The Mystery Of Angry Dunlop Appears To Be Solved

Esteemed Dog Blog commentator Amber wrote the following in the comments thread of this post:

Perhaps the most maddening thing about your editorial from last week, Stephen, was how you MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY about why the Dunlop was pissed at the Prairie Dog. If you go back and re-read Greg’s review of the Terrance Houle show, you’ll notice that he says the de-humidifiers were in place to prevent further damage to the works. This implied that damage had already been done, which was NOT THE CASE. As you can imagine, such libelous conjecture caused a lot of trouble for the gallery, both from Terrance and the Plug In gallery in Winnipeg (luckily, the Plug In director is a former Regina resident who was familiar with Greg’s “journalism” and was able to brush the whole thing off with an eye-roll.) However, the damage done to the gallery’s reputation can’t be so easily brushed off, as it can affect the likelihood of other institutions lending works to the gallery in the future. For this alone, the gallery deserves an apology from the Prairie Dog, not this adolescent attempt to publicly shame it.

So let’s recap that: prairie dog printed an assertion the Dunlop disputes. The gallery was embarrassed and has real problems as a result. No one at the Dunlop contacted prairie dog to explain their situation/perspective, or request a correction. Instead a fit was thrown, because the Dunlop was “pissed at the prairie dog” (and vulnerable as hell) and two ads were pulled to punish us. And I was left to read the minds of the supposedly wronged staff. Which I was not in a mood to do after I saw those ads in Verb.

Wow. Passive aggressive much?

Assuming that Amber does in fact have insider information, as a supporter and fan of the Dunlop Art Gallery AND its staff (and maybe even director, I’ll let you know) I’m going to speculate that this near-unbelieveable clusterfudge is the direct consequence of a gallery that’s underfunded, under-appreciated and staffed by people who feel like they’re under siege and are therefore going crazy. How’s that for a theory? Sound about right?

I think it’s time to move ahead on a new library building (UPDATE: or preferably, a massive renovation and expansion) to give the Dunlop, a critically important Regina and Western Canadian art gallery, a stable library home that doesn’t need dehumidifiers.

Get on it, Regina.

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth was carried to Regina in a swarm of bees.

44 thoughts on “The Mystery Of Angry Dunlop Appears To Be Solved”

  1. I’ll counter your theory with another, less irrational one: the Dunlop has been less than satisfied with the PD’s art coverage for some time now, the mis-informed and sensationalized Terrance Houle article being the last straw, and in the aftermath of that they think “well, we’ve given the PD our money for many years, why not maybe try a different publication for just one issue? Let’s give that Verb a try. They haven’t annoyed us yet.” A totally reasonable decision and not at all a “thrown fit” as you fantasize.

    As an institution it is well within the Dunlop’s rights to allocate their advertising budget in any way they see fit. Just because you have a vendetta with VERB doesn’t mean the Dunlop is under obligation to justify their “betrayal” to you. Why didn’t they contact you immediately to straighten things out? Well, maybe it’s just not that important to them that the PD understands their every position. Maybe they have bigger issues to deal with at the moment. Maybe to them it’s just a simple business matter, which it probably is (I doubt it has anything to do with censorship as you keep insisting) and so that’s why it’s so bizarre that you saw fit to publicize it in your publication. How unfathomably unprofessional is that? What message does this send to your other advertisers? “If you dare pull an ad from us, you WILL be made an example of!” Can you imagine any other professional periodical behaving in such a manner?

    FYI – I am not speaking on behalf of the Dunlop, these are my own opinions based on what I’ve heard/observed and gleaned through conversations. The reason I waited until now to voice them is simply because, like a lot of people, I don’t check the PD blog every day. I just noticed the recent post on the matter and thought I’d chime in to clear some things up. Glad to be of assistance!

  2. The attack on Greg Beatty’s writing by “Amber” is inappropriate.

    “Amber”, if you have a problem with a writer’s work, let that writer know and let that writer know who’s criticizing them. Greg signs his criticisms, you should do the same.

