factor for the nuance and subtlety that are
missing.

“Why? Because we like you” warns Emily
Carr students of the moral danger of
Capitalism-with-a-grinning-face (and big
ears). Blatant and bloated art is necessary,
the piece suggests, because students lack the
intelligence and the courage to fight
Capitalism-with-a-grinning-face (and big
ears).

There is a rhetoric of polarization in
$zasz’s piece: Emily Carr students versus
Disney, anti-Disney versus pro-Disney, good
versus bad.

| expect that this same rhetoric is invoked
by reactionary political operatives when they
are questioned about their work, their
behaviour, and their vocabulary. And that
their questioners are immediately considered
(and reacted to as) “bad”.

If | wasn’t already a “bad” person, |
expect that this review will secure such a
classification for me.

Carmen Schwartz's contribution to the
Re:Action Show consisted of a t-shirt and a
graffiti wall.

Both were direct extensions of her previ-
ous campaign to criticize the Disney
Corporation for sexism. This campaign con-
sisted of writing slogans in black felt marker

over posters put up at Emily Carr on
behalf of Disney by the Dean of
Media. The posters advertised an
upcoming presentation to Emily Carr
students on job opportunities at the
Disney Corporation.

Disney made its presentation on
October 10, 1996, ten days before
the Re:Action Show.

Schwartz's t-shirt design featured
a cartoon mouse figure performing
fellatio on an Uncle Sam figure. The
image gave precise graphic form to
one of the phrases Schwartz previ-
ously inscribed on Disney posters.
Schwartz displayed the t-shirt on a
metal frame mannequin supported
by a plinth.

Eight-inch lettering spelling out
“Graffiti goes here” was inscribed
on a wall eight feet from the plinth
and indicated the artist's intention
about how viewers were to interact
with and respond to the work.

The components of Schwartz's
contribution to the Re:Action Show
reworked her original anti-Disney
campaign within a gallery venue: in her
Concourse installation, students were urged
to replicate Schwartz's earlier poster deface-
ment only they were to do so in a space des-
ignated by the artist rather than
spontaneously and at random sites. The des-
ignation of the Concourse wall as Schwartz's
equivalent to the Disney posters she defaced
previously had the connotation that the
school should be defaced by students on the
same grounds Disney had been condemned
by her.

Why did Schwartz want or need us to
follow her in making graffiti of a certain
kind and in a certain place? The restrictive
parameters that she tried to impose on the
viewer in terms of a vocabulary and location
result in a highly manipulated sensibility.

Worse than this, her work did not
acknowledge its individualistic starting point
and self-serving goal. It used the strategy of
graffiti-on command to cloak its selfish
intentions beneath the simulated appear-
ance of spontaneous communal life provided
by a graffiti aesthetic.

Step one of Schwartz's manipulation con-
sisted of presenting the viewer with a carica-
ture of the complex reality of an
entertainment corporation. The caricature on
Schwartz's t-shirt offered stilted signifiers of
capitalism, imperialism, sexism and patriarchy
- not in a descriptive or analytical manner
but as red flags waving before the bull of
moralistic fervour.

Step two of her manipulation was to
direct the now morally energized viewer
away from the t-shirt display to a wall of the
Gallery. There viewers were to give
visual/textual form to their inflamed feelings
while the limited aesthetic and political
vocabulary provided to them in step one was
still a retinal after-image.

Step three was reserved for the really
inflamed viewer. Buy a t-shirt like the one on
display - that’s right, BUY ONE - from
Schwartz. Instructions in this regard were
attached to the plinth.

Starting from her anti-corporate moral
fervour Schwartz quickly steps to
consumerism. She navigates the distance
between these contradictory poles by way of

simulated community
outrage and graffiti
orchestrated directly
under her moral

leadership.

Her work in the Re:Action Show probably
offered the fullest expression of reactionary
aesthetics and reactionary politics.

Sensing a bit of a problem with the
Re:Action Show by the time the show had
been up for a day, Ron Henshaw turned his

photograph of Mickey Mouse in Canadian
Mountie garb to face the wall.

