Museum Art

Yesterday, I visited the Vancouver Art Gallery and that trip has left me depressed about art. The gallery is currently exhibiting two artists: Georgia O'Keefe and Roy Arden. You will likely have heard of O'Keefe, but I can't imagine that you will have heard of Arden. Although I am told:

Roy Arden has been active as an internationally exhibiting artist since the late 70’s. He has played a major part in the development of Vancouver as an internationally recognized centre for the production of contemporary photographic art. Regularly seen in significant local, national and international exhibitions, Arden's work is included in important museum collections in Canada, Europe and the U.S.A., including The Art Gallery of Ontario, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, The Museum of Modern Art, New York and the Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart.

He is a photographer and although I read the intro piece written in letraset on the wall, I just don't understand how his work can be called Allegorical Realism. Actually, I don't even know what that means. Certainly I was hoping that seeing his work would shed light on the glorious intro he was granted. After all, half the current gallery is either an exhibition of his work or an exhibition of work he likes by other artists.
In the end what I saw did not provide "a questioning of photography's 'truth value'." nor did it "present evidence of the social and economic history of Vancouver and it's environs, what he has termed ‘the landscape of the economy’". And while I think I saw "A photograph such as Landfill, Richmond B.C. (1991)", I definitely didn't see anything that could be described as "a searing image informed by a contemporary ecological consciousness", nor could I say that any photograph I "invokes the problematic history of the picturesque landscape."
Instead, I saw a collection of mundane, pedestrian photographs that I would discard had I took them. And maybe that is the point. Maybe someone thinks the selecting of these mundane pictures makes them valuable. But damn it if I didn't want my money back.
The thing is, by most standards, I'm an artsy fartsy kind of guy. I go to see galleries whenever I travel and I have fallen in love with works of art before. I have wished for the talent of Monet. I have dreamed of painting even half as well as Tom Thompson. So, I find it hard to understand how Roy Arden's work gets revered. I don't mean to pick on Roy. I think this inaccessible art is rampantly revered by galleries across North America. But I just don't get it.
I would like to say that thankfully I was there to see the Georgia O'Keefe exhibition, but it too was disappointing. A good portion of that exhibit was dedicated to photographs of O'Keefe. Fair enough. Another section was a hands on bone display encouraging you to give drawing a animal skull a crack. Fair again. Finally, a good portion of the work were styles for which she isn't famous. Fair still. In the end, there were only three pieces that you would want to make a trip out to see. Ok, but disappointing.
But then I got to thinking about the crappy little landscapes they had on the wall, which held absolutely no merit other than they were done by a famous artist. And it left me even further depressed to think that between O'Keefe and Arden occupying almost three entire floors of the Vancouver Art Gallery, there are only three pieces that are noteworthy. I mean museum quality noteworthy. That's the best we can do.
That is of course unless you like soundless video panning across a parking lot - cause there was plenty of that in the remaining portion of the museum. One of a lake. One of a stone wall with some trees behind. etc.
Maybe someone can explain to me what makes the photo at the top worthy of museum status but until then I will have to stay a little angry with our curators. Surely they can do better. Show us something that makes us feel awe. That makes us feel envy for the artists creativity and skill.
In the meantime, if you want to see some good art try the South Granville Rise.