Québec 75 /Arts, Cinéma, Vidéo, organized by the l’Institut d’art contemporain de Montréal and curated by Normand Thériault, has come to be identified with the period and the relationship between the art and their cultural identity. It transformed the definition of Québec art from one that rested on language and its association with the francophone nation, to one defined by territory and residence. More importantly, it solidified Contemporary Art as one defined by institutionality and milieu. It can be seen an “inaugurating a new vision of Contemporary Art in Québec.” [Véronique Rodriguez, “Québec 75 /Arts, Cinéma, Vidéo: pour un nouvelle vision de l’art contemporain au Québec” in Ed. Francine Couture, Exposer l’art contemporain du Québec: discours d’intention et d’accompagnement (Montréal: Centre de diffusion 3D, 2003), 17]
The exhibition was decried for its apparent nationalism by Vie des Arts, which accused those involved of fideism, suggesting that, “In Québec, everything was religious; now everything has become political.” There were differences. In the era of religious dogmatism, it was possible to be an agnostic, even openly. Secularism was less clearly tolerant, especially within the arts milieu, even if one got the impression that the sloganeering of artists was more performative conformity than heartfelt commitment. Experiments in rigorous formalism or certain types of neo-primitivism appeared to be one of the only means of possible escape. “In short, the exhibition Québec 75 bears eloquent witness to the deep-seated discomfort and conflicts of the arts community and society.” [Rioux, G. (1975). “Québec 75…malaise salutaire?” Vie des arts, 20(81), 61–64.]
The exhibition polarized opinion in the local art scene and seemed orchestrated primarily to do this. 80 artists were on the original list, but this was reduced to 30 and then 18. Half of the exhibition was made of work by anglophones. Some work was made specifically for the exhibition and most of the rest was very recent. Criteria for new development meant excluding artists who were continuing tendencies in their work from before 1970.
For Thériault, the three-volume tome Québec Underground (1972) that had been amassed by Yves Robillard, was a panorama of marginal tendencies in the province that had ceased to exist by 1972. Québec 75 was born of a concern to historically document a reality of the disorganized situation in the province after its previous mode of definition had expired. What followed was pluralism with no particular definition. He insisted, “Québec 75 was not born of an unrealistic desire to assert that there was now a new ideology, a new style, a new school or a new avant-garde in Québec. This lack of commercialism on our part explains some of the criticism levelled at the exhibition. Nor was there any question of asserting that, from 1970 onwards, the history of art in Québec could only be a repetition or evolution of already known positions.” [Normand Thériault, "QUEBEC 75: six mois plus tard," Parachute, April-May-June 1976, 11]
As the first major show by the L’Institut d’art contemporain, it demonstrated its function. Unlike the museum, which was concerned with conserving patrimony, the institute had the function of defending and illustrating extremely specific forms, whether these were ideological, plastic, or otherwise. Québec 75 was funded by the “Corporation des Musées nationaux du Canada, at a cost of $157,264.00” as well as the Conseil des Arts du Canada, the Conseil des Arts métropolitain, the ministère des Affaires culturelles and l’Office du film du Québec. ["QUEBEC 75: une strategie," Parachute, October-November-December, 1975, 4]
Thériault never claimed the tendencies displayed in the exhibition were the most “vivant” of the milieu. [4. However, he does seem to contradict this below.] It was primarily an exercise in historicizing art primarily as a social and institutional practice rather than as an aesthetic one: “The exhibition is not a judgement of quality, nor does it necessarily seek to bring together the best artists in Québec. Rather, it seeks to identify the artists who helped the Québec cultural milieu evolve between 1970 and 1975, rather than those who necessarily transformed the plastic situation in Québec between 1970 and 1975. When I say “‘plastic situation,’” I have to use triple quotation marks.” [5]
However, a few sentences later, he seems to contradict this:
At the moment, I think there are no movements in Québec art. One of the strongest trends is perhaps still that of the Plasticians, who today are limited to three artists. We could talk about the expressionists. But in the end, I'm falling back into the past. Maybe I'm getting away with it, but one of the problems of Québec art is this inclination to definition that produces a theoretical, super-formulated art: the work is thus extremely well felt, very rational. Too much, in my mind. There are many artists who could be interesting if they dared to become artists, that is, if they went beyond simple problematic definitions to work on the level of much freer expression. [5]
It remains unclear what the “evolution” of the milieu is and nothing about the exhibition explained what it was or how it supposedly came about. Nor is it clear why it should have avoided being “rational” and “formulated” given that one of the defining aspects of the exhibition would be to conceptually reduce art to a mode of communication. If the art works selected were primarily personal expressions, the real work of the show in a sense was its broader set-up through committees and forms of consultation. It was not aesthetically rational but it was sociologically rationalized.
