By Shannon Moore
It has been 25 years since Barnett Newman’s “Voice of Fire” sparked controversy in the capital.
The National Gallery of Canada (NGC) announced its $1.76 million purchase of the abstract painting in 1990, causing outrage among the public and resulting in an attack against the museum that lasted several months. In general, individuals were upset that an American piece had been purchased from Canadian taxpayer dollars, and did not believe that it was worth the price that had been paid.
Elizabeth Legge is an associate professor at the University of Toronto, and has lectured on the scandal. In recalling the event, she says that, “$1.8 million was regarded as too expensive for a painting that seemed not to have taken much effort or technique to make.”
Artist and curator Bruce Barber co-wrote a book on the painting, including its history and impact. He says, “Had this been a painting by one of the Group of Seven or Emily Carr, no one would have blinked an eye.”
Eventually the scandal diffused, and individuals turned their attention to other things.
Today, the “Voice of Fire” painting hangs proudly in the museum, and is valued at approximately $40 million. Mark Cheetham, a professor at the University of Toronto who specializes in abstract act, says that this impressive increase speaks to the knowledge of the NGC in recognizing artistic value.
He believes that the public should learn from this controversy, and put more trust in the gallery’s decisions.
“The public has a right to opinions, but must be aware that they are nothing more than that. Do we think we know more than cancer researchers, for example, when they purchase equipment for research?” he says.
Adam Welch, an associate curator at the NGC, says that while it’s important for people to have trust in museums, they should not shy away from speaking their opinions.
“People shouldn’t have blind faith in museums or curators. It’s important to question those purchases and for us to have to justify and defend them. We have to be able to convey our expertise in a way that’s accessible and relatable, and not elitist,” he says.
“It’s good to be held to account.”
Welch says that the “Voice of Fire” controversy helped to establish this attitude, and that it perpetuated the discourse needed for individuals to understand the piece today.
He says that the “Voice of Fire” painting has “entered the canon of art history,” and that many individuals have learned to appreciate its significance in the Canadian art scene.
Legge believes that this current appreciation of the piece can be credited to the work of museums and universities. She says that for the past 25 years, the “Voice of Fire” painting has been used as a prominent example when discussing the meaning and significance of abstract art.
She says, “Museums have many skilled people on staff who can give their audience a way in to thinking about such work. Usually, if people understand what the ideas were that drove the art, they at least don’t think that it’s nonsense.”
Despite having been created by an American, “Voice of Fire” has become a significant piece of Canadian art history. Barber says that the controversy in 1990 speaks to the power of abstract art, and is a reminder of the changing attitudes that can accompany a clearer understanding of it.
As Legge states, “Whatever ‘Voice of Fire’ would be worth on the open market, it’s not really relevant. It might be worth 26 dollars in 50 years; but it would still be an important historical example of its time and the ideals that it represented.”