    Greg has been a valuable contributor to Regina’s cultural community for a long time and as a member of that cultural community, I’m grateful we have someone like Greg who’s interested in writing about art and culture.

    Can we back off on the anonymous slander that has been bandied about on this thread? (“Amber” is not the only culprit) If you’re going to insult someone, or make allegations about them, sign it with your full name and be accountable.

  3. Ha! Do you honestly think I want this reactionary hothead editor knowing my full name? Do you think I need that kind of grief in my life? Just look at the spin he has put on this story to absolve his publication of any responsibility in this matter whatsoever. He’s framed a perfectly sensible business decision as this wild punishment tantrum. Elsewhere he’s called my comments “entitled bullshit” when I was simply citing examples to support the perfectly reasonable assertion that Greg Beatty is perhaps not the best arts writer ever and it’s not at all surprising that an art gallery might notice that eventually and, thus, might want to stop giving that publication their money as a result. Where is the “entitlement?” Or did you just use that word at random?

    Perhaps the most weird is this confusing revelatory tone Mr. Whitworth has adopted in regards to my comments. Like, what did I reveal that wasn’t already obvious? You mentioned that Dr. Collins responded to your initial email with an invitation to discuss the quality of the PD’s arts coverage with you (a civil gesture you have chosen to spin as “condescending”) – wasn’t that your answer right there? What’s the mystery? It doesn’t take much sleuthing to connect the dots. I suppose it’s more fun to trump this up as a big mystery (I will admit that the PD can sometimes be “fun”) but I honestly didn’t think my comments would be the subject of their own exposé posting. Well, I feel honoured. Thanks for calling me “esteemed!” That wasn’t childish AT ALL.

    So as you can so there are MANY, VARIOUS reasons to keep my real-life identity out of this madness. It’s already taken up more time than I intended to without having to deal with it in real life tomorrow. However I suppose I should have guessed that remaining partially anonymous would be used as ammunition against me by those wishing to obfuscate the real issue here. Anything to remain in denial I suppose . . .

  4. At the Terrance Houle performance at the Dunlop last Friday evening, I was shocked and saddened and hurt to hear Curtis Collins speak in a sarcastic tone about ‘dehumidifiers’ and an ‘ex-lover’ in his attempt to ridicule the Prairie Dog. It was embarrassing and unprofessional. Was Curtis really upset because Greg Beatty mentioned dehumidifiers in his review of the Terrance Houle exhibition??!! (Was that when the air conditioning was not working?) None of this makes sense!

    The Prairie Dog has been such a fervent supporter of the Dunlop Art Gallery, and we, in Regina, value this. The Prairie Dog LOVES the Dunlop! When we were fighting the closures of the DAG, the Prairie History Room, and Connaught, Prince of Wales and the Glen Elm Branch Libraries in 2003-4, the Prairie Dog’s coverage helped to gain popular support and to keep us informed. During the years of struggle before – the threat to shut down the Film Theatre in 1998, and the attempt to move the Dunlop work space to a Winnipeg St warehouse (Stephen LaRose did great work to uncover what had taken place in that sad tale of mismanagement), the Prairie Dog stood firm in its support of the Regina Public Library.

    We have come to love the Dunlop as a brave problem-solver, ready to take on local issues, offering a forum for critical discussion. After the Sask Party’s attempted censorship of Queer City Cinema, the Dunlop and the Sask Arts Alliance hosted a panel discussion on censorship to try to discuss this in a public situation, with keynote speaker June Callwood, with John Gormley as one of the panelists.

    These kicks at the Prairie Dog seemed pointless and petty. As a small arts community in a small city, we are known to support each other. I would say that we need to support each other. Public sniping is demeaning. Could problems with the Prairie Dog and its coverage of art not be discussed with Stephen and Greg, face to face, in private?

    We love the Dunlop Art Gallery and we love the Prairie Dog. These divisions make it even harder to live in this city. Yes, I am fervently hoping that you to kiss and make up!!

