[LowPolygon]

I don't recall saying he was building a 60,000 sqft Jack Bush gallery. I believe Mirvish's original concept for the gallery was to have rooms specifically designed to showcase specific artists. His interest was to champion the Color Field movement. I would imagine this would have included Bush, especially since he believes him to be under-rated at the moment, and promoting the movement is his intention.

I hope you enjoyed the homework I gave you yesterday. Anyway, let me just say that no one with any serious knowledge of postwar art would be so doggedly ‘dog with a bone’ about Mirvish’s collection being a ‘color field collection’.

It’s a made-up term with a very specific meaning, and sits alongside at least 6 or 8 others genres/movements/typologies representative of late modernist painting, many of which you would find in the Mirvish collection: including op art, lyrical abstraction, chromatic abstraction, formalism, abstract expressionism, minimalism, hard-edged painting etc.

And as I already pointed out to you, the most commonly used umbrella term to describe the bulk of the Mirvish collection would not be “color field paintingâ€, but post-painterly abstraction, the term that Clement Greenberg—the champion and inventor of the category—used. Further, the artist most associated with Mirvish and his collection, Frank Stella, would never be seriously referred to as a ‘color field’ painter.

Anyway, no matter what Wikipedia is telling you, I can assure you that if you referred to Mirvish’s collection as a “color field collection†to a group of people from the art world, it will be pointed out to you that you are wrong.

As to what this has to do with Mirvish and his collection--the sad reality is that his collection has very limited appeal because most of the art he has collected in considered pretty passé. It was never going to be a big destination, because as a rule people are not all that interested in abstract painting, especially Canadian abstract painting, and as far as i know he has no cutting edge contemporary art of the sort that would attract international interest.

As opposed to a collector like Ydessa Hendeles who has a world class collection of said objects, which she displayed for free in her own privately owned 13,000 sq foot museum on King St west, until she decided to pack it in a few years ago, because she felt besieged by uh, condo developers.

Anyway, she's fine

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/01/14/collector_pays_275m_for_embattled_dakota_coop_heads_3br.php

 

[freshcutgrass]

Projectcore was working on a monthly sum to be assessed to both the condominium suites and to the commercial tenants of the podium to pay for the gallery's operation.
42

Upon further investigation, an excerpt from an article right here on UT seems to contradict your claim....

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2013/04/sneak-peek-david-mirvish-his-art-collection-and-gallery-plans

Questions followed the remarks at the second consultation and one which is appropriate for this article was this:

“From what I’ve heard, the gallery space is supposed to be open to the public. I’m curious as to how that is funded. Will the condo residents who purchase in the tower be the ones who are paying for the operating?â€

Peter Kofman, President of Projectcore, the developer David Mirvish is working with, answered the question. “It’s not our intention to make the funding of the gallery space part of the condominium fee or anything of that nature.

 

[argus]

Just as an aside, and I hesitate to bring this up, but the personal attacks on Keesmaat in this thread and elsewhere on the forum are starting to turn me off in a big way. I wonder if there isn't some lingering misogyny motivating some of the, well, viciousness of the attacks. She seems to be doing her job fairly capably, if not in a way immune to criticism (which no public servant should be above). But for the life of me, I can't recall any male bureaucrat provoking such scorn for so little scandal.

No need to hesitate, it's a reasonable interpretation. The peevishness displayed by some posters makes this an ever-less interesting thread to check out.

 

[freshcutgrass]

let me just say that no one with any serious knowledge of postwar art would be so doggedly ‘dog with a bone’ about Mirvish’s collection being a ‘color field collection’.

I know you're just trying to save face here, but as I've already pointed out, my mentioning "Color Field" did not mean to imply that every piece of his 1100+ collection of artworks falls under that description. Only that it is that movement that is of particular interest to Mirvish to champion. And I gleaned this from listening to what Mirvish says himself. I will post a quote from him at the end of the post and let people read it themselves.

Frank Stella, would never be seriously referred to as a ‘color field’ painter.

Frank Stella isn't seriously considered a "painter" of any kind, since his "assistants" are the ones who do the actual painting. LOL

Seriously though...it doesn't matter what "type" of painter you want to label Stella (who experimented so much)...the painting he did while experimenting with Color Field is going to be a Color Field painting whether you want to call Frank Stella a "Color Field painter" or not.

the sad reality is that his collection has very limited appeal because most of the art he has collected in considered pretty passé. It was never going to be a big destination, because as a rule people are not all that interested in abstract painting, especially Canadian abstract painting, and as far as i know he has no cutting edge contemporary art of the sort that would attract international interest.

