There have been many times I have wished The Journal would include more coverage of the city’s visual art scene. Every movie, play or concert seems to be important enough to get a review by this paper; yet, art exhibitions are largely ignored. Then, I read Charles Mandel’s laughably foolish “Abstract artists are at it again… and it’s not pretty” (Oct. 23), and I am forced to rethink that wish. It’s bad enough this review appeared the day the exhibition closed (the show had been on since Oct. 2), but with so many glaring errors of perception and logic, I feel I must finally make my complaints known.

Mr. Mandel, you have made it quite clear in the past that you are not a fan of the ECAS (Edmonton Contemporary Artists Society) group’s “brand of art”, but, come on Chuck, did you even go to this year’s show? I did. You write, “Sludge-coloured artworks hang on the walls.” I recall works ranging from monochrome to brilliant pinks and yellows, and everything in between. I can’t say I’m sure which few you had in mind when you wrote that, but I guess I’ll assume you have had more experience with sludge than I.

Apparently, simple details, such as what the works actually look like, are beneath your notice. But, let’s just imagine that you are right, and we’ll pretend the show did look like you say. So what? Are you telling us that a painting can’t be a certain colour; that a sculpture can’t have a certain finish and still be a good work of art? And you say the ECAS members’ ideas of art are limited? In your next piece, might I suggest you remember that you are writing a visual art column. That means you are supposed to actually look at the work.

You continue your piece as intelligently as you began it, dismissing the painting as “uniformly weak,” due to its lack of content. One may assume you are referring to only the abstract works, since you seem not to have noticed a number of figurative paintings. Even if it is only the non-figurative paintings you write of, you are making a rather simplistic error, mistaking content with subject.

Then you go on to write of two sculptures specifically, not because you find them to be the best, or even worst pieces of the show, as one might expect and actual art critic to do. No, instead these are singles out for the sole reason that the artists who made are involved in some dramatic, unrelated controversies.

Charles, move on to writing celebrity gossip, or maybe an “Ask Charlie: advice to the lovelorn” column if that’s where your interest lies, and leave your position to someone who truly cares about the art, and is informed and skilled enough to write a valuable critique.

Ryan McCourt

Edmonton