The first text in the catalogue cited the Petite Larousse Illustré description of Québec, which stressed its industrial sector and clamouring for independence. [Thériault, Normand and De Guise, Claude. Québec 75/Arts (Montréal: Institut d'art contemporain de Montréal, 1975), 4] Beyond this, it was contextualized politically:
In 1970, a strongly federalist liberal party took power and a liberal cabinet minister was assassinated. In 1975, a group of citizens (the Montreal Citizens’ Movement) got elected to city hall in Montreal and the energy is directed towards the Olympic Games. The main themes of presentday [sic] ideological struggles are: the economy, efficient administration, scandals and corruption. [5]
According to the curatorial statement, Montréal was the only city in the province that had much interest in Contemporary Art. The Musée du Québec justified not showing such art because it did not fall under their basic concerns, which were to be subsidized to conserve their arts endowments and promote regional development. [6]
The leading rationale for the exhibition, one which would become a standard mantra in the province's curatorial rhetoric, was, “Quebecois art doesn’t exist: only Quebecois artists exist.” [8] Exhibitions in Montréal between 1970-75 tended to be all about individuals. Group shows were just assemblages of a dispersed and transient milieu and magazines documenting it came and went. Québec 75 attempted not to give a panoramic view of the art in the province but to show its most “dynamic” facets. [8]
Art was conceptualized by the exhibition to function on the level of communication between artists, arts administration (including critics), and the public. [9] As such, it was intended to create a broad debate on art. This was an extension of the curation process itself. As the curators explained, “We know that Quebecois art exists, but we have yet to clarify what we mean by the term art and what we mean when we say the word Quebecois.” [9] Months of meetings debating these terms were conducted and the catalogue was the result of this process. The central purpose was to encourage artists to be as clear and succinct about what they were doing as possible. [9] The exhibition was one of “evidence” that the public could confirm or deny as reinforcing their ideas of Québec art.
The 18 artists were selected as “proof of vitality of the last five years” [10] and were intended to provide “an informative clarification of a historical period.” [9] Selection was based on the artist’s answer to the questions of their medium. [10] The works and practices were not denying but breaking with the past insofar as the artist had no obligation to define their work according to traditional boundaries. There was no interest in proving there was an avant-garde scene, the term dismissed as just a marketing tool anyway. The work of art was to be treated as an object in the process of communication with the spectator. [10] Defensively, the curators insisted that this art was not the product of “establishment ideology.” [12] Works were not chosen based on the curators’ political positions or those of the artists. [13]
The Cinema catalogue, by contrast, stressed the presence of nationalist themes in the works, and the growth of the industrial sector. [Bastien, Jean-Pierre and Beaudet, Louise. Québec 75/Cinéma (Montréal: Institut d'art contemporain de Montréal, 1975), 9] Arts and Cinema used images of a hand (by Gilbert Marcoux) on their covers but Video did not. A variation of the hand was also on the brochure, in black, red, and white, the hand apparently submerged for Cinema while for the Arts was under a grid. The brochure advertised that opening week involved talks with artists to examine the local art system and how artists function within it. Catalogues were bilingual [the English is sloppily translated and filled with typos] and broken down into artist-specific, film-specific etc. profiles with accompanying photos.
According to The Gazette, it was not just a collection of colourful art but let the spectators in on the intentions of the artists. It brought to the fore trends in Contemporary Art. Much of it was filled with earnest statements and Left-wing politics but was an art dedicated to a small audience. Other artists were totally indifferent to politics and the audience. [Virginia Nixon, “Quebec ’75: Giving spectators a chance to understand,” The Gazette, October 25, 1975, 46.]