“| turned the photo around because the
meaning of my work was being changed in
relation to other works in the show.

“Maybe | didn’t understand the full
extent of the motives for the show.” Gary
Rice provided three paintings to the show
which took as their subject matter a politi-
cian, a television evangelist, and a business-
man, all from the United States.

Vivian Demuth exhibited canvasses that
were studies of colour and geometry. Her
works were offered for sale with the stated
purpose of raising funds for a student advo-
cate to be employed at Emily Carr.

The fine art aesthetic employed by Rice
and Demuth presented a strong contrast to
the underworked quality of other pieces,
particularly those of Myre, Szasz, and
Schwartz.

As for reactions to Re:Action from Emily
Carr students, Alan Hoffman recognizes the
motive of the show organizers to be that of
“stirring up some sort of controversy in order
to draw attention to themselves.”

Stacey Noyes feels, “If they (the Re:Action
organizers) were trying to get a dialogue

going, it was such a
heavy-handed, literal
show that it had the
effect of deadening

dialogue.”

Judith Steedman adds, “They (the
Re:Action participants) underestimated stu-
dents. They spoon fed us little cliché state-
ments. It was too literal, high school art. It
used baby language, a naive vocabulary.”

And as for future visits by corporations to
Emily Carr, Dean of First Year Monique
Fouquet states:

“Students should be reassured that we
are all being very vigilant in our negotia-
tions.

“But | think at the same time it’s good for
the students to be exposed to different alter-
natives. | don’t think it’s up to us as adminis-
trators to say ‘That's good for you. That's not
good for you...’.

“| think it would be presumptuous on our
part to say to someone like Disney, ‘You're
not what we’re about. You cannot come and
talk to our students.’

“| think it’s through our role of educating
students that you should be able as a
student to look at a situation with critical
eyes and act according to the way you want
to act.

“And not necessarily reject something entire-
ly or accept it and embrace it entirely,
either.”

Well said. <@

26 Planet of the Arts / December 1996

-Diatribe versus Dialogue

Below the pages Myre inscribed the
phrase “slander » yellow journalism + old
‘hews". And in addition to the yellow varnish,
‘Myre applied black pigment in broad brush
strokes onto the surface of Chiu's article and
thereby further defaced the original content.
‘The brush work provided viewers with a
‘revised form of the nursery rhyme “Ba Ba
Black Sheep*, as follows:

2a Ba Black Sheep Have you any wool?
Yes Yes four bags full

Then Ba Ba Black Sheep pull it over my eyes
501 won't question or know rea ies.

[Myre refers to four bags rather than the
three in the original rhyme because Chiu
article was presented in four pages of the
‘newspaper. The textual references to black
ness and yellowness together with corre-
sponding pigment applications inthe actual
‘work itself evoke Chius racial identity - itis
‘general knowledge at Emily Carr that Chiu is
‘of Asian heritage.

‘Myre claims she is not a racist and dis
aims any racist implications of her work.
“Had | known the piece would have been
‘taken that way, | probably wouldnt have
sed that (accompanying text,” Myre ays.

fe are to take Myre at her word,

certain conclusions offer themselves about
‘the nature of reactionary art. This sort of art
Isoften poorly thought out and, in its haste,
has a tendency to appropriate haphazardly
from the avalable stock of hot-button tetms
and phrases. Through this process of appro-
pation, the reactionary artist comes to
fembrace terms that are commonly construed
fs intolerant and dehumanizing when they
are directed against people, as in the case of
‘Myce’s explicit denunciation of Chis and her
ante.

‘The haste and thoughtlessness that are
Identifying characteristics of Myre’s piece can,
bbe seen to resonate with the infatuation
(Gesthetic and political with slogans identi-
fied above in connection with Bati's second
piece. A good reactionary slogan is quick and
dir.

In terms of Myre’s other target, Planet of

the Arts, Myre bOrrows from.
the historical stock of
reactionary politics:
physical destruction
and effacement of the
work as the chosen
manner to effect a
critique of it.

