In the end, it’s that I don’t take art that seriously anymore. I mean, I appreciate that Chris Hand wrote that ‘blogTo takes art very very seriously’ and that he linked to a bunch of my articles; but lately, having decided not to post about the Power Plant show (at least not the Lignon show) I’ve been scratching my head about it all. As an artist, I know how to take it seriously, to appreciate where artists are coming from, what they are trying to say, what they are interested in and what they are working out in their work. But that leaves it all to me seeming insubstantial when it’s very clearly personal. I’m reminded of William Gibson, two years ago, said on Richardson’s Roundup, describing the webpages that stand out as being ‘highly personal’. (And one then thinks of all the artists websites I see that are really shitty precisely for that reason). And my readings lately have me working out the history of ‘the highly personal’ and I’ve found myself agreeing with Goethe’s assessment that art is something tied to history, and that one needs to understand a history to really appreciate the artwork. What has happened has been an abandonment of historical understanding amongst artists, and it’s doubly worse in Canada because we all act as if our history is uninteresting. As Heather asked, ‘what’s compelling about Canadian history?’ And I asked in turn, ‘what do you find compelling about what you consider compelling?’ or something to that effect, getting at the heart of the matter – ‘what’s compelling about American history?