As opposed to a collector like Ydessa Hendeles who has a world class collection of said objects

WOW!! So there's no point in building a gallery, because nobody would come to see it???

Personally, while you may consider Color Field "passe", I think it is ripe for a major comeback, and there's nobody better suited to orchestrate that than David Mirvish. And I would be more than happy to see that happen here in Toronto. Wouldn't you???

Hendeles has a reputation as a good curator and her photography collection is impressive. My mother lived across the street, so I've dropped into her foundation on Saturdays (and it wasn't exactly "free" but it was just a token fee). It had a good reputation in art circles, but hardly many visitors (it's stealthiness seemed to be on purpose). "Cutting edge contemporary" isn't something I get too worked up about, and I found myself attracted mostly to the Jeff Koons Puppy Vase I saw sitting on a desk (but then again, I'm more of a "design" guy than an "art" guy).

When this project came along, I recognized that we would never be able to show everything at one time, but that this gallery could do something that other galleries have not been able to do.

I believe that Impressionism and Post Impressionism in the mid-19th Century has a parallel with Abstract Expressionism and Colour Field painting from the mid-20th Century. After Abstract Expressionism, three major movements emerge. Minimalism, Pop Art, and Colour Field. If you wish to see Pop Art, it unifies itself by subject matter, so you can see a couple of rooms in most museums and although they’re diverse artists, they don’t create an abstract language of their own; they’re unified by the subject matter and therefore have the impact of a single artist. If you’re interested in Minimalism, you can go to Marfa, Texas, where they have barracks that used to belong to the army and have been abandoned and refitted individually for individual artists. You can see an enormous barrack full of Donald Judd, one for Carl Andre, one for Dan Flavin, etc. There are a number of people represented there and also in Dia:Beacon.

However you can’t see Colour Field anywhere, because it came out of an age of optimism in the 60s and those pictures are 8 by 8 or 8 by 16 feet. If you want to see 80 pictures that size, you can’t see them anywhere. Also, because abstraction creates a language that’s individual to each artist, you can understand why Clyfford Still wanted his own museum, which now exists in Denver, where nothing else has intruded into it. There are times when you wish you could put some of those pictures with a Barnett Newman of 1951, when you could see they were friends and there was a dialogue between them. But those opportunities are now lost.

So I’m looking for a museum that can give 3 or 4 rooms to Robert Motherwell and 3 or 4 rooms to Helen Frankenthaler and 3 or 4 rooms to [Canadian] Jack Bush. I believe we’re a small country, but we had a great artist who speaks to the future, and that we can have other great artists, that we can have recognized internationally… but if we don’t take care of our heritage, then that will not happen.

And as a small country, I look at Denmark and Vilhelm Hammershøi, an artist I suspect few of you are familiar with, but who was a great artist—he died in 1916—and the Danes began to export him in 1983, and there was just a big show in Munich. On the other hand, Norway, another small country, has Edvard Munch. I believe Jack Bush will fall someplace between Vilhelm Hammershøi and Edvard Munch, depending on how we take care of him.

So I believe that we need this context, and we need the opportunity to look at Jack in context, and see how he stands up next to his peers in other parts of the world. I believe because the centre of that group of artists emanated mostly from America—there were practitioners in western Canada, and in Italy, and in France, and in England—that we will actually have people coming from all over the world to see 80 to 100 pictures at the core of the museum, and always up at any one time. And I believe it will change the way we see the world. I also think it will change the way the world sees Canada.

So that’s the goal of the museum

David Mirvish
April 2013

 

[argus]

Upon further investigation, an excerpt from an article right here on UT seems to contradict your claim....

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2013/04/sneak-peek-david-mirvish-his-art-collection-and-gallery-plans

Interesting in that I recall asking that question at that public meeting. The answer was by no means certain, and there was hesitation because the funding method had still not been determined. As the answer illustrates, while not an intention, it certainly wasn't fully dismissed either as an approach. Like the architecture, the funding of the gallery was still a work in progress

“It’s not our intention to make the funding of the gallery space part of the condominium fee or anything of that nature. It may be in fact that some of the commercial spaces and retail spaces in the podium of the building would participate in assisting the funding the gallery spaces. That’s entirely possible. The people who live in these spaces may have all kinds of opportunities to participate in the cultural activities.” Mr. Kofman added afterwards that the funding plan is still a work in progress.

And thanks to thedeepend for reminding us of Ydessa Hendeles' private gallery and and wonderful collection, and the free to her space on King Street. It goes to show that interested collectors can make art more accessible for everyone.

