Loading...
The Citizen, 2009-01-08, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2009. PAGE 5. Bonnie Gropp TThhee sshhoorrtt ooff iitt Dance on Emerging artist alert: have you seen the paintings of Cholla? Abstracts, primarily. Watercolours for the most part. Stunning. I’m no expert on the visual arts, but it seems to me Cholla’s canvases positively resonate with glimmers of A.Y. Jackson and Lawren Harris. But don’t take my word for it – ask John Yimin. He is an expert. He’s a California art lover and an art critic – and he’s absolutely smitten with the works of the painting phenomenon. “The brush strokes Cholla uses to get his vision down on paper,” writes Yimin, “the watercolours’ dance…and especially the fascinating completion of the works…grabs me and holds me with the fire of Pollock and the fixed gaze of Resnick.” High praise for an artist who’s only 23 years old with decades of creativity stretching out before him like the Woodbine racetrack. And Cholla appears to be embracing his destiny at full gallop. Already he’s been a featured guest on Martha Stewart’s television show. He’s also had exhibitions in San Francisco and New York. Best of all, for those of us who lack the deep pockets of major art collectors, Cholla’s works are still fairly affordable. You can pick up some of his earlier works for as for as little as $900 U.S. Even his best canvases seldom fetch more than $2,500. But my advice would be – hurry. Cholla’s got a landscape called The Big Red Buck that will soon be featured in an art show called Arte Laguna in Mogliano Veneto, Italy. Once his work gets international recognition his prices are bound to go supernova. Yep. Major shows in U.S. galleries. National exposure on television. An upcoming gig at one of the most prestigious art exhibitions in Europe… Not bad. For a horse. Yes, Cholla is of the equine persuasion. A copper-coloured buckskin mustang/ quarterhorse cross born on a Nevada ranch in 1985. Cholla might have spent his life rounding up confused little dogies and absent-minded cows had not his owner, an amateur artist, noticed that he loved to pick up things with his teeth. On a whim, she tacked a piece of paper on a corral post, stroked a paint-laden artist’s paintbrush across it and held the brush out to Cholla. The rest was art history 101. Cholla graduated to an industrial-strength easel which stands in his corral. Nobody rotates the paper or manipulates the easel. Cholla chomps down on the brush and paints what he likes. But is it art? His customers certainly think so. So does Kurt Kohl, an art curator based in McLean, Virginia. “(Cholla) is creating art on the level of a young child,” says Kohl. “There may not be a lot of thought behind the process, but one could ask the same question about Pollock or De Kooning or Rothko.” Indeed. Or of Jan Fabre, Subodh Gupta and Jeff Koons. Gupta gave us the mammoth skull made out of ice buckets which sits outside the Palazzo Grassi in Venice. We can be grateful to Jan Fabre for the giant bug impaled on a seven-foot high steel needle in Leuven, Belgium. And who can forget Jeff Koons’ seminal work, Three Ball 50/50 Tank, which, last I heard was still enthralling audiences at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan? It consists of three basketballs floating in distilled water in a half-filled glass tank. Philistine? Moi? Well, maybe just a little. Seems to me that if art was a game of tennis, the lads could be accused of playing with the net down. But what do I know? Art’s flickering standards have long been a source of deep confusion to me. Take the case of Newport Nude, a painting by Sir Gerald Kelly which was bought by a public gallery in England in 1947 but then removed from public view and locked in a vault on the grounds that the woman portrayed in the painting was…well, nude. Very nude, if you catch my drift. Indecent and what not. This past summer, what with our new relaxed standards and all, Newport Nude was re-instated in the public gallery. Alas, the authorities have seen fit to ban the painting once more. Not because the model is full-frontal nude. No problem with that. But she has…a lit cigarette in her hand. If Cholla could read this, you know what kind of a laugh he’d be having. Arthur Black Other Views How to stirrup the art world How much humiliation can a political party take? Ontario’s struggling Progressive Conservative MPPs have had much more than their share, with their federal party refusing them the Senate seat they had begged for on bended knee. The Ontario Conservatives get less respect than Rodney Dangerfield. Their MPPs or most of them, because this is not a united party, wanted Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who had 18 Senate vacancies to fill, to appoint one of their number to the so-called chamber of sober, second thought. This would leave a safe seat in the legislature available for their leader, John Tory, to run in. Tory has been without one for more than a year since losing an election. The Conservative leader during this time has been deprived of using this forum essential to communicating the policies of the party, which have not been many, and personality of the leader, which many voters regard as of equal value. The provincial Conservatives’ request was minor. Conservative and Liberal prime ministers often have appointed people to the Senate as casually as if they were tipping a waiter. The appointees often had no records that suggest they could contribute any worthwhile sober, second thoughts. They included such undistinguished senators as Andrew Thompson, who after being Ontario Liberal leader for two years, attended a mere two per cent of Senate sittings and preferred sunbathing at his house in Mexico; and Conservative back-roomers Bill Kelly, who pried generous donations from companies who somehow thought they would receive huge favours from government, and Norman Atkins and Hugh Segal, who ran election campaigns and received huge advertising and public relations contracts. Ontario’s current Conservatives had an unusually able candidate for the