For The Montreal Star, “Quebec 75 demands to be considered in the setting of a post-modern, post-Beatles psychological texture.” Yet, the exhibition actually seemed quite traditional and could not be characterized as filled with originality (Lauzon is one exception to this). It was unclear if it was a retreat to romanticism or a moratorium on the province’s art. The most overwhelming thing was the “absence of the sensibility which was once synonymous with progressive Quebec art.” The traces of the Plasticiens were gone and it was filled with the detritus of the Conceptual show from Sir George. There was a lack of clarity about the possibility of political art. Discussing Robert Walker the critic noted, “the art scene is revealed as just another leftover cultural artifact.” All the same, there was also more activist art, such as that of Garfield Smith which was deemed “childish” and visually simple-minded. Meanwhile, Bill Vazan’s fusion of primitivism and video art was “stagey, nostalgic, illustrative – in short, inauthentic.” [Henry Lehmann, “Quebec 75: Echoes of the past?” The Montreal Star, October 25, 1975, ]
Another critic for the Star suggested that the exhibition was wildly uneven and could have simply been shrugged off as another group show if it was not for the way it was framed. The catalogue was “a disaster,” as was common to Montréal. In its curatorial intent, it was the most serious claim made for art in the province since Refus Global. This ambitiousness only made the reality that much more painful. There was a violent reaction to the show at the vernissage. The exhibition was a success only if it was intended to accurately display the mediocrity and banality of Contemporary Art in the province and also demonstrate how badly art is administered and curated. (He denies the first claim because there is good art by good artists in it and good artists who show better work elsewhere). The critic trashed Lauzon, Cozic, Alleyn as local examples of Funk that mistook “imagery for content” and complained about cuteness, kétaine, an art that refused to reason or think rigorously about art so sought to ingratiate with participation. The catalogue evaded justification for the presence of such work and the quotes from artists on the walls is what the participatory aspect amounted to. [Georges Bogardi, “Quebec 75: A mirror image?” The Montreal Star, October 25, 1975]
Writing in La Presse, Gilles Toupin took a rather different position. He argued that Québécois art risked taking a false route, embracing an internationalism that made its location irrelevant. Artists often passively went along with international fads and critics generally were no better. Although some work in the exhibition testified to its geographic specificity, it was enveloped within a basic refusal of theoretical responsibility and in doing so fundamentally negated Québécois art. It verged on satire but was not one. It was symptomatic of liberalism and American cultural imperialism. Artists associated with Vehicule, who had also dominated the earlier Peripheries exhibition, were associated with anglophone art, which suffered from superficial ideological positions and generally weak work. The exhibition pinpointed the gulf between anglo and francophone artists. [Gilles Toupin, “Québec 75: reflets et mirages,” La Presse, October 25, 1975.]
Writing months later in artscanada, David Burnett observed that Ayot’s work was about the destruction of the Musee d’art contemporain, Cozic’s was more of a laboured joke about institutional barriers put up around art, Michalcaan’s work was a “conservator’s nightmare” while Lauzon was the only one reflecting on the folkloric and seemed out of place in its mostly humourless surroundings. He interpreted Vazan’s work as being about the War Measures Act and noted that much of the work was derivative, feeling very close to the US art of the late 60s. Commending Thériault for his ambition (even if he failed), he added that the catalogue made the artists look silly. [David Burnett, “Quebec 75/Arts:1” Artscanada, July/August 1976, 4-17.]
