Court Painter alongside some of the paintings that could be part of a Court Painter National Portrait gallery.
The government won’t be looking for any site for a Court Painter national portrait gallery after an intense 10 minute analysis.
The Prime Minister announced on Wednesday that he’s got better things to do.
When news first surfaced several weeks ago that a Court Painter National Gallery wasn’t even on the Liberal governments radar, advocates for the gallery including a distraught Court Painter and his disheveled Press Attache said they supported the idea and hoped the government would reconsider and find a site for the portrait collection, reportedly made up of meticulous hand rendered digital masterworks ,set in hand carved mother of pearl inlaid frames and wrapped in fine silk.
The collection is currently housed on a thumb drive in the Court Painter’s studio vault in Inglewood and is one of the largest Court Painter portrait collections anywhere in the world… bar none and without a doubt.
Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly said during a lobbying effort by Court Painter & his Press attache outside the House of Commons on Wednesday that her department was not looking for a site and,”Start ups of this kind are not part of our government’s industrial art infrastructure subsidy pork barrel initiative model program…. now or ever, period!”
“There’s presently no project for a Court Painter portrait gallery, now or ever, period! ” she repeated while closing her eyes with annoyance.
Joly explained in the government’s defence of this heartbreaker, “The collection is accessible on line. Exquisite digital collage examples of the portrait collection are sent out free of charge to random Canadians and the Court Painter hosts an occasional open house with slide shows at his tony Inglewood studio. This is more than enough,” she muttered in wide eyed annoyance!
After calming down ,the Minister went on to say,“In my opinion too many Canadians over the age of consent already have access to the collection. …however on a more conciliatory note we have great communication leadership within Court Painter’s studio especially with Press Attache A Hardon MacKay….a fine specimen of a yappy senior.”
Minister Joly presented the ‘fine specimen’ with a 150th Canada Anniversary flag which he waved enthusiastically.
Court Painter was unavailable for comment.
In another outstanding National Post (June 19) blog piece of investigative journalism, John Ivison treated his readers to a red flag hoist warning of mob outrage relating to the criticism of our vulnerable Governor General, known in some circles for his shock of white hair and past hockey prowess. One can only assume that Ivison’s assimilation is complete into Canadian society as an original Scot immigrant who has a burrr under his saddle and now feels it his patriotic duty to warn his fellow Canadians that criticism of the Queens representitive for an acknowledged faux pas is now outrage by the mob!
Thank god, those critics who in great numbers criticized the critics of the Governor General’s original statement are not by Ivison’s rigorous standards , considered part of the mob.
Please note: Possible source of Mr. Ivisons application of mobbing.Just guessing!
In HM Advocate v Robertson (1842) 1 Broun 152, at 192 to 193, Hope L.J.-C. said in his direction to the jury:
An illegal mob is any assemblage of people, acting together for a common and illegal purpose, effecting, or attempting to effect their muncer purpose, either by violence, or by demonstration of force or numbers, or by a species of intimidation, impediment, or obstruction, calculated to effect their object.
He went on to say:
It is not necessary that the purpose or object of the mob should have been previously concerted, or that they should be brought together and congregated with the view previously formed of effecting the object subsequently attempted. It is enough, that after they have been so assembled and brought together, finding their numbers, and ascertaining a common feeling, they then act in concert, and take up and resolve to effect common purpose. There must, however, be a common purpose and object, for which they are combined and acting in concert, after they are congregated and operating as such throughout the acts alleged to be acts of mobbing. That object or purpose must be unlawful.
These passages were approved by the High Court, as an accurate statement of the law, in Hancock and others v HM Advocate 1981 SCCR 32.
As The Great Dominion prepares to politely ring in its 150th anniversary, Gov. Gen. David Johnston says there’s room to discuss Court Painter’s role in the cultural life of Canada — despite the prime minister’s categorical refusal to reopen the debate about a federally sponsored studio for Court Painter.
“The Court Painter is an experiment that is evolving continuously and somewhat out of control in the face of both domestic and external art events,” Johnston said during an interview at Rideau Hall with CBC Radio’s The House. “I would say that Court Painter’s demands are matters appropriate for continual debate. The wonderful thing about this polite country is that we don’t shy away from debate and discussion about Court Painter’s ongoing disruptive studio activities. I think we are prepared to put our challenges as well as our opportunities on the table when it comes to his studio needs and lobbying for celebrity status .”
But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made it clear he wants no part of it, telling reporters “we are not opening a can of worms or introducing an exit ramp to a slippery slope when it comes to a free studio for Court Painter.I just won’t have it!”, he snorted politely .
Johnston shot back that the willingness for frank discussion and compromise is part of The Great Dominion’s political culture going back to Confederation 150 years ago.
“Our history has shown that we have found ways to achieve a degree of common ground. We are a polite nation that avoids putting ourselves in a position where we get at extremes and warring with one another, but constantly finding accommodation and I must respectfully point out a studio for Court Painter by definition can be described as accommodation under Calgary City Bylaw 17:Section B, ” he said politely but emphatically.
“The Canadian art scene was built on that kind of accommodation seeking, with a number of the partners at the beginning saying, ‘My, this is a pretty risky and doubtful experiment.’ And a couple of the would-be partners saying, ‘We’re not going to try that unless we get the tax payers to foot the bill,’ but came in a few years later once the heady abstract era had cooled down and developers got the breaks they demanded,” Johnston said refusing to explain what he meant.
“I think that’s very much the polite Canadian way of you don’t look for a perfect resolution of an issue, but you are prepared to examine it and to work constructively to find solutions.Unfortunately our Prime Minister is dead against giving Court Painter a leg up in his quest for improved studio accommodation.”
Johnston’s time as the Queen’s representative in this country is coming to an end this fall, when Trudeau will appoint his successor. Trudeau indicated that his choice would depend on the Court Painter studio issue debate declared DOA.
Court Painter could not be reached for comment and the press refused to listen to his Press Attache A Hardon MacKay’s standard rant on Canada’s tall poppy syndrome.
From the Guardian article ‘A Reckoning for our Species’: Meet the philosopher prophet of the Anthropocene by Alex Blasdel
Court Painter shows off his fleet of art delivery trucks in preparation for the huge annual late spring sales event! He covers many prairie and mountain back roads to take art to the rural people of Alberta.
His Canada Grade A Art is shipped in environmentally controlled containers to Europe, Asia and Mar a Lago.