Author: Youmna El Halabi

Categories
Arts

Hidden gems just off a street corner

Find WE ARE WHERE | WHERE ARE WE on the corner of St-André and Généreux Sts. on display until Sept. 14. Photo courtesy of FEAT Management

How two art curators showcased three artists’ work in a garage

On the corner of St-André and Genereux Sts., just off the graffiti-filled Mont-Royal Ave., you will find FEAT Management’s latest art exhibit, WE ARE WHERE | WHERE ARE WE, set up in a garage.

FEAT, short for Featuring Emerging Artists Today, is a Montreal-based brother-sister artistic partnership, aiming to broaden people’s horizons and cast light on hidden artists by curating and showcasing their work.

Rafaël and Max Hart-Barnwell are both Concordia alumni. Rafaël graduated in 2012 with a bachelor’s in communications, and Max majored in photography. They have been working together since July 2017.

As Max likes to put it, FEAT combines his eye for art and Rafaël’s social skills.

“I wasn’t showing my art to a lot of people. I wasn’t being outgoing with my art. I wasn’t really applying to art galleries,” he said. “My sister was like, ‘Oh you have this beautiful studio in Little Italy, let’s convert it into a gallery and invite all of our friends and see what happens.’”

FEAT does not limit itself to the generic white-wall gallery, and prides itself on using all the nooks and crannies Montreal has to offer—be it boroughs, restaurants or, as with their latest exposition, garages.

The siblings’ relationships with artists rely on mutual understanding. Their main objective is always to showcase an artist’s work and get their names out into the world, which is something that also helped broaden the Hart-Barnwells’ own horizons.

“Once you start scratching beneath the surface” Max said, “you start to realize that there is so much hidden talent in Montreal.”

In their latest exhibition, the hidden talent is that of Concordia fine arts graduates Alex Coma and Justine Skahan, as well as Université de Montréal student Guillaume Huguet.

The exhibit is eclectic and engaging, mixing three artists’ work together rather than devoting different spaces to each of them. Small, grey and some would even say a tad rusty, the garage was deemed perfect by the curators.

“We were looking for something grungy to work with the art,” Max explained, “and the garage worked great. There’s no limitations or profiles. Any kind of environment could be a potentially good show for us.”

FEAT ‘s website described WE ARE WHERE | WHERE ARE WE as an art exhibit showcasing “constructed realities,” and human beings’ desire to identify with others and everything around them.

The Hart-Barnwells were seeking artworks that reflected liminal spaces, Skahan said, which was in line with her recent collection of work.

Justine Skahan’s paintings are interested in domestic space and the way in which people construct themselves through it.
Photo courtesy of FEAT Management

Skahan’s work is quite varied. As she is very interested in domestic spaces and suburbia, as well as the way people construct themselves through these aspects of society. Her paintings depict muted close-ups of plants and grass, among other suburban elements. Her art obviously compliments Rafaël and Max’s aim in their exhibit, touching upon constructed realities. WE ARE WHERE | WHERE ARE WE is her first Montreal show of the year.

“Group shows take pressure off of you,” she said. “Normally, the work is curated by someone else, and it could be good and bad.”

She compared the vernissage jitters at a solo exhibit to the anxiety a person might feel at their birthday party when they’re not really sure how many people will turn up. She said the pressure is relieved when it’s a group show, however, because you can count on other artists to bring in people in case your entourage doesn’t make it.

Coma is yet another artist the Hart-Barnwell duo believed fit their theme quite well after seeing his collection titled Wormhole, otherwise known as the theoretical passage through space and time.

“Wormholes are created on a daily in our everyday lives from Earth to space or another planet or anywhere you want in the universe,” Coma explained. “I want people to feel transported. My paintings are very symmetrical, so it allows the viewer to project himself into the space I drew.” Coma is a Concordia alumni as well, having majored in photography.

“My photography is the basis of all my paintings so far. I used them to make a sort of collage on my canvas” he said. “A painting of mine can be a mix of several pictures I took. The tree I painted is on a different photograph than the house that’s next to it. But the more I paint, the more I can start using my own imagination to move away from relying on my photographs.”

