"How does one explain that an artist who has worked so intensively all his life for public causes, who has influenced many generations of artists, who has given, finds himself, after almost 60 years, almost completely disarmed of any means to continue working?"
In this same letter Vaillancourt provided his own answer, which, in the light of his experience, is justifiable:
"Unfortunately, in a society that prides itself on being called democratic, pluralist, open, the strongest, the most dedicated to the survival of our planet quite often violently oppressed. Our governments should seek to preserve our natural wealth, of which I as an artist consider myself part . "
The old 1960s adage that "the personal is political" might now be rephrased as "the political is personal". Where are the public forums for public debate that lie at the heart of the democratic process? The notion that the private sector should operate like a public one has enabled the media to invade the private sphere of all aspects of our lives. Somehow the charisma of the communal, public sphere has likewise been broken. We are left with a dog eat dog mentality, both in private and public arenas of the arts. Where is the cherished notion of society in artistic activity and expression? Current artistic expression often expresses notions of hybridity, of nihilism, or most often a postModern malaise for which no remedy is offered. The conditions of modern life are reflected in these works, but the patient's illness is neither prevented nor treated, merely described. There is a lack of direction in many artists' representations of what I would call a "formal notion of what creativity is". The whole process has become all too self-conscious. As such we can learn from looking at Armand Vaillancourt's art and life, for his background and long experience reflect social concerns through direct action. No more, no less! Indeed, Vaillancourt actually ran for the NDP in the English bastion of Westmount-St Louis riding during 1994 Quebec election. The only artist to run for public office in the entire province, he was attracted by the party's claim that the state should serve the artist. Since the NDP became the Partie de la democratie sociale, Vaillancourt again ran for them in the establishment Outremont riding and gathered over 500 votes, itself surprising given the venue. In a recent article published in Le Devoir, Yves Robillard, professor and author of the classic Quebec Underground writes:
"Today's 'scandalous' works (of art ...) wound us. Do we need to be wounded in an era when all one talks of is 'cuts'? Art is an invention that has divided the society into two, the creators on the one side, and the spectators on the other. It's indecent!"
Armand Vaillancourt's contribution to the history of modernist sculpture in Quebec is undeniable. His bois brûlé and abstract cast metal sculptures from the 1950s and 1960s, many of which are represented in Canadian museum collections, are unquestionably some of the most innovative formalist abstract sculptures made in Canada at the time. Yet Vaillancourt has occupied an uneasy position in the history of Canadian sculpture, particularly because of his political involvement and separatist aspirations which remain pure and distant from former Quebec Premier Parizeau's small "c" conservatism; he still regrets René Lévesque giving up in 1984 what he calls the "beau risque". When Vaillancourt was offered the Governor General's Award in 1967, he refused it, but because it had already been mailed to him, he kept it. Such are the ironies that continualy resurface in Vaillancourt's life.
Armand Vaillancourt's artistic career has certainly had its ups and downs. We may be aware of individual works he has created, or events he has participated or instigated, but we seldom are given the opportunity to look at his life and art in its entirety. In English Canada he is primarily known for the fiasco over the City of Toronto's refusal to install Je me souviens in 1967, due to the titling of the piece. As a leftist who still believes that the artist can play a significant role as catalyst in raising social awareness of issues, he is part of a minority in Quebec, which is itself a minority in Canada. Vaillancourt has constantly fought for freedom of expression and the rights of individuals, yet is also a Quebec nationalist. This makes his perception of the creative process an interesting one seen through the lens of the Canadian mosaic. English Canada is largely unaware of this, in part because their media presents a distorted view of the realities of life in Quebec. While Vaillancourt's abstract sculptures from the 1950s and 1960s are in most major Canadian museum collections he has been marginalized by the mainstream institutions in the museum and public art gallery nexus. These kinds of contradictions make his place in the history of art all the more essential, for he is still with us and very active. At present he is working with Claude Dubois and Kevin Parent on a stage set environment for Diane Dufresne at the Theate St. Denis for opening Francofolies. During the recent war in Kosovo, he participated in the Montreal marches each Saturday that sought to speed up the West's involvement in the war so as to avert the catastrophe that was taking place. Yet another irony in Vaillancourt's life, if one considers his statements about war when he created the Monument aux Morts (Chicoutimi , 1958) or consider his powerful and controversial abstract sculpture for Asbestos (1963) conceived as a response to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now 70 years old, he has never been given a solo show by a major museum nor has he represented Canada at such events as the Venice Biennale or Documenta in Germany.
Few artists have had such extensive media coverage as Vaillancourt, as much for the controversy he arouses and the image of the artist he presents as for the aesthetic of his sculpture. Because his career has been so controversial there is virtually no comprehensive assessment of Vaillancourt's life's work as a social sculptor. Legends are born and die with the media. In Playing with Fire, I hope to go behind the sculptor's mask so as to present an unbiased look at Armand Vaillancourt's life and art. In so doing, I hope to provide some insight into the context of Quebec sculpture and the process of Vaillancourt's artistic practice.
The social and cultural values Vaillancourt has espoused through his art: nationalism, defense of human rights, political prisoners, women's rights, and ecology, appear all the more ambiguous in this era of pluralism. for the pluralism of our era perceives everyone as an individual and a nobody at the same time. Carol Becker, in her essay Survival of the Artist in the New Political Climate, states:
"Having recognized the collapse of the art market, many artists are making a greater commitment to connect, to reach out, to ask serious questions about who constitutes a community, which communities one wants to be part of, and which communities one wants one's work to reach. It would be wonderful if the gallery, performance or design worlds could support artists economically, but there is now little illusion that the marketplace will ever sustain most artists' souls. There must be a connection to something larger. It is precisely when artists reach out and wrestle with difficult issues in the public sector in the hope a making a public statement, however, that they get in trouble with the greater society."
Who knows about trouble better than Armand Vaillancourt? He has been trying to enact social change for decades. His recent projects involving art in the schools have included a 110 foot long mural collectively made by the students at the Elan Primary School in the east end of Montreal, "We chose our colours at Bétonel. We got it at a good price: $160 for 26 gallons!" Vaillancourt later jokingly told a La Presse journalist.5 The public sculpture, performances, happenings Vaillancourt enacted in the 1960s were part of a broader atmosphere of artistic, social and cultural liberation, but times have changed. Vaillancourt's early preoccupations were as much spiritual as aesthetic. His innovations with Styrofoam casting and bois brûlé in the 1950's are important, not only for the process and materials used, but also for the rapport between these techniques and the aesthetic language Vaillancourt developed. His sculptures embrace a social aesthetic of liberation and all that avant-gardism implies. The context is very important in this respect. His decision to remain in Quebec as an avant-gardist, despite offers to go abroad, and his insistence on the rights of the individual within a social matrix, on protecting minority rights while remaining a separatist, will also be seen as symptomatic of a Québecois identity fraught with historical incertitude. The notion of permanence embodied by the monument is now questioned, above all by artists. This is all the more evident in the international forum, particularly in Europe, where the lessons of history are not colonial, but imperial. The same is true as regards the aesthetics of art. Many artists now distrust notions of permanence in art, precisely because it mitigates against further social transformation. Armand Vaillancourt's art leads one to such central issues of aesthetics and nationalism, the monument's relation to modernity and postModernism.
Essay and Images reproduced from:
Armand Vaillancourt; Social Sculptor by John K. Grande
Montreal: Zeit & Geist, 1999.
ARMAND
VAILLANCOURT: Asbestos