Rocket Talk: When's the TTC Going to Roll Out More Fare Collection Methods?
Newsstand: November 9, 2009
Zack Taylor in Disney Mama Drama
Santa's Weston Workshop
The Daily Photoist: November 9, 2009
One of the most interesting aspects of art in public spaces is the viewer's reaction to it. Street art photograher David Owen sent us photos of a response to Mark Daye's series of street signs which address homelessness. David writes, "The colour's not quite right and the sign is a bit low, but I give him full marks for attachment method--it's the same as the 'official' signs."
David found the signs across from CityTV on Queen Street West, and will be out and about with a camera today hunting for more. You may not know David's work, and that's a shame. In the 1990's, he authored The P.Cob Project, in which he collected transcriptions of graffiti by the prolific writer P.Cob, issued maps of their hundreds of locations and hosted a walking tour. Owen is currently collecting photographs and lore for his upcoming web project, Torontostreetart.com.
Photos by David Owen.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hate to be picky but you misused the word "reactionary" in your headline. Look it up.
What a wanky soap box art project.
#1: Seems a perfectly proper use of "reactionary" to me, especially considering the implied political persuasion of the person who posted the blue sign.
No she didn't misuse it, since she was plainly making a judgement call about who can and can't express themselves in Toronto rather than the reason the second sign was placed there "in reaction" to the first. Very nice.
I'm still trying to find out how this guy claims to know how many homeless there are since Cathy Crowe et al obstructed the City from finding that out recently.
#3: I don't see how the newer sign has any evidence of a far right reactionary viewpoint. It criticizes those who take no action in their quest for "justice" and instead further their artistic "credibility" and CV.
Funny that this is posted in Arts and Events and Neighbourhoods. Those who actually care about the issue should be a little perturbed that this has become more about the art than the problem.
Sometimes art is a great way to raise awareness of a problem. Art has always been an effective political tool.
Another vote for "reactionary" meaning far-right, as in reacting negatively in response to progress or liberalism.
The react-er here obviously wants more progress, not less. What other "implied political persuasion" is evident from the second sign? Anti-art, maybe, not anti-change.
Can I just mention that "reactionary"'s primary use, according to the Holy Bible of wordiness, the OED, is "Of, pertaining to, or characterized by, reaction." It need not have a political connotation; the comment was a reaction to the sign. Just sayin'.
I didn't read this as from someone from "The Far Right", but someone from the middle, someone that thinks the energy put into making and distributing this sign could've been far better used on actually trying to come up with solutions to the problem.
Hard to disagree with that.
And yes, art is frequently politicized. Just ask Leni Riefenstahl.
(Actually, I have no point with that last bit, I just thought I needed to look smart hahah)
Greg, reactionary does not mean "far-right."
Secondly, these signs contained no measure of progress. If it was any form of liberalism, it was a weak one.
My sympathy for the homeless of Toronto wears thinner and thinner after every long crappy kitchen shift I work. I need to make money for rent and food, do I shamelessly ask honest hardworking people for free handouts? No. I work.
I'm contributing more, and probably getting the same back as any begger. Where hell is my sympathy?
If they had nowhere to turn, I'd have a different attitude, but there are options. They can get shelter and job training if they so desire.
Yeah, forget about the homeless, it's all their own fault! Just like those uppity cyclists.
NB: Mad pedantic stuff to follow
Alex: obviosuly a sign cannot "contain progress" in any measure; rather, it can advocate for progress explicity, or do so implicitly by questioning the status quo. And where did I say that either sign "was anyform of liberalism"?
Second, while you can say that reactionary does not always mean "far-right", but it is clearly false to assert that it does not have that meaning. For example,
From WordNet (Princeton University Cognitive Science Lab):
adjective
1. extremely conservative
noun
1. an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism
From American Heritage Dictionary:
adj. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.
From American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy:
An extremely conservative person or position that not only resists change but seeks to return to the “good old days” of an earlier social order.
From Dictionary.com:
1. of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
—Synonyms: ultraconservative.
Unless 'far right' is an utterly unacceptable shorthand for 'extremely conservative', 'ultraconservative', 'extreme rightist'...?
Not to rain on Mr. Daye's parade, but... if you somehow miss the many homeless dudes panhandling for change outside our subway stations and sleeping on ventilation grates all over downtown, how's a sign going to help?
It's kind of sad to see this discussion centering around the use of a word in the title, rather than around what either sign is saying. Who cares about the word "reactionary"? Certainly not the people living in a tent in Don Valley (to borrow the Reactionary's image).