Coma has an upcoming solo exhibit on Sept. 26 at Le Livart Gallery on St-Denis St.

In his Wormhole series, Alex Coma paints elements from several photographs on one canvas.
Photos courtesy of FEAT Management

 

Contrary to Coma and Skahan’s more landscape-oriented, dark-coloured works, Huguet’s work is a series of colourful portraits.

Mathematics student Guillaume Huguet paints lively portraits using paint and oil pastel. Kau (left) and Anna (right).
Photo courtesy of FEAT Management

French-born Huguet does not have an artistic background, as he is currently finishing up a master’s in mathematics in the Université de Montréal. His artworks, however, do not disappoint.

He focuses mainly on the relationships between human beings and the tension that comes with it. Although not detailed and mostly relying on distinctive brushstrokes, the burst of colour is a refreshing contrast to Coma and Skahan’s dark colour palettes.

 

“I like Guillaume’s portraits,” Max said. “The use of colours, and also the rough lining, it compliments others’ detailed works. We mixed the canvases together rather than make it seem like one corner is Justine’s, the other is Guillaume and that one’s Alex’s, because each one of them could influence the other and tell a beautiful narrative.”

 

WE ARE WHERE | WHERE ARE WE will be on display until Sept. 14 on the corner of St-André and Généreux Sts.

 

Categories
Opinions

Professional persona vs. public persona

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

Why we must keep a distance between our private and professional side

Recently, Twitter struck again with a post that resulted in the end of someone’s career. In August, a woman tweeted: “Everyone shut the f*ck up I got accepted for a NASA internship.” A man named Homer Hickam tweeted back: “Language.” To which the woman responded: “Suck my dick and balls I’m working for NASA.”

Hickam replied with a simple statement revealing his identity as a member of the National Space Council that oversees NASA. As quickly as it started, the woman’s heated tweet got her fired from her intern position, according to Buzzfeed News.

Inevitably, the entire exchange as well as its outcome caused a fair amount of backlash online. Some people defended Hickam’s choice to end her internship before it even began. Others, however, went so far as to attack Hickam’s “white-man privilege” for firing a woman because she didn’t mind her language.

Eventually, it was discovered that Hickam was not involved in the decision to fire the woman. Hickam explained that he only replied to her tweet as a warning because he feared she would lose her job if NASA officials saw the tweet.

This brings us to the topic of the day: Should there really be a difference between a person’s personal and professional persona? In my opinion, there should be. Biases and opinions tend to scare some people off and affect how they view others. In this case, excessive swearing smeared a woman’s professional persona. Had she made sure to keep her personal persona, one where she is the master of her own words, different from her professional one, she would not have suffered such consequences.

Ideally, nothing should faze an employer’s view of their employees besides how they deliver the work asked of them. If someone’s competence is not affected by their opinions or, in this case, excessive swearing, why should they be punished for it? However, oftentimes, that is not the case. Too often, employers cannot get past certain values or habits their employees have.

Social media is a dangerous place to venture, and while people may think the World Wide Web is synonymous with freedom of expression, it definitely isn’t. Once a person chooses to use your public persona against you, there is little you can do about it. There is little you can do about how certain people will choose to hurt you and get away with it.

In a perfect world devoid of limitations and social norms, people would not worry about such things. They would be trusted in the professional world despite opinions they have or their way of life. Unfortunately, in our world, people are held accountable for what they choose to show to the public, and not without reason.

Human beings are biased creatures, whether we like to admit it or not. Once we see a person act a certain way, we cannot control the need to put that person into a box or stereotype. At times, that can get harmful. For example, an Islamophobic employer will inevitably let his negative bias affect his choice in hiring a Muslim individual, regardless of the person’s professional abilities.

In my opinion, this is rigid and counterproductive. Excessive stereotypes derail people from possible life opportunities, especially on a professional level. For instance, when one hears a person excessively swearing, one might think they are not professional and borderline disrespectful. Nonetheless, this is the reality of our ever-evolving world, and while some constraints might seem unfair, others––such as keeping certain things private––are deemed necessary.