    (However, I disagree with Stephen about RPL Central Library! That building is a gem, and we should work to renovate and expand – as Winnipeg did. Our history and architecture is precious!)

  5. Also, as I’ve written repeatedly, there’s nothing wrong with criticizing Greg’s coverage. That’s called discourse. And the Dunlop won’t find that in Verb.

  6. And Jeannie–whoops, sorry! I’d love a refitted library too. Doesn’t have to be a “new” building at all. The rebuilt Winnipeg library is gorgeous (but if only it had an art gallery!).

  7. Amber, if you think that anyone with a brain reads Verb, you are sadly mistaken. You just wasted your ad dollars. Informed people don’t read papers with almost no local content that focus on two-week old stories about Lady Gaga.

  8. “…underfunded, under-appreciated and staffed by people who feel like they’re under siege and are therefore going crazy.”

    That sounds about right. If you’re referring to the prairie dog.

  9. Justin – Aug. 29 – 10:02 am

    “…underfunded, under-appreciated and staffed by people who feel like they’re under siege and are therefore going crazy.”

    That sounds about right. If you’re referring to the prairie dog.

    AGREED! – It is called projecting our feelings onto others.

  10. I would suggest that the likely ROI on an advertisement in Verb is identical to that of the Prairie Dog: $0.

  11. This city is full of garbage media – CJME with Gormley’s entertainment show that amounts to ass kissing for 3 hours every day, a daily newspaper that wouldn’t say shit about anything if they thought it might cost them 50 cents, and don’t even bring up Verb….the biggest waste of paper I have ever seen. Prairie Dog is the only media company in this city with balls to call out childish behavior like this Dunlop thing. You don’t like what was said so you light a wad of money on fire (by giving it the Verb, which is read by approximately nobody).

    Here’s how GOOD media works…things get criticized, opinions and counter-opinions get shared, and everything gets better because of it. How about Prairie Dog just fall in step with everybody else in town and start being a lame booster of everything no matter how bad it blows. Yeah…that’s what we need more of in this city.

  12. “Ads in prairie dog don’t work! No one sees them because no one reads prairie dog! And I’m going to go to prairie dog’s blog right now and write a comment about this, and about how I never read prairie dog — it just falls in front of my eyeballs by accident sometimes!”

    Yeah we get that lot.

  13. Re: #13

    Well Kip, you certainly sound like a media expert. How about you start paying for the paper you claim to love so much, or donating some of your money to them?

  14. @VandaSchmoeckel @MarkWihak @StevenWhitworth, the policy still seems to be “Please post under your real name or an entertaining, consistently-used nickname.” Fine; or are you saying nicknames are not good enough when criticizing PD’s coverage?

  15. Agent W, I’m in no position to write or enforce policy, but I take issue with the kind of bile Amber chose to sling at Greg. It went beyond constructive criticism (which is, I’d like to think, welcomed at PD), and veered way into vitriol country. Suggesting that “people” have been complaining about Greg’s coverage for years (years!) without backing that up in any substantive way is awful. If someone has something that nasty to say, they should at least have the backbone to identify themselves while saying it.

  16. I suppose I should clarify here, Vanda – my comments weren’t meant to be vitriolic since, from my perspective, they were merely a neutral statement of fact as I’ve experienced it. I thought I did a reasonable job of explaining why I found Greg’s journalistic style a bit lacking without resorting to adolescent vulgarity (you know, along the lines of Stephen’s “The Dunlop took a big crap on us” comment, for example.)

    It’s tricky territory to navigate since, yes, people do say things in confidence and one doesn’t want to say “so-and-so director of this artist run centre also had similar complaints” because then it’s a headache for that person. I suppose I was trying to reveal that there’s another side to this story without getting specific people in trouble. Perhaps in such cases it’s best to not even bother at all, since people will then choose to attack your anonymity instead of actually thinking about the issues raised. I imagine that if I only had nice things to say, no one would care about my not supplying a full name. Such is the internet, I suppose.

