Stephen Shearer too controversial for Vancouver billboards

[maigo]

Typical West Side Vancouver creme-de-la-creme response.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ -co...festival-billboards-stephen-shearer-1.5974583

And the take-down response by sponsor Pattinson Advertising (owned by richest billionaire in British Columbia) is as expected.
Art, but only if the public likes it. Do not court controversy.

Here are the other Capture Festival exhibits:
https://capturephotofest.com/public-installations/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DwF]

I want the border to open so i can drive up for food and fun.I miss Vij! and other haunts in Vancouver.

This opens a more global discussion on presenting art in public spaces. I am definitely bothered that a Pattison in this case presides over what gets hung, this particular body of work (pun always intended) leaves me a bit cold that it would be tough to mount a real defense -just speaking for myself. And that comes back immediately to the larger discussion or more global view on art in public spaces.

I sat on and then chaired the Mayor's Art Commission in Bellingham for a couple terms back in the nineties and while I was thrilled we had such a commission, it was often frustrating to deal with everything from to too much "salmon" art, to stuff that was not art. It would have been nice to deliberate over abstract art that in my view might at least coexist with the landscape while communicating or facilitating some artistic experience.

I do appreciate your sharing this here. Pattison must be related to the car dealer.

David

 

[Shac]

He is the car dealer.
I agree with you - after looking at some of the images - IMO especially at times like the present, we could probably all do with somewhat different subject matter Shearer's current images

 

[DwF]

Thanks for that Shac He was a couple of times pointed out to me sitting quietly at a table in a corner of a restaurant he'd frequent in West Van; struck me as very unassuming. Sorry, I digress from the real topic here.

David

 

[olakiril]

Art, but only if the public likes it. Do not court controversy.

Kant's Critique of Aesthetic Judgment
§44. Fine art
. . .Where art, merely seeking to actualize a possible object to the
cognition of which it is adequate, does whatever acts are required
for that purpose. then it is mechanical. But should the feeling of
pleasure be what it has immediately in view, it is then termed
aesthetic art. As such it may be either agreeable or fine art. The
description "agreeable art" applies where the end of the art is that
the pleasure should accompany the representations considered as
mere sensations, the description "fine art" where it is to accompany
them considered as modes of cognition. . .

Public art is mostly agreeable (unfortunately). But in Shearer's case, it actually had an impact. Creating a strong public emotion to the extent of taking it down, I would say it was pretty successful.

 

[jsrockit]

Awesome... “disturbing” to the same people who probably watch violent movies...

 

[Out to Lunch]

Does anyone care? I'd guess Canadians have other things to worry about: as we speak, British Columbia is strengthening province-wide Covid-19 restrictions and Ontario is going into its third lockdown. Cheers, OtL

 

[Dogman]

Kinda crappy pictures, don't you think?

 

[helen.HH]

YAY to Art & Big Billboards of photos... !

If we are discussing “renowned artist Steven Shearer photos
showed people sleeping or resting”
All rather boring !

Certainly not controversial. Might as well put masks on them. Still meh to me

Oh well, like most visual things, all rather subjective.

Too bad, haha, they should have had some of HH photos...
for some Atmosphere. & Engagement. wink, wink

 

[Rick Waldroup]

The photos are okay. I certainly do not understand someone's reaction that looking at them made them want to vomit. But, hey, everyone looks at art differently, I suppose. I think they should have left them up.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

For my taste and opinion this is not photos to blow up huge in the neighborhoods.
Sure "same people watching violent movies", but it is also clear those movies are not shown in public spaces.

The only exclusion would be if those are victims of overdoses from chemicals imported to Canada by Chinese. Vancouver is one of the enclaves for it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3636788/these-9-maps-show-where-canadas-illegal-drugs-are-coming-from/

 

[jawarden]

The people are apparently sleeping but they look overdosed or dead. Putting those images next to a playground got the organizers the publicity they wanted I guess.

 

[robert blu]

For my taste and opinion this is not photos to blow up huge in the neighborhoods.
Sure "same people watching violent movies", but it is also clear those movies are not shown in public spaces.

I agree. I can only add recently I'm oft confused by the connection between photography and art.

Make something disturbing and ugly, make it very big, find someone able to write a good review and call it art.

Provocative, I know and perhaps I'm not qualified enough to evaluate.

But I remember our friend Roger Hicks who once commenting an exhibition a few years ago In Arles said "if you cannot make them good make them very large..."

To each its own...

 

[jsrockit]

For my taste and opinion this is not photos to blow up huge in the neighborhoods.
Sure "same people watching violent movies", but it is also clear those movies are not shown in public spaces.

True...this is public and on purpose. I’m just not that offended. Also, it’s clearly conceptual in nature (which generally isn’t about technical prowess or traditional photography tropes), so of course the photos aren’t going to be RFFs cup of tea.