Next review
Howdy!
Since I am going to go see the shows, I figured an easy post tonight (by the way does anybody have a preference as to when I post?) would be commentary on the review of the Dominique Blain and Kamila Wozniakowska exhibitions in this past weekend's Le Devoir. Given that I have not seen them (I just participated in the vernissages) I relish the idea that I am commenting on the commentator without having seen the original. It should make my post tomorrow that much more interesting.
Now, as I have already said, 500 words ain't gonna get you diddly-squat as far as a serious discussion of the art. So, I can pretty much tell you what I will be writing tomorrow: "Kick-Ass!" However, those rules don't apply to Michel Hellman. First off you should go read his review, if you can't read French, you might want to try Babelfish.
Now the first thing that gets me about his review, is that he says "mais il �voque avec consistance le m�me message � caract�re social et politique." Or if you want it in the bastard translation "but it evokes with consistency the same message in social and political matter." Just from my quick glance last Wednesday, I can tell you, that a line like that is the equivalent of saying that because someone is Catholic, they agree with the Pope. Or that because the Pope is for worldwide peace in a big way, all wars are currently happening on the planet are the result of heathens run amuck. Ummm, can you say wrong? I thought that the readership of Le Devoir was more hip and savvy than that. Man! Claude Ryan dies and everybody's brain goes all soft - oops! He died yesterday, and this was written on Friday. Sorry my brain must've gone soft.
Next big boo-boo, "l'effet provoqu� par la mise en sc�ne est tr�s important." Or for the blokes in the audience "the effect caused by the setting in scene is very important." Now I have insider information about the "mise-en-scene" and while it is something that is important in all shows, if the effect was so damn important and the dialogue between the works was first and foremost in everybody's mind then why were there only two minds doing the thinking?
So far this is boiler plate material that hasn't told me anything about the show that I am going to see. 177 words wasted, a full 20% of the review. But it appears that we are getting to the meat of the matter, M. Hellman actually refers to some of the work done by Ms. Blain, I am going to refrain from disagreeing with his points and ideas about the work, as I haven't seen them fully yet. Tomorrow.
Then finally he concludes that Ms. Blain's work is superficial, but skillfully made. My guess is that he might be one of those heathens who has run amuck.
Fireworks tomorrow, don't you think? And then finally if you have the time go see Marc Couroux tomorrow night at La Chapelle, or if you're busy then the vernie at the Centre d'Art Contemporain du Qu�bec a Montr�al on Thursday at 5 pm, ok?
Since I am going to go see the shows, I figured an easy post tonight (by the way does anybody have a preference as to when I post?) would be commentary on the review of the Dominique Blain and Kamila Wozniakowska exhibitions in this past weekend's Le Devoir. Given that I have not seen them (I just participated in the vernissages) I relish the idea that I am commenting on the commentator without having seen the original. It should make my post tomorrow that much more interesting.
Now, as I have already said, 500 words ain't gonna get you diddly-squat as far as a serious discussion of the art. So, I can pretty much tell you what I will be writing tomorrow: "Kick-Ass!" However, those rules don't apply to Michel Hellman. First off you should go read his review, if you can't read French, you might want to try Babelfish.
Now the first thing that gets me about his review, is that he says "mais il �voque avec consistance le m�me message � caract�re social et politique." Or if you want it in the bastard translation "but it evokes with consistency the same message in social and political matter." Just from my quick glance last Wednesday, I can tell you, that a line like that is the equivalent of saying that because someone is Catholic, they agree with the Pope. Or that because the Pope is for worldwide peace in a big way, all wars are currently happening on the planet are the result of heathens run amuck. Ummm, can you say wrong? I thought that the readership of Le Devoir was more hip and savvy than that. Man! Claude Ryan dies and everybody's brain goes all soft - oops! He died yesterday, and this was written on Friday. Sorry my brain must've gone soft.
Next big boo-boo, "l'effet provoqu� par la mise en sc�ne est tr�s important." Or for the blokes in the audience "the effect caused by the setting in scene is very important." Now I have insider information about the "mise-en-scene" and while it is something that is important in all shows, if the effect was so damn important and the dialogue between the works was first and foremost in everybody's mind then why were there only two minds doing the thinking?
So far this is boiler plate material that hasn't told me anything about the show that I am going to see. 177 words wasted, a full 20% of the review. But it appears that we are getting to the meat of the matter, M. Hellman actually refers to some of the work done by Ms. Blain, I am going to refrain from disagreeing with his points and ideas about the work, as I haven't seen them fully yet. Tomorrow.
Then finally he concludes that Ms. Blain's work is superficial, but skillfully made. My guess is that he might be one of those heathens who has run amuck.
Fireworks tomorrow, don't you think? And then finally if you have the time go see Marc Couroux tomorrow night at La Chapelle, or if you're busy then the vernie at the Centre d'Art Contemporain du Qu�bec a Montr�al on Thursday at 5 pm, ok?
posted by Zeke's, the Montreal Art Gallery on 10.2.04
<< Home