In their coverage of the event, Parachute claimed that:
Some conservative elements in our milieu falsely oriented the debates during this exhibition, through conferences and critiques, by bringing everything back to historicity, trying at all costs to justify the approaches of Francophone artists by referring to the key poles of our art history (Borduas, Molinari).[p] On the other hand, for other elements of our milieu, the works became significant only when they conveyed a political content: constantly referring to the writings of Borduas, claiming no artist, present or absent from this exhibition, refusing to give the works the metalanguage necessary for their understanding, they declared it empty.[p] Any dynamic art centre must claim its breaks, its changes. As the report of the Tribunal de la Culture held in 1975 stated, to reassure those who believe that there is no longer a Quebec culture, the mental and emotional structures of a people create other values and other behaviours, all of which remain differentiated. [France Morand, “Informations,” Parachute, January 1976, 3]
In the same publication, Chantal Pontbriand highlighted the extent to which it was less an exhibition of works of art than a concept, one which allowed for debates and polemics around the exhibitions. “For a week, the atmosphere at the Musée d’art contemporain was one of collective frenzy. In rooms other than the debating room, the objects of an exhibition that could also have been were languishing, in a sort of mourning mood.” [“Québec 75: postface de Chantal Pontbriand,” Parachute, January 1976, 32]
The farcical quality of the institutionalizing of Contemporary Art was not lost on her:
What can we say about this Tower of Babel where, in turn, people applauded indiscriminately whoever dared to speak the loudest, in a more articulate manner than another, without worrying about whether he was consistent with himself, coherent, relevant, informed. In addition to such confusion in the minds of the ‘spectators’ of Québec 75, should we not mention above all that of certain panelists and that of the critics, who in the Montreal dailies indulged in many speculations on ‘Québec’ art, questioning, without scruples, the art they claimed to defend (?) before. [32]
Pontbriand goes on, quoting Jack Burnham on how art relies on a system or institution that transforms its ostensible content into data and foregrounds the extent to which the institution is as much a work of art as the traditional object before concluding on a jokey Hegel allusion, “Québec 75 is a snake that bites its own tail.” [32]
In real terms, the artworld of the city, its milieu, was one with practically no social relationships; just a few small galleries, a little museum, almost no collectors and maybe a few hundred self-interested people (artists, academics, journalists): “This quickly leads to the conclusion that the ‘art system’ is a huge illusion maintained by federal and provincial policies. A sad and inevitable conclusion.” [32]
She compared the exhibition negatively to Documenta, writing, “Québec 75, an intervention? More like an officialization of what has already happened. A burial, from the point of view of artistic practice. The objects in the exhibition seem mute... of course, they were only the pretext. Works commissioned to serve an objective in the field of art administration. Nothing more. One by one, most of these objects become work and justify themselves. Together they are a circus, a bazaar, an absurdity. Their coming together is useless because it is meaningless, without a cohesive ideology.” [33]
Claiming (again through quoting Jack Burnham) the centrality of self-expression against the simple appropriation of foreign styles, she suggested, “Any honest artist who works in Québec is necessarily committed to and rooted in Québec; he automatically connects to local critical and historical mechanisms. His problems today are different from those of its predecessors. The change is a truth inscribed in time. Renewal is inevitable and desirable.”
After fumbling through a defense of a kind of transnational art, she concludes:
Québec 75 wanted to force Québec art to define itself. It is futile to look for a definition of this art in all the texts that this exhibition has provoked; it is also futile to look for it in the works. For together they reveal nothing. Each one speaks for itself, if one dares to look. But no one, starting with the promoters/organisers, dared to look, hampered by a rather silent language (specialised, demanding, disciplined) and, in itself, not very polemical. Good or bad, each of the works is a revelation, and a mystery! [33]
Pontbriand’s rather bitter text ending with a heavy-handed evocation of mystery and hope has proven particularly ironic given both the role of Parachute in the early years of the country’s Contemporary Art and her own successful career in many of the country’s larger Contemporary Art institutions in “burying” art to a far greater degree than Québec 75 did. The appeal to mystery also obfuscates her earlier, far less flattering depiction of the artworld as it actually existed (to the limited extent that it did). Subjugating art to a social function (symptomatic, utilitarian, or other) she fails to answer why it should be the “duty of every artist everywhere in the world to produce according to what the society in which he lives is becoming.” [33] Nor is it remotely clear why “renewal” should be inevitable. Whatever Contemporary Art in the province has been over the past half century, this does not seem to accurately describe it.
...this exhibition, like the text that follows and accompanies it, was a gesture of negation. (2). It is true that works are being done here, that individuals have hopes of changing themselves and their society through artistic action, but it would be wrong to claim that such goodwill has achieved satisfactory results.” [...] “But this "negation" would seem quite "negative" if it were not justified by the very title of the exhibition (Québec '75) and the problematic that animates it (Québec art and Québec society). ... when we speak of 'art', this situation becomes apparent: artistic values are absent from daily life and the compartmentalization between the various human activities remains: despite the evolution that Québec has undergone. And the isolation of art and the artist finally explains the refusal of debate, for fear of losing the advantages given to art until now... [11]