    Also I suppose I naively assumed at least some people would know which Regina artist ARG/Rosemont show from years ago (with the large nude figure paintings) I was referring to in my initial comment. That was as “substantive” as I was willing to get without creating a headache for that artist, since she is still in the community, though I see now that it probably just came across cryptic. My apologies.

    For what it’s worth, I think the PD, in general, is an infinitely better publication than VERB. Which is why I would prefer to see it’s staff conduct their business affairs with more maturity and professionalism.

  17. Amber, I can understand why people choose to remain anonymous when offering comments on certain issues. Sometimes we find ourselves in potentially politically dangerous situations, and would like to contribute to the conversation without jeopardizing our jobs or relationships. I get that, and would hate to think that anyone would censor themselves for fear of reprisal (from anyone).

    But, that’s not what you did. You brought up an article from years ago that you didn’t like (and didn’t address at the time?), and then went on to say that “complaining about Greg Beatty’s arts coverage is something of an ongoing pastime amongst the Regina art community”. That’s just mean. Honestly, how would you feel if someone anonymously criticized you and your work in this way? This is too small a town, and that comment was not constructive – and suggesting that this is an ongoing problem (without ever having addressed it before) is passive-aggressive. What is your point? Do you want him “fired”? Reassigned? Do you want a correction? What do you want? Personally, I’d rather the tone of the blog not get this way at all, but it does – and there are a number of culprits and I wish they’d all tone it down.

    if you want to take the conversation further, Greg has posted his side of the brouhaha here:
    http://www.prairiedogmag.com/?p=45412#respond

    I was surprised you didn’t take the opportunity to engage with him directly (no one has so far), but perhaps you didn’t see his post.

    In any case, I’ve made the only point I care to make here (three times now), and I’m done with it.

  18. Greg’s articles past and present, and Stephen’s editorial blog posts, are being published by a newspaper, for crying out loud, and PD seems to fancy itself the paper of record for coverage of the Regina arts scene. It seems awfully silly (maybe even entitled? arrogant?) to assert that disagreements with their publishing record should correctly be addressed only personally and directly and immediately and hush-hush privately, else one is being mean, nasty, passive-aggressive, selectively critical, vitriolic, slinging bile, playing political games, taking personal swipes and/or a big crap on the paper (and probably some more I left out).

    I think journalists and editors should be made of sterner stuff.

  19. if you have a problem with the way an article is written, send in a letter to the editor. that’s how it works. people have e-mail addresses for a reason. it makes us better writers and editors to hear feedback at the time, directed at specific articles, and tied exclusively to the quality of the article as opposed to e.g. advertising dollars.

    it’s not hard to figure out how the whole thing works. we regularly received cranky letters regarding pieces we ran when i was editing the carillon. sometimes, we took action on the letters we received and tried to figure out where we could do better either in our process or in our approach to news. other times, we decided not to act on letters because we decided that pursuing their fixes would be contrary to our mission and our values. but we read every single letter we received, we took it into consideration, and we tried to see how we could use it to grow.

    that’s how you participate in making something better, if you actually want it to work. but i’m not sure if either greg or stephen were ever sent letters, either after the piece amber describes or after the dunlop review’s publication. nobody who writes for the prairie dog, as far as i know, has thin enough skin that they’ll go “well maybe the point is valid but they used a rude word in describing me.” especially not these two dudes.

    there might be fair complaints about the prairie dog’s fine arts writing. (i also know people in the visual arts community who quite like greg’s writing for the prairie dog, for what it’s worth. they might be surprised to learn that there were straws prior to this one.) but extortion really isn’t going to help make the case for them.

  20. like, really, who cares if amber’s using a pseudonym and who cares about gossip about who said what at a gallery opening. i don’t. but if you think an article i write is a piece of shit i’m not going to know that unless you send in a letter calling it a piece of shit. you feel me?