So ... artists are supposed to paint pictures of fluffy animals and not address social issues?
Brett: No... If you want to do something for the fluffy animals you gotta think beyond those fancy ass paintings that do nothing more than glorify their obvious cuteness.
Robis: you have a point about semantic squabbling, but then again, characterizing political statements one way or another using contentious terms can go a long way to marginalizing or promoting somebody's agenda.
Greg: what do you think art should do then? Is it useless?
Brett: Err, I was paraphrasing and (obviously badly) satirizing the mysterious reactionary.
Personally I think that both signs about homelessness and pretty paintings of fluffy animals can be artistically and politically valuable.
As agitprop, I'm not sure these signs are groundbreaking or anything... but they hardly cry out for condemnation. I'm sure many people who saw them were jarred into reflection, if only for a moment.
Wow. Some of these comments are as negative as....a standard Torontoist post!
Congrats on this kid doing this thing. Today the Toronto Star's editorial page gave him a "laurel." They said it was cheeky -- I think that's the point the haters here are missing. It was also a thesis project for graphic design -- not a save the world project -- so brokenengine, it's ok that he did this rather than campaign for unicef.
Oh no! Negativity! Hide the children!
Sorry Greg, I assumed that the etymology of the word would have been based only around 'reaction', but I stand corrected. For whatever reason, it does have political connotation.
I suppose this 'reactionary' title depends on which sign you find more progressive: the one trying to raise awareness, or the one saying that raising awareness is not enough.
11: I would love to forget about the homeless. But unfortunately they won't let me. I get harassed daily.
Many are aggressive eyesores that guilt people into thinking they're helping solve the problem one dollar at a time. Spare change to the homeless only perpetuates and confirms their lifestyle. Where's the incentive to contribute? Stop giving money to homeless, and make a donation to the red-cross. Become familiar with their services and locations, and talk to people who ask you for money. Ask them why they need money, and maybe point them in the direction of help rather than convincing yourself two quarters will help fix the problem.
Alex: Well said.
Most others: It's pretty obvious that the artist meant these signs to be a social commentary on how "the homeless" have become such an institution in Toronto, that the city might as well be putting up signs about them as if they were part of the environment.
And for myself, I would like to add that we do no one any good if we continue to lump together so many different groups with so many different issues together under the umbrella of "homelessness". The professional panhandlers who hop into their cars and drive home at the end of the day are not homeless. Neither are the alcoholics or drug abusers who have homes they would be welcome in, if only they could beat their habits. Neither are the mentally or emotionally ill vagrants, or the runaways, who can't seem to stay in their homes for whatever reasons, real or imaginary.
Different people, different problems.
Joanne, in that case, Kudos to him.
Reading over all the comments and I amazed at how many negative words have been attributed to the artist and the work. Toronto really does hate art.
Unfortunately, advertising is considered art, here.
Xoro hanging out in Toronto, Ontario, U.S.A.
Xoro (if that is your real name, which I highly doubt): Artsy Torontonians, like any other person with a good understanding of art, will not like bad art.
This whole thesis project of 'just some guy' is just that: bad art. It is based on a self-perpetuating guilt reaction about which nothing can be done about. This guilt reaction can be overcome, but only with the help of logic. The genius of this idea is that many people choose to ignore logical reasoning and continue perpetuating this "be-a-do-gooder" reaction in other individuals.
The project has evoked strong reactions in people--guess what? That's an indicator of good art.
Sorry you had to see this Xoro. These comments do not in any way represent most Torontonians views about art.
I am saddened to see that someone called another human being an "eyesore" though.
I was part of a campaign to end homelessness in Toronto in 2000, the Gomberg For Mayor campaign.
Tooker Gomberg went to Tent City and really heard out the people there. He slept in Allen Gardens - not just during the campaign but pretty often - and helped guard the other people sleeping there, then exercised in the morning with immigrants who were driven from their country - the Falun Gong.
The media didn't run a mayoralty debate. They said that Tooker's challenge to Lastman "didn't exist in political reality" if you can believe it. No debate = no visibility = no democracy.
I left Toronto shortly after. I was disgusted.
I see that nothing has changed. Chretien and Lastman shook hands to get re-elected and they still haven't built what they said they would.
Put up all the signs you want. When you start occupying buildings, as we did with Free U of T earlier in 2000, then, things will start to get better. Until you squat and occupy, forget it.