Login / RegisterPaul Houle: COPE supports transparent process for Vancouver Art Gallery expansion
There are hot debates in the city's art world right now. Should the Vancouver Art Gallery be significantly expanded through one brand new location or multiple locales? What type of art and programing should the gallery feature?
Photos
The intense discussions are happening now and the matter is being thrashed out behind closed doors at city hall. The project has a price tag of up to $300 million and a possible sevenfold increase in VAG exhibition space. The gallery has apparently already raised at least $92 million for the redevelopment.
COPE has an arts, culture, and heritage committee and our policy is to wholeheartedly support a major and long overdue expansion of the VAG. One of our overriding principles, though, is that the process leading to a VAG expansion be transparent and fully open to public scrutiny and feedback.
Right now, it appears that an open process is not happening. When I left a message for one of the city councillors asking about the VAG discussions, she phoned me back to advise that she could not say a word as the discussions are totally "in camera" at present. Another councillor who is key to the VAG process did not return my call at all.
The current Vision Vancouver-dominated city council has a nasty habit of often making most decisions on a given project behind closed doors and then going through a pretence of "public input" when all the fundamental decisions have already been made. This is not a wise course in regard to the VAG expansion.
The new, larger VAG must be a cooperative effort with the public, artists, and gallery professionals all having their say. The city is currently looking at designating two acres of land at Larwill Park for a new art gallery. The land (currently used as a parking lot) was formerly the old bus terminal at 150 Dunsmuir. It is now known as 688 Cambie. Various configurations have been suggested for the site: a large art gallery, a smaller one, a possible concert hall, and other arts facilities included or not included, an office and/or condo tower included or not included.
In regard to the perennial passionate discourse about what type of art should be displayed at the VAG, COPE will respectfully remain neutral on this question. We recognize that it is more appropriate that this topic be engaged through an ongoing conversation among the public, artists, and gallery staff.
COPE is not opposed in principle to one brand new Vancouver Art Gallery. If this sounds like we're waffling on the issue of one versus multiple VAG sites, we are a little. We recognize that there may have to be a balancing of the different interests: the need for fiscal prudence and the views of artists, the public, and the gallery leadership.
Many members of the public we have spoken to have expressed a fondness for the art gallery staying in its iconic old courthouse location. Some have suggested the current spot be used as a "traditional arts" gallery with a new facility at Larwill Park being used as a "contemporary" gallery.
Some have suggested offsite storage as a way of maximizing displayed art on dense, expensive, accessible downtown real estate with safe warehousing of art expanding in future on cheaper, less accessible land outside of the downtown core.
Real estate developer and art expert Bob Rennie has proposed multiple locations for the gallery and a multi-year development plan. Perhaps there may have to be a compromise between the ideas in the Rennie plan and the ideals of the current gallery leadership.
Rennie has also noted that other cities around the world have successfully decentralized their collections through multiple or satellite locations: the Louvre in Paris; the Tate Gallery in London; the Dresden State Art Collections; the Smithsonian Institution in Washington.
As Rennie suggested in his report, risk management may be an important factor in offsite storage. If disaster should hit the downtown area—e.g., a major earthquake—an art collection located all in one spot may be more vulnerable (in terms of magnitude of damage) to things such as fire (gas leaks, electrical), flooding, or collapsing walls. Storage outside the downtown core could reduce the risk of catastrophic loss in one concentrated area. If a major flood from burst water mains hits the downtown core, chances are it may not equally hit a large portion of the art work in storage at an offsite location.
Whatever the final plan, COPE believes that art is a key aspect of a healthy, vibrant, and caring society. Whatever final plan is adopted, COPE believes that there should be maximum access to the VAG by all members of the public. Unfortunately, a large percentage of our population, including many children, live in poverty. To facilitate access by those on limited income, COPE advocates for free entrance or, at the very least, more admission free days at the gallery. Also, we support a continuing strengthening of the gallery's outreach and education programs, including offsite displays throughout the city.
COPE also advocates that any new gallery or galleries be located near rapid transit (SkyTrain) to facilitate easy access by Vancouverites and other visitors from across the province, the country, and the world.
COPE believes that the redevelopment of the art gallery must happen within the context of a coherent city plan for the overall development of arts, culture and heritage in the city over at least the next 20 years.
A gallery relocation could have a domino effect—e.g., if the gallery moves—will the Museum of Vancouver (MOV) or another cultural organization move into the vacated space? If MOV moves from its current location at Vanier Park, will Bard on the Beach take over the space vacated by MOV? If this happens, what are the ramifications for the planetarium and Maritime Museum at Vanier Park? Also, where would a proposed civic assembly space fit in a long term arts, culture, and heritage plan? A public gathering square should be a priority as well.
All these possibilities point out the need for a plan and for broad financial support. The city must continue to advocate with the provincial and federal governments for robust funding for an significantly expanded VAG.
We spent half a billion dollars for a revitalized B.C. Place Stadium which primarily benefits professional sports. We have no intention of slighting professional or amateur sports, but, at the same time, let's not short change arts, culture, and heritage. Let's have a balance between sports and cultural amenities. A healthy mind in a healthy body. Bike lanes and culture. This balance will create a vibrant, stimulating community for those who live here and those who visit.
