CBC has a piece on some hidden gems of public artwork.
The most reliable listing for public art is probably this site.
Updates from March, 2025 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
Kate
-
Kate
After a fuss last year, city hall has removed an “inclusive” welcoming sign that included a drawing of a woman wearing hijab because it was deemed offensive.
Previous postings and discussion of the issue here and here.
Ian
Well that’s a relief. Wouldn’t want to have to pass yet another law making it illegal for public representations of women whose existence necessitates ethnonationalism disguised as catholaïcité diguised as white saviour complexes. At this rate a law banning being female and muslim in public isn’t that far off.
-
Kate
This very short piece says Fady Dagher wants more powers for the police, but the only actual power he mentions is the right to arrest people with covered faces.
The rest is about the difficulty of dealing with the homeless and with controlling drug trafficking, but doesn’t mention powers.
Do drug dealers and homeless people often wear masks?
MarcG
Maryland recently had a mask ban law proposed and you can watch the amazing opposition response from community members here.
roberto
It would be nice if he made a disctinction between niqab/burqa, medical masks and balaclavas. What exactly is he asking for?
MarcG
The type of covering is irrelevant since the purpose is to be able to identify you, either manually or using facial recognition technology, and thereby deter you from participating in civic life.
Ian
What if I wear anti-facial-recognition makeup? Digital camo? CV dazzle patterns?
Dagher is a frickin relic.
DavidH 15:16 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
That part about the Duren piece is very strange. It’s odd that it was included at all. It completely eludes the fact that it was a conceptual piece made for a specific site in Quebec city, not Montreal. The artist opposed the purchase from Quebec city by the city of Montreal because all the significance of the piece relied on the geography (it’s meant as a type of semaphore between ports in Europe and the port of Quebec). Once displaced, it means nothing. Which is typical of Duren’s work. He makes small interventions in situ, usually with his signature lines motif, to change the tone very locally. It’s all about the site and the modification of the site.
The article goes: “It’s really an important part of the Montreal identity,” Vernet says.”…. and shows nothing to back that up. Everyone in the art world shook their head when it was acquired. No one else knows what to make of it… but it’s part of our identity? How? It’s a piece about the open sea. Montreal doesn’t have that. it shouldn’t even be here. It’s the only Duren we have but it’s also the reason we will never have a proper one.
It was literally thought as a case study in one of my muséologie classes as what not to do and how incompetent public powers can be when they don’t understand an art piece. The type of conceptual art Duren does is often misunderstood but this was taken to an absurd level because the city went ahead even after the piece was publicly explained by experts and the artist. It’s a rare instance where the art world was asking public powers NOT to spend money on public art.
As a side note, Quebec city planned to removed the piece whether the sale to Montreal went ahead or not. To them, it was meant as a temporary installation, a fate most Duren interventions face everywhere.
CE 15:24 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
@DavidH, that’s an interesting story, I didn’t know about its saga. It’s always been one of my favourite pieces of public art in the city, its backstory adds some complexity to it. Quebec City seems to have a thing with treating sculptures by French artists poorly (see Dialogue avec l’histoire). Do you know where it was originally located in Quebec?
DavidH 15:57 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
@CE, it was in the port facing towards Europe, that’s all I know. When it moved, that specific part of the port was to be rebuilt and Quebec city did not intend to put the art piece back after the renos. I don’t know Quebec city enough to say what part of the port that would be now.
Kate 16:02 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
I’m lost. I don’t see any reference to Duren in either piece I linked above.
MarcG 16:06 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
Intrigued, I just searched through both of Kate’s links for the word “Duren” and came up empty… did something change?
Andrew 16:29 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
Daniel Buren is the artist in question, I believe.
DavidH 16:32 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
It’s still there when I open it. Look for ‘Neuf couleurs au vent’ as the title of the art piece and the text’s subsection.
Ian 17:45 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
“Installed in 1984, it’s only on display during the warmer months, making it a marker of the city’s iconic summer outdoor culture of apéro on terraces and picnics in parks.” is so hilariously dimishing of the work, haha
Kate 18:23 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
DavidH, that Buren flag piece has been there for awhile, and I recall someone – city official? journalist commentator? I can’t remember which – floating the idea that the multicolour flags marked the entry to the Gay Village because of the suggestion of the rainbow motif. I have no idea whether that was what the city had in mind, but from what you say above, it wasn’t the original intention for the piece.
CE 19:45 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
According to the writeup on the Art Public site, the artist didn’t intend for there to be much symbolism in the piece.
“Buren created a deliberately “impersonal and objective” artwork without extrinsic symbolism or reference: the work refers only to what it is – a series of coloured flags constantly transformed by the strength of the wind.”
In other words, some nice colourful flags.
CE 19:50 on 2025-03-24 Permalink
If you’re interested in Montreal’s public art, definitely seek out these two books:
L’Art public à Montréal by Marie-Claude Lespérance
Montréal et l’art du monument by the City of Montreal
I think they’re both out of print but often show up in the Montreal section of used bookstores.
DavidH 11:29 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
@Kate, I wonder if the Village wasn’t further west (near Concordia) when that piece arrived? I don’t know when the current Village got it’s start. Someone needs to write that history if it hasn’t already.
Kate 13:38 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
The city’s public art page says the piece dates back to 1984. (Surely the flags must have been refreshed a few times since then?) The development of the Village is roughly summarized on Wikipedia as happening around that time, but it doesn’t sound like it had crystallized in the public mind before the 1990s.
CE 13:52 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
@Kate, from the article:
“He also sees an important conservation issue for those tasked with its upkeep. “It has an impact on how we manage a public-art collection since the flags have to be remade when they wear down and are stored for the winter,” he says. The work challenges the need for public art to be eternal.”
Andrew 13:54 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
Looks like 1984 is the date it was originally created in Quebec City, it was moved to Montreal in 1996. From Buren’s wiki:
Neuf Couleurs au vent, 1984–1996. Travail in situ in “Québec 1534–1984”, Québec, Canada, mai 1984. Installé de manière permanente depuis 1996, place Urbain-Baudreau-Graveline, Montréal, Canada.
Kate 18:26 on 2025-03-25 Permalink
Thank you both for the clarifications.
In case you were wondering, “Urbain Baudreau dit Graveline (1631?-1695) fait partie de la centaine de colons que Chomedey de Maisonneuve recrute en 1653.” (City toponymy site)