In the case of the woman on Twitter, she not only swore excessively, but directed her language toward an important person in her field of work—a person she obviously did not know to be of such importance until he corrected her. Hence why it is better to be safe than sorry when it comes to such stories. Ideally, one should not fear their private lives affecting their professional life, because  the profession should only be defined with the work you put into it.

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

Categories
Opinions

The pressure of finding love

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Love is not here to complete you

Whether we care to admit it or not, Platonic myths have shaped the world’s perception of love, amongst other things.

Greek mythology, and its ways of defining and explaining things, have made an impression on many. Perhaps the most popular myth people remember would be Aristophanes’ myth about love, in Plato’s Symposium.

Many don’t know it by name but are familiar with the romantic epic of four-legged human beings, that are male, female and androgynous, seeking to surpass and overthrow the gods. Thus, Zeus decided to cut them in half, separating them, and making it their lifelong quest to seek their other half, in order to feel whole again. And so, the societal pressure to find a mate is born.

Ads are designed to portray men and women as things to be desired and coveted. Ideologies about finding “the one” scattered all over media, like in films, make us think we could never be complete without another individual, for fear of being alone or becoming a “spinster.”

Nowadays, the digital age has made it easily accessible to find a partner, with Tinder for casual meet-ups, OkCupid for “true love,” and even Plenty of Fish that plays on the romantic cliche “plenty of fish in the sea.” What’s the point? Eventually, love, real love, withers. As people are urged to find a person to complete them, rather than being whole by themselves, they will eventually settle for less, and the happiness they so desperately seek will never come.

The ever-so-prominent fear of “ending up alone” has manifested over the years. Even people who shy away from commitment cannot help but feel lonely at times, and seek partners in order to experience a sense of belonging.

Love—real love—in my personal, inexperienced, 20-year-old opinion, is a partnership. It is not about someone completing you, because you do not need anyone to complete you. It is about sharing yourself with a person who would take what you give them, with open arms.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

Are horoscopes helpful or hogwash?

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth.

Astrology might not be foolproof, but it can help people understand each other’s behaviours

I’m an avid believer in astrology. I am a proud Libra, and I would like to think horoscopes are not as ridiculous as some claim they are. I am not fully versed in the planetary alignment that astrology is based on, but I do believe a person’s star sign can explain their behaviour. Certain traits can easily be spotted, if you pay close enough attention.

A Libra is a natural born leader, with an affinity for balance and an uncontrollable need to please people. According to Astro, a website that describes astrological signs, an Aries is dramatic, emotional, assertive, impulsive and, most importantly, kind-hearted. A Virgo is democratic—some might say a control freak, but that is just part of their love for order and organization. Geminis are as secretive as they are blunt. The list goes on.

I can see why some people would consider astrology to be fictitious, as it has no scientific basis nor is there much accuracy when it comes to astrologers’ predictions. At times, a Capricorn can read something about a Sagittarius and relate to it just the same. Many readings and sign characteristics are inconsistent. Daily horoscopes might speculate about your day, but there is no certainty in what astrologers predict to be “a day full of opportunities” or an “eventful evening.”

If you were to unknowingly read a horoscope that was not yours and apply it to your life, only to discover it was not intended for you, this might reinforce your belief that horoscopes are nonsense. However, in an age when we are taught to tolerate beliefs and religions based on books that may as well be fictional, I don’t understand why astrology is considered hogwash by some people. In some ways, astrology is similar to religion, in the sense that it is not 100 per cent accurate yet millions of people believe in it.

Astrology is a peaceful form of spirituality, exploring human behaviour and psyche. Some might even draw parallels to psychology—after all, psychology’s main purpose is to understand the complexity of human beings and the reasons for their actions. Astrology attempts to answer such notions as well.

I understand why this could be deemed pathetic or ridiculous. I can almost hear the skepticism: “How the hell can you understand why I act the way I do because Mercury, ruled by Mars on the left of Jupiter, says so?” I agree that a person’s sign does not always explain their motives or behaviour. Yet, if you’re a believer in astrology like me, general descriptions might make you wary of certain signs, such as blunt Capricorns or intense Scorpios. I normally don’t like to generalize, but based on subjective experiences with these signs, these two are oftentimes rough around the edges and hard to handle.