Let's get behind the Vancouver Art Gallery with an open and involved process leading to an exciting expansion and increased accessibility for one of Canada's finest art institutions.
In response to Arden's points, I wanted to make it clear that our COPE arts, culture and heritage committee is definitely not endorsing Bob Rennie's proposal for the Vancouver Art Gallery.
We believed that we needed to comment on Rennie's document because, like it or not, it is out there in the public eye. I have read or heard Rennie's views on the VAG all over the place. And, as Arden might agree, much of this is due to Rennie's economic clout and celebrity - or notoriety - in the community.
Our COPE arts, culture and heritage committee is supporting the transfer of Larwill Park to the VAG. But, some of us see merit in also considering offsite storage and conservation of art - especially if the collection triples in size over the next 30 years. This is something that Rennie supports, but, some of us had the same idea before Rennie put it in his proposal.
Discussing Rennie's "ideas" does not mean that COPE has abandoned any of its positions favouring controls on real estate development or advocacy for real affordable housing. Also, COPE has taken a principled position in not accepting any donations from developers.
The purpose of the commentary was not specifically to attack Vision Vancouver, but rather to call for an open process at city hall. Also, we wanted to challenge the other civic "parties" - the Greens, NPA, and Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver to take a position in support of the VAG.
We do not question in any way the expertise or dedication of the 300 arts professionals that Arden mentions - we just want all citizens to be equally excited and involved in the process - those of us who might be amateur artists, visitors to galleries and museums or just plain art lovers.
Is art just for the professionals or is it for everyone in the community? Some of the most powerful art I have seen in this city has been done by street kids, but, they're not professionals.
Seems to me that Roy Arden and our COPE arts, culture and heritage committee are really not that far apart in our views. Fine tuning may be needed as the new VAG moves toward realization and with input from experts like Arden, COPE can further refine its position on the VAG.
I think you missed the whole point of my joke about a 'civil war'. This issue is about whether the VAG should get Larwill Park, the last available downtown site, it is not about the internal workings of the VAG. Yes, children truly make great art, and it is shown in the VAG's children's room and many other places in the city. It is best for politicians to think of art museums as part of the educational system. Politicians shouldn't try to offer advice to museums about their inner workings any more than they would to University departments. These institutions don't, and should not, care what kind of art you think should be shown or whether you prefer Kant to Hegel or Shakespeare to Stephen King. Art is indeed for everyone, and everyone is welcome at the VAG, as is evidenced by the swelling membership, school tours, and the overflow crowds at openings and family events like FUSE.
The issue of storage at the VAG that you bring up could have been answered by anyone at the VAG or the many arts professionals who have been campaigning for Larwill. In short, it is vastly preferable to have onsite storage, and it is not clear that offsite storage would result in significant savings. I have curated large exhibitions at the VAG and had to continuously run back and forth between the offices, galleries and storage, offsite storage would turn curating into a real headache. If you were serious about this issue you would have talked to at least a few professionals in the field rather than regurgitating the discredited ideas of a condo salesman who admits he is driven by a personal dislike of Bartels.
With great respect, I don't believe that COPE has been a latecomer to the art gallery conversation. COPE is an organization, founded in 1968, that is filled with people involved in arts, culture and heritage. Many of our members have been engaged passionately in the discussion.
The purpose of the commentary was really to talk about an open process at city hall now. Members of COPE are very aware of the debate that has happened over the past ten years.
Our COPE arts, culture and heritage committee believes that we should have a "big tent" and invite everyone in who sincerely believes in a major expansion of the VAG. Latecomers and newcomers to the debate are also welcome.
At risk of being seen as a Bob Rennie clone, the logic of the argument about not considering offsite art storage, is that we would have to build a major new art gallery every 30 to 40 years. If a new gallery is built on a finite two acres of space at Larwill Park, there are natural built in limitations on how much art can be stored on site.
If the art collection triples over 30 years, why not consider an offsite location (on less expensive land) that is state of the art, purpose built and has room for ongoing expansion?
It's true that offsite is not as user friendly for access and curatorial work, but it seems preferable to running out of storage space at Larwill Park. Also, shouldn't Larwill Park maximize the amount of art on public display rather than in storage?
Arden mentions Shakespeare. In Shakespeare's time, the groundlings (lower class theatre attendees) would throw food and nuts at the stage if they did not like the play or the actors. While I am not suggesting that average Vancouverites throw debris at gallery and university administrators, I do believe that cultural institutions do not exist in splendid isolation from the communities they are part of.
I appreciate Arden's wry humour about art "civil wars". If I were to be an art totalitarian, I would probably dictate that there be frequent Roy Arden and Fred Herzog exhibitions at the VAG, But then, I might get wounded in the "civil war" between the pro Ardenites and the anti Ardenites.
I repeat my view that I don't believe Roy Arden and COPE are far apart in our sincere desire to see Larwill Park go to the VAG. Let's all work together to make it happen!