\What i troubling about Myre’s three
pieces taken as a whole is how her disats:
faction with a specific article finds its outlet
by inciting contempt forthe writer of the
article, then moves on to race hatred, and
culminates in the suggestion of a media con-
Sspiracy against rightthinking people such as
Myre.

‘About converting the October issue of
oA into toilet paper on a rol, Myre says “It
(the work) was meant as 2 joke. ts alleged
hhumorousness was Myre's pretext for having
‘no substantive comment to offer about it to
Planet of the Arts facilitator Jonathan
Lander.

Reactionary humour in the form of
sarcasm seems to be the starting point for
"Why? Because we lke you", a piece by
Linda Szasz. Szasz borrows the phrase for
her title from lyric to the Mickey Mouse
Show theme music.

“The piece consists of an 18 inch plush
‘Mickey doll positioned above the main
Concourse Gallery space and holding the
crossbars of marionette strings. The strings
are actually 15 foot ropes

The scale of the piece invites the viewer -
presumably an Emily Carr student - to step
Inside and become a puppet. The point of
the piece is not hard to decipher:

Capitalism-with-a-
grinning-face (and
big ears) will reduce
the unsuspecting art
student to a
corporate wage

slave.

The weakness of the piece is
that the problem it poses has an
‘obvious solution: avoid corpora:
tions such as Disney ifyou don't
want to work for them. (Now
there's a clever politcal maneuver)

Unsurprisingly, no one got
tangled in Szase's ropes during the
Re:Action Show. So why as an
artist put forward the stunningly
‘obvious? And why give it the most
central location in the Re:Action
Show?

The answers seem to have
something to do with platitudes.
Platitudes are clichés that a person
‘an use to avoid energetic think-
ing and yet pass themselves off as
politically wis. clichés and plat-
tudes also make for good slogans,
‘and reactionaries ae only as effec:
tive as ther last slogan.

you only have a few days to
put together a piece for
Concourse show and the piece is
supposed to be politcal in a good
‘old reactionary sort of a way, why
‘ot trot out some clichés
‘what distinguishes the clichés in Szasz’s
piace of work besides their staleness isthe
Interrelationship between scale and tone.
‘The translation of cliche into form and space
‘seems to encourage size as a compensating
factor for the nuance and subtety that are
missing

“Why? Because we like you" warns Emily
Carr students of the moral danger of
Capitalism with-a-grining face (and big
‘ars. Blatant and bloated artis necessary,
the piece suggests, Because students lack the
intelligence and the courage to fight
Capitalsm-with-2-grinning-face (and big

Szasz’s piece: Emily Carr students versus
Disney, anti-Disney versus pro-Disney, good
versus bad.

expect that this same rhetoric is invoked
by reactionary political operatives when they
are questioned about their work, their
Behaviour, and thei vocabulary. And that
their questioners are immediatly considered
(and reacted to as) “bad.

1 wasnt already a “bad” person,
‘expect that this review will secure such a
Clasification for me,

‘Carmen Schwartz’s contribution to the
Re:Action Show consisted of a tshirt and a
graffiti wal,

Both were direct extensions of her previ=
‘us campaign to criticize the Disney
Corporation for sexism, This campaign con-
sisted of writing slogans in black fet marker

‘over posters put up at Emily Carron
‘behalf of Disney by the Dean of
Media. The posters advertised an
‘upcoming presentation to Emily Care
students on job opportunities at the
Disney Corporation.

Disney made its presentation on
‘October 10, 1996, ten days before
the Re:Action Show.

‘Schwart’s tshirt design featured
‘a cartoon mouse figure performing
fellatio on an Uncle Sam figure. The
image gave precise graphic form to
‘one of the phrases Schwartz previ
‘ously inscribed on Disney posters.
Schwartz displayed the tshirt on a
metal frame mannequin supported
bya plinth

‘goes here” was inscribed
fon a wal eight feet from the plinth
land indicated the artist's intention
about how viewers were to interact
With and respond to the work.

