Re: “Blue trees an insult to real artists” (letter to the editor, Nov. 5). Yes, you could have painted trees blue and been stopped and charged, but you didn’t. This artist did. He did the proposal, he came up with the concept, he executed it. I could easily paint a piece that looks like a Pollock but I didn’t, he did, and it was revolutionary in art at that time, and most people didn’t understand it or like it.
Sometimes, contemporary art demands a little more than just a passing glance, and sometimes it demands more than the art that the rest of the Squamish community is used to. I think at times it can come off as somewhat “elitist” because it requires the viewer to sit and contemplate the piece. And with a world where people are consumed with the need for instant gratification, viewers often forget that art is one visual structure that we encounter that cannot be treated in such a way. Look at the work that goes into the Tate Gallery in London and the art that was included in the rest of the Vancouver Biennale. Educate yourself in art, and you’ll start to make connections to what the artist was trying to do with this so-called “waste of taxpayer money.”
The arts are powerful disciplines, disciplines that are often pushed to the back burner. Be proud that this artist wanted to work in our community, be proud that we now boast a piece of contemporary art, be active in your investigation of this piece before you wash it down the drain. Good art doesn’t have a message that can be “lost”; it generates a message that is individual to each viewer; it creates conversation; it makes people angry.
This uproar only further validates the piece as real art. It’s just a shame that it isn’t being appreciated. There is no one definition of art, but if there was, it surely wouldn’t be as close-minded as the people in this community are choosing to define it, and any “real artist” will tell you that.
Danielle Pasko
Victoria