Star signs do explain to me why a person might act the way they do, and how one should be aware of certain reactions. Many types of science are based on facts and observations of the world around us. But I believe these sciences are also based on interpretations of the world around us. Whether it’s mathematics, astronomy or physics, I believe such theories would not be born without thorough interpretations of the world and beyond. So why shouldn’t astrological reasoning be taken as seriously as scientific reasoning?

Astrology has been dubbed a “pseudoscience,” according to The New York Times, because it’s not as detailed or factual as other scientific fields. I believe certain things in life cannot be completely explained through science and factual evidence. Some things are beyond the socially constructed definition of reasoning. The belief in astrology, and its depiction of a person’s personality, might seem far-fetched with no theoretical or scientific framework. But the same could be said about most religions. On the brightside, at least astrology never started wars! Just don’t leave an Aries and a Gemini alone together.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

The word “diet” needs a new, positive meaning

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

We need to change the way we approach body image and healthy lifestyles

I believe the word “diet” should only refer to the way someone eats, not what they eat in order to lose weight. In fact, the definition of the term is “food and drink regularly provided or consumed,” according to Merriam Webster. Yet, diets are no longer solely considered culinary choices in our society. Instead, they are a means to shed extra pounds. And so, whenever the word “diet” is used in a sentence, people grow pale and struggle to change the subject. Why? I believe the word diet and its contemporary meaning are the root cause of body shaming and eating disorders.

Coming from Lebanon, I tend to avoid the topic of diets, as they are the basis for existence among most Lebanese women. Unfortunately, their morning coffees would never be complete without an update on how their “regime” is going. From my experience, frequent dieters don’t tend to adopt “healthy diets” for the right reasons. They do it to look good aesthetically and conform to dominant beauty standards, rather than avoid cardiovascular diseases. Almost every adult who struggles with their body image will tell you it began with a traumatic comment heard in childhood about their excess body fat. It’s sad, it’s disgusting, but it is also the cold-hearted truth.

In my opinion, our unhealthy interpretation of diets can trigger eating disorders and self-destructive behaviours. According to the United States’ National Eating Disorders Association, 35 per cent of dieters progress to pathological dieting, and 20 to 25 per cent of those individuals develop eating disorders.

Recently, a Weight Watchers ad shamelessly called out child obesity. The company is offering free six-week gym memberships for teenagers between the ages of 13 to 17 this summer. In other words, the minute you start dealing with your teenage crisis, you can get a free gym membership to release your endorphins through exercise!

There was significant backlash on social media following the release of this ad, and many people claim 13 is too young to worry about weight. But it’s important to make a distinction between a child being curvy and a child being obese. Child obesity is a big problem that shouldn’t be glorified. It needs to be addressed in teenagers, not shunned as body shaming. Some argue that encouraging teenagers to lose weight can be misconstructed as body shaming—the seed from which an eating disorder can grow.

I resent that statement. I don’t believe Weight Watchers’ aim was to encourage body shaming, nor do I believe diets are meant to be evil. The connotations of the word “diet” certainly is though. The ad and people’s reactions to it just remind me of how people approach diets—wanting to make themselves look good instead of feel good.

Throughout their lives, people are encouraged to adopt a healthy, balanced lifestyle by eating well and exercising regularly. In my opinion, as long as adults support such habits, without resorting to hurtful comments or approaches, we can avoid the issue of people developing eating disorders after being shamed into “dieting.” For instance, a mother can teach her children healthier habits rather than reproach them for their sedentary lifestyles.

As parenting expert and author Alyson Schafer told Global News: “Modelling good habits and attitudes while discussing health from an educational perspective is key.” The only thing I am against is the distorted meaning of the word “diet” or “regime,” because they were originally used to describe the way a person eats, not dictate how they should lose weight. Just as the French phrase “regime alimentaire” emphasizes what you eat, “diet” should mean the same—not be synonymous with “zero calories!”

I believe in a balanced way of life, and encouraging someone to adopt a healthy diet and lifestyle isn’t a bad thing. We must change the way we view diets. So, in this new era of political correctness, let’s correct the “diet” policy, shall we?

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Exit mobile version