‘The components of Schwart’s
contribution to the Re:Action Show
reworked her original ant-Disney
Campaign within a gallery venue: in her
Concourse installation, students were urged
to replicate Schwarta’s earlier poster deface:
‘ment only they were to do so ina space des
ignated by the artist rather than
spontaneously and at random sites. The des
ignation of the Concourse wall as Schwartz's
‘equivalent to the Disney posters she defaced
previously had the connotation that the
School should be defaced by students on the
same grounds Disney had been condemned
by her

Why did Schwartz want or need us to
follow her in making graffiti of a certain
kind and in a certain place? The restrictive
parameters that she tried to impose on the
Viewer in terms of a vocabulary and location
‘result in a highly manipulated sensibility.

‘Worse than this, her work did not
acknowledge its individualistic starting point
and self-serving goal. it used the strategy of
‘Fafftion command to cloak is selfish
intentions beneath the simulated appear-
‘ance of spontaneous communal lfe provided
by a graffiti aesthetic

Step one of Schwart’s manipulation con
sisted of presenting the viewer with a cari
ture ofthe complex reality of an
entertainment corporation. The caricature on
Schwart’s tshirt offered silted signifies of
‘apitalism, imperialism, sexism and patriarchy
“not in a descriptive oF analytical manner
‘but as red flags waving before the bull of
moralistic fervour.

‘Step two of her manipulation was to
direct the now morally energized viewer
‘away from the tshirt display toa wall ofthe
Gallery. There viewers were to give
VisualRextual form to their inflamed feelings
hile the limited aesthetic and political
YYocabulary provided to them in step one was
Still a retinal afterimage.

Step three was reserved forthe really
inflamed viewer. uy a tshirt lke the one on
display - that’s right, BUY ONE - from
‘Schwartz. Instructions in ths regard were
attached to the plinth

Starting from her ant-corporate moral
fervour Schwartz quickly steps to
Consumerism, She navigates the distance
between these contradictory poles by way of

simulated community
outrage and graffi
orchestrated directly
under her moral
leadership.

Her work in the Re:Action Show probably
offered the fullest expression of reactionary
Besthetis and reactionary politi.

‘Sensing a bit of a problem with the
Re:Action Show by the time the show had
been up for a day, Ron Henshaw turned his

‘photograph of Mickey Mouse in Canadian
‘Mountie gab to face the wall

“Lturned the photo around because the
‘meaning of my work was being changed in
elation to other works in the show.

“Maybe | didn’t understand the full
‘extent ofthe motives for the show.” Gary
Rice provided three paintings to the show
wich took as their subject matter a polit
an, a television evangelist, and a business:
‘man, all from the United States.

‘Vivian Demuth exhibited canvasses that
were studies of colour and geometry. Her
works were offered for sale with the stated
purpose of raising funds fora student advo-
‘ate to be employed at Emily Carr.

‘The fine art aesthetic employed by Rice
‘and Demuth presented a strong contrast to
the underworked quality of other pieces,
particulary those of Myre, zasz, and
Schwartz

's for reactions to Re:Action from Emily
‘carr students, Alan Hoffman recognizes the
motive ofthe show organizers to be that of
“siting up some sort of controversy in order
‘0 draw attention to themselves.”

‘Stacey Noyes feels, “If they (the Re:Action
‘organizers) were trying to geta dialogue

ooing, it was such a
heavy-handed, literal
show that it had the
effect of deadening

dialogue.”

Juclth Stedman ade, “They (the
Re-Action participants) underestimated st
‘ens Tey spoon fed us te ciene sate
ments was too literal, high school art
Used baby language, « naive vocabulary

“And a for future visits by corporations to
Emily Crt, Dean of Fst Year Monique
Fouguet states:

“Students shouldbe reassured that we
are all being very vigilant n our nego
But think at the same time its good for
the students to be exposed to diferent alter-
natives. dont think fs up tous a admins
ttators to say Thats good foryou. That's not
good for you.
JT think it would be presumptuous on our
part to sy to someone lke Disney, "You're
ot what we're about. You cannot come and
talk to our students”
“Think t's through our role of educating
students that you shouldbe able asa
Student to look ata situation with tial
eyes and act according tothe way you want
tose
“and not necessarily eject something entie-
ly or accept itand embrace it entirely
ether

Well said