Talking Tut: Over to you
The Art Gallery of Ontario's much-hyped King Tut show opens next week; previews are on Friday. This newspaper has spilled a lot of ink on the show, most of which you can find in this special section online.
I've made it pretty clear how I feel about it: That it's of place, out of context, and at the expense of programming that might actually help a badly-disconnected institution build some bridges with the local contemporary cultural community.
Now, I want to hear from you. Please leave your comments here, or if you don't want to be that public, email me directly at firstname.lastname@example.org. Agree or disagree, I want to hear what you have to say. Are you looking forward to the show? Think it's embarrassing? Puzzled as to what it's doing at the AGO in the first place? I've heard from several subscribers with a range of opinions, but there's no such thing as too much. So fire away. I'm listening.
EDIT: Let's start the ball rolling with David Lee's Letter to the Editor in today's paper.
Re:Why the AGO needs King Tut blockbusters, Nov. 16
Sure the AGO needs to increase attendance and Tut might do that, but there is a total disconnect between the Tut show and the AGO collection and its mandate.
What do a bunch of 3000-year-old stone carvings have to do with modern art? Not a lot. Will the new audience brought into the spectacle of the Tut exhibit ever return to see a painting by the Group of Seven or a photo by Jeff Wall? I doubt it. And of course the Tut exhibit is not free.
Couldn't Martin Knelman have given us an idea of the cost of the exhibit and the ensuing mass advertising campaign? Sure Tut will build the AGO brand, but in the end the Canadian art scene will be left with a lot of fizzle.
David Lee, Toronto
For heaven's sake, discuss!