  21. and for reference to date i’ve received exactly one email or letter corresponding to an article i wrote and it was just the words “good article” so i mean statistically speaking i have to operate under the assumption that 100% of you think i’m a good writer. that’s just basic maths

  22. Let me try this again, Agent W. It’s not the criticism of Greg: it’s the pulling ads and running them in ridiculous places, THEN back-pedaling toward old, unshared criticisms to justify that crummy, passive-aggressive move, that’s a problem.

    Plus the Dunlop matters to me, right? We get enough hostility behind the scenes.* When the freaking DUNLOP pulls its ads over our articles without warning — which IS an act of soft censorship — I have to ask if I want to keep living in this city. (answer was yes BTW, but the question had to be asked.)

    *we get more love than hostility, BTW, by a large margin. Our readers are swell.

  23. Amber: some adolescent vulgarity is a very good thing in writing and journalism and culture in general. Monty Python is the gold standard. But they owe a lot to ol’ Marcel Duchamp and company.

  24. It was not gossip about what was said at the Dunlop Gallery opening, it was the public address to introduce the performance which was what I found to be so out of line. It did not even make sense in an introduction of an artist to say these things, and it forced the audience into a position of complicity with what was said (insulting Prairie Dog) or utter discomfort (at realizing that this would create fissures within our art community). Discomfort and disgust and embarrassment is what I felt.

    Perhaps it was meant to be funny, but I did not find it to be funny. It was sad.

  25. Ok kids!! first off my work WAS NOT DAMAGED! or was it even remotely damaged. The work is framed professionally and with a great deal of care which was done by a close personal friend. I am writing a response to this article and the unprofessionalism i see happening out of a writers failed investigation into a exhibition and review. I am appalled my Name is being used and my Exhibition GIVN’R is being used by a writer to Bash a Gallery who has been nothing but amazing to myself, colleagues and my Art work. The Dunlop has gone far and beyond to accommodate both my Exhibit and the performance we did: The Contrary Collective, a few weeks ago.
    When I read this article immediately I was concerned both for my works and for the audio in my exhibition and soon found out it was lies. To print something libel about a gallery and exhibition that causes harm to ones reputation is ridiculous. PRAIRIE DOG MAG, Greg Beatty and Stephen Whitworth please apologize to the STAFF and The DUNLOP Art Gallery for the wrongful statements and ridiculous Article you printed using my name and my exhibition GIVN’R (which is a 5 year retro of my art and life). I deserve an Apology as well for using my name and exhibit for your personal attack and printing false statements about my work being damaged as none of the work was remotely damaged. I am a proud prairie Boy born and raised in Calgary, raised in Moosejaw, Yorkton, Winnipeg and Souther Alberta, The Dunlop Gallery is a vital part to this area’s Contemporary Art Community as well an amazing part of the Canadian Contemporary Art scene.
    My suggestion Prairie Dog is start writing reviews properly and with experienced writers from the Art Community and investigate the shows more closely instead of causing harm, splits or even DRAMA. be fucking real about it and critic art using real critique not personal biased bullshit. START working with the Art Community positively because i tell you this every artist and Gallery are starving and the conservatives have cut more and more to arts and some asshole at a news paper who writes wrongful negative print just adds fuel to take more away from us. soo grow the fuck up Stephen, Greg and Prairie Dog, art support doesn’t come from being pricks.
    over and out
    Terrance Houle

  26. “it’s the pulling ads and running them in ridiculous places, THEN back-pedaling toward old, unshared criticisms to justify that crummy, passive-aggressive move, that’s a problem.”

    You seem to be equating things I did and the things the Dunlop did as if they were done by the same person. As I’ve said before, I am not affiliated with them, nor did they elect me to speak for them in public. Furthermore, it was not their plan to pull a couple of ads and then “drop the bomb” a week later in the PD blog comments section. Certainly there would have been no need to even plan for such an eventuality because what kind of professional newspaper would make their private business dealings public? Oh wait . . .

    As for you Vanda, if I were a lesser person I might just respond to your last comment with a “yikes” and then call it a day, however instead I will try to address some of the questions you raised.