Sadly, that very location is now Brad Lamb's corporate HQ.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Interesting in that I recall asking that question at that public meeting. The answer was by no means certain, and there was hesitation because the funding method had still not been determined. As the answer illustrates, while not an intention, it certainly wasn't fully dismissed either as an approach. Like the architecture, the funding of the gallery was still a work in progress

Besides just being an unusual fee to try and assess to multiple condo corps, it wouldn't make sense for a developer to implement something that any incoming condo boards are not obligated to uphold once it is registered.

And thanks to thedeepend for reminding us of Ydessa Hendeles' private gallery and and wonderful collection, and the free to her space on King Street. It goes to show that interested collectors can make art more accessible for everyone.

Yes...it was an interesting addition to the Toronto art scene, and will be missed. Her donations to the AGO will hopefully make up for that loss.

But I don't draw many parallels between her gallery and what Mirvish had proposed. Her shows tended to be personal curatorial expressions. She certainly wasn't trying to make it "accessible for everyone". That gallery was there for 24 years, and almost nobody in Toronto knew about it, and few people visited it. And it seems she liked it that way...she never advertised or promoted it, shows ran for a year, she opened for 5 hours a week on Saturdays, charged $4 admission (almost but not quite free) and monthly attendance was probably a couple of hundred people.

This is not the type of experience Mirvish had planned.

No need to hesitate, it's a reasonable interpretation.

I can assure you that any criticisms I may have had towards Keesmaat were not of a misogynous nature, and unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I would appreciate a retraction of the insinuation they are.

 

[interchange42]

Thank you all for being somewhat more civil today. The disagreements were handled more tactfully, and it's appreciated.

42

 

[interchange42]

Projectcore was working on a monthly sum to be assessed to both the condominium suites and to the commercial tenants of the podium to pay for the gallery's operation.
42

Upon further investigation, an excerpt from an article right here on UT seems to contradict your claim....

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2013/04/sneak-peek-david-mirvish-his-art-collection-and-gallery-plans

Questions followed the remarks at the second consultation and one which is appropriate for this article was this:

“From what I’ve heard, the gallery space is supposed to be open to the public. I’m curious as to how that is funded. Will the condo residents who purchase in the tower be the ones who are paying for the operating?”

Peter Kofman, President of Projectcore, the developer David Mirvish is working with, answered the question. “It’s not our intention to make the funding of the gallery space part of the condominium fee or anything of that nature.

As argus does note as well above, despite Mr. Kofman's statement, the possibility of including a sum from the condo units was considered by the developer at one time. One has to consider everything, and Mirvish never stated that he was personally going to foot the bill to keep the 60,000 square foot gallery running. Who knows if a gallery a sixth the size will be within his means to manage without a subsidy from… somewhere. We'll find out eventually!

42

 

[freshcutgrass]

As argus does note as well above, despite Mr. Kofman's statement, the possibility of including a sum from the condo units was considered by the developer at one time. One has to consider everything, and Mirvish never stated that he was personally going to foot the bill to keep the 60,000 square foot gallery running. Who knows if a gallery a sixth the size will be within his means to manage without a subsidy from… somewhere. We'll find out eventually!

42

From what I read, it clearly states that while the plan for funding the operation of the gallery is still a work in progress (and why wouldn't it be...so was the whole project), the condo portion of the project would not be participating, while the commercial portion could possibly be a source of partial funding.

This makes perfect sense, since as I've mentioned, I don't see how it could be done legally anyway. It would require the gallery to become an asset of the condo corporation (or shared asset between multiple condo corps as both towers will likely be separate condo corps). I don't see this happening. Someone or something has to "own" the gallery. If it isn't an asset of the condo corp, then under what circumstances are the condo corps going to justify fees? And like I said, this isn't up to the developers to decide...it's the incoming new condo board that takes over.

Why is that even an issue anyway? It was just something someone brought up as an excuse to discredit the idea of a gallery as important part of the project. The operation of the gallery is just a detail...it's the gallery that's important.

But as you say, it's all seems to be a moot point now anyway.

I'm kinda hoping that Mirvish might consider using all or part of the Whitewear building as part of the gallery, beyond the 9000 sqft addition Gehry is designing for him on the roof. I know it is not what he had originally intended as his ideal gallery, but it is a post & beam space that has that old-school warehouse gallery feel. And it would allow him to return to his original idea of being able to offer the public the opportunity to see 80-100 works from the collection at one time. This was an important and critical detail of his mandate.

Of course, just because the building already exists doesn't mean it wouldn't cost plenty to convert.

Whatever happens...at least tell me they will be booting out Tim Hortons.