Senate, their interim leader in the legislature, Bob Runciman, who said publicly he would give up his seat in the legislature if Harper offered him one in the Senate. Runciman has been an effective MPP and minister for 27 years, is a right-wing Conservative, like Harper, and stuck up for Conservative principles when this was unpopular. Harper can have nothing against him philosophically. Harper and three of his most influential ministers, Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement and John Baird, who served with Runciman in Ontario cabinets, would know all this. But Harper ignored the pleading of his Ontario comrades and appointed people who mostly had contributed few sober, second thoughts to anything, including two former journalists who would never be rated among the most insightful and independent in their profession. Tory has promised an announcement on his future as leader on Jan. 9 and will be under pressure first to produce an MPP who will step down, which he has been unable to do so far in a year of searching. Alternatively, Tory could say he wants to continue to lead from outside the legislature without a firm date for entering it, which some in his party will oppose, because this will continue to leave it less competitive. Or he could say he will step down so the party can choose a new leader. There also is the outside possibility Tory already has found an MPP willing to leave, but is not ready to make this public, and informed Harper privately, so he would not need to make a provision for him in his Senate appointments. But this is unlikely, because it would be difficult to keep secret. Much more likely, Harper and his former Ontario ministers, as extreme right wingers, are refusing to help Tory because he is trying to return the Ontario party closer toward the centre, where it governed uninterrupted and mostly to praise for 42 years up to 1985. A federal party has no right to try to influence and dictate the policies and choice of leader of a provincial party, which usually runs its own affairs. No federal party also has let down its provincial party with such a thud in recent decades and the Ontario party’s resentment will not fade quickly. Eric Dowd FFrroomm QQuueeeenn’’ss PPaarrkk Weddings have always been exciting times in a family, with festivities and planning promising new beginnings. This one would happen in a different time and place, where work took precedent over play, and special occasions provided the excuse for a little more frolic than was typical. A man and woman had pledged their intent to marry and neighbours and friends were ready to party. The shower featured a night of dancing and a community of backroads neighbours and friends were out to fete the betrothed couple. One young woman was feeling particularly light-hearted, eager for a social evening held in honour of her big sister who was to be married. With romance in the air, she couldn’t help but notice the tall, handsome fellow gliding around the room with the grace of Astaire. She eventually caught his attention, he took her hand, she moved into his arms and the waltz began. Mom has always said it was my father’s smooth moves on the dance floor that caught her attention. But on Dec. 30 they celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary and we all know it takes more than a quick step or two to last that long. Centuries ago divorce was virtually unheard of. People didn’t live 65 years, therefore, marriages too were a short ride, leaving little time for the wheels to fall off the wagon. With better medical treatment and food, with society’s pro-active approach to health and improved lifestyles, that has changed. As a result, it can be a long time ‘til death do us part. For marriage to succeed both husband and wife need to commit to it. Yet even with the best intentions, things happen. Over the course of a lifetime a lot changes, including individual ideas and views. Finding common ground, surviving the struggles, meeting the challenges with the same strategy all put stress on a relationship. When the bond is weak, the extra burden can unfortunately prove to be too much. And if even one of them has already given up, the situation may be irreparable. I don’t believe that anyone should stay in a marriage that’s not working. Life is far too short. But I wonder sometimes if a few give up too soon. And I look at my parents and ponder what makes folks like them different. Mom and Dad were brought up to believe that you work hard for everything you want. They never took for granted that the best of anything should be theirs just because they wanted it to be. They knew what it meant to work hard and while they expected that would bring its rewards, they also knew enough not to be surprised when it didn’t. Blessings and expectations were simple and appreciated. A strict and modest upbringing taught them well that you can’t always get what you want. But it also taught them that when you get it, you certainly don’t take it for granted. Like any couple, Mom and Dad had their share of trials. I know because I was one of them. And while I’m not privy to how they worked their way through it, I suspect they did because that was what they’d been programmed to do. Giving in was the easy way out and the investment was too great to walk away. My parents set a good example. My sister has been married 45 years, my brother, 38 and I, who finally got it figured out too, 28. We’re proud of you Mom and Dad. It’s been a good dance. Thanks for showing us the steps. PCs have their share of humiliation Letters Policy The Citizen welcomes letters to the editor. Letters must be signed and should include a daytime telephone number for the purpose of verification only. Letters that are not signed will not be printed. Submissions may be edited for length, clarity and content, using fair comment as our guideline. The Citizen reserves the right to refuse any letter on the basis of unfair bias, prejudice or inaccurate information. As well, letters can only be printed as space allows. Please keep your letters brief and concise.