    “What is your point? Do you want him “fired”? Reassigned? Do you want a correction? What do you want?”

    No Vanda. As I’ve mentioned before, all I’ve ever tried to do here was assert that the Dunlop had a reason for what they did, and that it wasn’t just, as others would like to believe, some hysterical fit based on a single article.

    “You brought up an article from years ago that you didn’t like (and didn’t address at the time?)”

    Whether the artist in question personally addressed her concerns with Greg or not is something I didn’t follow up on. Certainly, if you’ve already had your work reviewed in more esteemed arts publications, taking on the PD may not be your number one priority. Maybe the most you do is shrug and say “well, I won’t be including that press in my CV” (as I’m sure Terrence won’t either. There’s no way a review, however positive, can be of any use to an artist if significant percentage of it is about the dismal conditions of the old Mackenzie gallery, the proposed new football stadium, and worst of all, the work itself getting damaged.)

    I do know, however, that someone else I know spoke to Stephen about her issues with Greg’s arts coverage (citing similar concerns as I did in my initial post), and his response was “I stand by my writer,” or words to that effect. Which is admirably loyal, though sadly not especially helpful.

    Someone in another thread asked this question, rather astutely: “perhaps she and other members of the arts community should have voiced concerns about PD’s arts coverage earlier — but would you have listened? Sadly, something tells me not.”

    Based on the aggressive retaliation the PD has unleashed after the simple pulling of a couple of ads, would YOU feel comfortable confronting them with negative criticism?

  27. “Whether the artist in question personally addressed her concerns with Greg or not is something I didn’t follow up on.”

    Sorry for the poor grammar there. I meant to say it is not something I followed up on.

  28. I think Terrance may have revealed what is the real problem here. Artists and art administrators (along with politicians, business owners and others)are accustomed to getting patted on the head by media in Regina. Public criticism doesn’t exist anywhere (else) in the city so the culture is twisted. Grow the fuck up indeed. Why can’t people take criticism here! Sheesh. Its all ” kiss me kiss me kiss me” from the arts community, the business community, city council, etc. Take the criticism, disagree if you wish and then move forward and keep creating for us because we want you to!

  29. Just re-read Greg’s review of Houle’s show. Who is upset by that? Paragraph after paragraph of glowing praise followed by sincere, if misinformed, concern over obstacles the public may face in their attempt to enjoy and appreciate Houle’s show? That rankles?
    A quick e-mail to [email protected] would have corrected Greg’s assertion that the pieces had been damaged, and given PD an opportunity to run another photo of the work, assuring readers that the art was not in danger.
    Platitudes disguised as criticism demean art, artists, critics and art enthusiasts. Greg’s piece engages with its subject, places it into a context and takes it seriously. His self-reflexive, anecdotal style may not be to everyone’s taste, but it’s rarely gratuitous and certainly on point here.
    Prairie dog is not an art criticism magazine, and the more academic style you’d read in, say, Border Crossings would be a poor fit.
    As anyone doing anything creative in Regina can attest, the city is indifferent at best to the arts, and all too often hostile. Greg’s bona fides as an honest and engaged critic are beyond reproach–which is not to say that his reviews are beyond criticism. And regardless of his factual error in his review regarding damage to Houle’s work, his criticism of the dehumidifiers is valid and was voiced in support of the work and the gallery itself.

  30. I’m glad you say your work wasn’t damaged Terrance. I guess the dehumidifiers worked, huh?

    Please keep in mind that the Dunlop pulled two ads to punish us for writing something they didn’t like. There was no call to me, no e-mail, no letter to the editor for publication, nothing. Just a punch in the advertising that came out of the blue.

    Basically, the Dunlop had a beef but was too chickenshit to handle it directly so they whacked us by pulling ads to try to get some leverage over our arts writing.

    How’s that worked out, guys? Good job.

    You’re not getting an apology, Terrance (or an Apology). At this point I throw up my hands and look forward to intelligent, critical and honest discourse with a future Dunlop regime. This one blew it.

