Chris: Okay, then working on that line, what are the things that would make it almost impossible for you to write a review? Assuming the art is good.

Michel: Abstract art, it could be good art, an artist can be completely sincere about doing it, but if they are just putting abstract paintings that aren't really related in some way in a gallery, then what do you write about? Oh this is nice, but why? And it's all very subjective.

Chris: I find that interesting, given that most of the big names in Quebecois art are abstract painters.

Michel: Yeah but they all go in a historical framework. Now everything's so fragmented.

Chris: I'm not certain I agree. To me, it is the difference between having a historical perspective, and not having that perspective. Back in the 70's, back in the 60's, back in the 50's I have a sense that it was just as fragmented and as diverse as it is now. It's just that whatever sort of rises to the top through history, whatever survives...

Michel: But the artists then were making a statement in the 70's by doing abstraction. Now it's more of a question of why are they doing abstract art? Is it because that is the easiest way for the artist to express themselves? If so, that's not really much of a statement. Take the last abstract show we saw together, at UQAM; by putting 3 abstract artists together, it became interesting because of the dialogue between things, if it had been just one artist, that would have been really hard to write about unless it had been Francoise Sullivan, because she is such a major influence and has such a tremendous history.

Chris: To me, art exhibitions are taking what you can get out of them. It's the job of the gallery or the curator, to say to the reviewer "okay, you want a thematically unified set of work?" Give me 5 minutes and I can link these paintings here in a very linear fashion.

Michel: Yeah but it has to be coherent. I've read a lot of artist's statements...

Chris: But it's not the artist statement that is linking the paintings in an exhibition. It's me as a curator coming in and imposing some coherence, or unity. The thing with the show at UQAM - you're saying that you saw a dialogue between different works. I'm seeing the same thing as an imposed debate that Louise Dery scripted. She said "this is what I want the paintings to say." You're seeing a dialogue and I'm seeing a script.

Michel: But that's the thing that is supposed to be criticized, how is she putting these works in a dialogue and do I agree with that or not, and I didn't totally agree with her. How she put them together, but I thought that it was pretty interesting the artists that she put together. I'm not talking about what I like, I'm talking about what's... Art Mur, for example, they show young artists with more established artists; they group them as a themed show. Many artists often disagree with how they organize them, but it's very interesting.