 

[interchange42]

Posted by CBC News on June 2, 2014:

Jack Bush works fetch high prices at Consignor Auction

 

[argus]

Besides just being an unusual fee to try and assess to multiple condo corps, it wouldn't make sense for a developer to implement something that any incoming condo boards are not obligated to uphold once it is registered.

It all depends on how the governing documents of the corporation are structured. Registration doesn't automatically negate anything.

But I don't draw many parallels between her gallery and what Mirvish had proposed. Her shows tended to be personal curatorial expressions. She certainly wasn't trying to make it "accessible for everyone". That gallery was there for 24 years, and almost nobody in Toronto knew about it, and few people visited it. And it seems she liked it that way...she never advertised or promoted it, shows ran for a year, she opened for 5 hours a week on Saturdays, charged $4 admission (almost but not quite free) and monthly attendance was probably a couple of hundred people.

At no point was I drawing a direct parallel between her actual gallery and what Mirvish was in the process of proposing. What should have been clear was my statement of support for those collectors who wish to enable public access to their collections. That would include David Mirvish. What was of issue was the manner in which a free gallery like the one he was proposing was to be funded.

I can assure you that any criticisms I may have had towards Keesmaat were not of a misogynous nature, and unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I would appreciate a retraction of the insinuation they are.

Maybe you would like to address the original post? That said, the tone of some of your comments certainly comes off as a personal attack. The personal disparagement of Keesmaat is notable in a number of your posts.

And no, in no way will I retract my comment regarding the interpretations outlined in another member's post. Neither I nor lesouris named you specifically. That you responded may suggest some sensitivity on your part to original observation that was made. Nevertheless, as you profess no intentional misogyny, I'll accept your assurance.

 

[freshcutgrass]

It all depends on how the governing documents of the corporation are structured.

Elaborate please.

Registration doesn't automatically negate anything.

I didn't say anything automatically happens. Unless the gallery was an asset of the condo corp(s), and I don't see why that would be the case, any fees paid by the corp are decided by the board. And I'm not aware of any part of the Condo Act that allows fees to be unchanged by condo boards. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't be prudent to tie operational funding to questionable funding sources. Which is probably why the developer is on record saying they aren't planning to go that route.

What was of issue was the manner in which a free gallery like the one he was proposing was to be funded.

Remind me again why we are agonizing over this particular detail?

Nevertheless, as you profess no intentional misogyny, I'll accept your assurance.

I'll accept that. Thank you....you are a gentlemen.

 

[LowPolygon]

How Do Museums Pay for Themselves These Days?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-grant/museum-cuts_b_1816309.html

“Over the past four years of recession and lagging economic recovery, one museum after another across the country has cut back on hours, staff, salaries (and staff benefits) and programming, raised admissions, looked to sell objects from their collections in order to pay for operations or just closed for good.â€

“Smaller museums may be having the roughest time of it. "Small museums are smaller in terms of their endowments and staff, and their operating budgets are pretty bare-bones as it is, so there isn't a lot of fat to be trimmed,"â€

"….staff cutbacks, less programming, higher admission or the advent of admission in previously free institutions, wage freezes, and juggling hours of operation. We think we'll see even more of it. There is still a sense of denial in museums about change and about financial trouble. We have been in trouble so long, the instability is nearly structural."

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

thedeepend:

And it is especially interesting in the context of the great Starchitecture rush from post Bilbao (92) to the bubble (2008) - it has put more than a few museums in less financially secure footing.

AoD

 

[argus]

Elaborate please.

Declarations can be complex documents. There are many instances of unit owner fees covering costs of commercial and community entities.

I didn't say anything automatically happens. Unless the gallery was an asset of the condo corp(s), and I don't see why that would be the case, any fees paid by the corp are decided by the board. And I'm not aware of any part of the Condo Act that allows fees to be unchanged by condo boards. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't be prudent to tie operational funding to questionable funding sources. Which is probably why the developer is on record saying they aren't planning to go that route.

You originally stated in an earlier post that it made no sense for a developer to implement something that incoming condo board would not be obligated to uphold once the corporation is registered (I think you mean turn-over). If some form of funding or support is written into the declaration, there is nothing much that a board can do initially as one of its main responsibilities is to uphold the declaration.

While unit owners of a condominium corporation may not pay for the day to day functioning of something like a gallery (like employees), they can cover, for example, the HVAC costs, water costs, gas, snow removal, garbage and recycling, cleaning of associated elements and other general building tasks. This would not be a unique situation. But that said, one would have to see the actual documents first to know how this would be done.

Remind me again why we are agonizing over this particular detail?

Read back to earlier posts. It goes to how a free gallery would be funded.