  31. So, Amber posts her opinions and clarification in defense of the Dunlop?

    And Terrance H. posts a big terse tongue lashing directly at Prairie Dog and it’s staff for it’s handling of an article involving his work at the Dunlop.

    Yet, Stephen W. stands by his fellow staff writers and stands his ground for his reasons behind posting a story of the PD vs Dunlop.

    Talk about a major clusterF**K here!
    With so much division and different interpretations going on, it doesn’t surprise me one single bit that all involved are on the losing end. No winners here!

  32. I’ve got no stake or bias, but have read the saga with some interest.

    The whole mess is counter-productive, since the DAG has no greater or more natural supporter than PD, and of all the parties PD could or should be feuding with, DAG should be at the end of the list.

    Stephen and Greg’s writing is good, but let’s also just say, imperfect. The inflamed reaction to reasonable criticism of their work is a bit scary. Just look how Amber’s points were ignored and steered into some weird debate over her legitimacy.

    It seems the trivial root issue is whether DAG was possibly responsible for damage to the art. The statement in Greg’s review was a bit ambiguous as to whether the dehumidifiers were a response to DAG causing damage, or damage that might have been pre-existing.

    No gallery wants rumour or rep that it might be a place where works could be harmed, so that root issue rises in significance.

    But as Emmet astutely points out, this key point could have been clarified much better by both sides.

    If DAG pulled ads out of spite, their plan was faulty for not establishing a communication related to their grievance. Sending a message is a legitimate tactic, but just pulling ads and hoping the PD would figure out why is ineffective.

    Of course PD’s resulting outburst seems to have gone too far.

    Reading the comments, by the end I’d hoped Stephen would be swayed by the added information and viewpoints to perhaps offer a conciliatory response. But his final message yesterday comes off as if he’s ignored all the discourse he claims to support, and just remains needlessly sulky.

  33. Given the vindictive pettiness we witnessed from RPL’s senior administrators during their extended contract negotiation, is it any surprise to see similar behavior exhibited from by the DAG’s Director?What is abundantly clear is that these are all people who don’t react well to criticism.

  34. I figure you wouldn’t apologize, it would be to big of you to do so because you can’t actually write or post anything critical in your ass wipe rag of a newspaper anyways. To use my exhibit and my work for your petty personal bullshit whining of a great art gallery and city politics shows the world reading this that your a douchebag.
    it’s pathetic to use an artist Name the way you guys have done with mine, I worked my ass off for 5 years with that exhibit not to have some jerk off use it for their own political agenda.
    next time I am in Regina I will make sure to come wipe my ass with the tiolet paper Prairie Dog Magazine and come drop it off at your office Stephen.
    have some fucking morals Chump.

  35. PS it’s not glowing praise using my name to bash a gallery who is actually a great responsible, open and wonderful space for “ARTISTS ” to Exhibit, perform work that is Contemporary.
    if your writing has to use an artist exhibit to talk about past bullshit or Compare another gallery like the Mackenzie to The Dunlop then your sadly a horrible writer. Write about the fucking show thats it! The author obviously saw the full show! and experienced it. So write about it and quit this Hipster bullshit about ones personal past.
    yes i am upset that’s 5 fucking years of my life work and someone is using it for a personal attack. wake up for fucks sakes.
    I have had quite a few reviews about the show that never have even come close the libel douchbag writing presented in PD. responsible writing people bottom line

  36. This is sad on multiple fronts, and to add to it, I now can’t think of Terrance Houle’s work without recalling the comments he’s written here.

  37. Dr. Curtis Collins is leaving the Dunlop. Now the next DAG director can repair the damage done by that tool.

  38. Awww … poor baby Curtis, boo-effing-hoo. Whatsa matter, Curtis, somebody pee in your cornflakes? Here’s a lollipop.

  39. We are a bunch of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your website offered us with useful information to paintings on. You’ve performed an impressive activity and our entire community will probably be grateful to you.

Comments are closed.