Ross

I’m gonna be away camping for the long weekend, will you guys be hosting another one soon ?!

What time does the chess start on July 29? … gambits, positional sacrifices, and the subtleties of opening the line to victory … such delights as July brings us to mid-summer. Be well. Best, Ross

From: Gam Gallery

Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2011 1:02:07 PM
Subject: David Semeniuk

Dear Andrew,

I cannot in good faith approve your comment about Dave’s work because you think it is a rip-off of your own work. I have really enjoyed your work at the Eye Level Gallery and know that you and Dave explore some similar themes. That being said, I wouldn’t say that Dave’s work is cubist in any way, and he has clearly developed his own thought patterns around his work. What gives you the right to slam another artist’s production? You are also not the first to do works of photo collage in Vancouver. I have nothing but respect for your work, and don’t see what you gain from making comments like this one, especially as an already established artist. Dave is an phD candidate in ocean sciences with a profound interest in the processes of photography and thinking about memory and home. What is wrong with that?

As a gallery in the DTES we are not trying to push for some kind of agenda, all we want is to give emerging artists of all kinds the opportunity to share their work and participate in the community we have going on in ACME Studios and around the neighborhood. Have you ever been into the gallery? You should come by for one of our events.

Tarah (and the Gam girls)

From: Andrew Owen A01
To: Gam Gallery
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2011 2:27:05 PM
Subject: Re: David Semeniuk

Hello Tara,

The photo-based art I produce has taken many years, indeed decades to develop, and is in fact inspired by several other important artists whom I clearly acknowledge where appropriate. The historic, process and conceptual basis for this work is too complex to explain in this message. Although in part informed by it, my work is not “Cubist.”

Byron has been producing many scene-within-a-scene works throughout Vancouver for years, and recently showed a selection at the VAG. Both of us have done so by actually posting actual photos of a scene within the scene and then re-photographing it in situ. Doing so with photoshop is not re-photography, and would be considered too simple, boring and “cheating.”

So putting our works outdoor is integral aspect of the work. Unfortunately, by putting our work outdoors in public we also leave ourselves open to being ripped-off; you cannot imagine how many “photographers” and advertisers in Vancouver have employed variations of my work as their own, without any acknowledgement. I’m sensitive to this, and after time, it feels as if being “ripped-off.” I have a right to stand up for and defend my well-known public work, and the work of others.

My work is joyously praised and violently defaced on a daily basis, and you cannot imagine the backlash we received from traditional “street artists” (graffiti painters) when we first started installing out work outdoors, and doing something more interesting than spray can bubble letter tags.

Nowadays, everyone is a photographer, and many are looking for a gimmick to differentiate their work and have it acknowledged. Doing so, and developing an original process that stands out from the rest takes years of hard work developing one’s craft. But these days, many so-called “photographers” are simply looking for a quick fix to make an impression, without putting in the effort. Most digital photography is banal and derivative. Going down into the DTES to get some ideas and take some “edgy” images of hookers and junkies and street art has become a right of passage for many wannabe photogs, and when some see the work of Byron and I they post it on Flickr with acknowledgement. With others, a light goes off, and they set about doing similar work, without acknowledgement. It’s happened more times than I can count, and is tiresome. Choosing different subject matter and personalizing the text does not make it original, just an attempt to cover one’s tracks. This is very obvious and tiresome to me.

In the world of art and ideas put on public display on the street, in a gallery or on the Internet, one must be open and prepared for and accept comments and criticism from anyone. This is part of growing as an artist. This is especially so when a forum for feedback has been established, such as a guest book or comments panel. Not permitting the free flow of comments is nothing less than censorship.

My suggestion would be to respond to my comment with your own comment in defence of his work, and why it is so original and is totally not inspired by the well known ideas and work of other artists posted very publicly in the vicinity of your gallery for many years, and let the dialogue begin! Again, anything less is censorship.

With care,

Andrew Owen A01

In truth, I didn’t have your work in mind when producing mine; however, that there may be some formal affinities in our use of collage and bricolage in no way means that I am ripping you off, just as neither of us should consider ourselves to be ripping off the photomontage work of numerous seminal artists that came before us (David Hockney’s work comes to mind). To be honest, there seem to be some affinities between our practices that I’d be open to exploring.

Best regards,
Dave Semeniuk