The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[theman23]

Originally Posted by logan5

Don't think he is necessarily being disloyal to Toronto, but why is an artist from Toronto shooting a video in East LA?

Someone probably wanted him to shoot it in East LA.

Any more tough ones?

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

All taken by Jack Landau

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jacklandau/page1

Strange box on top of that (older?) building. I like it, somehow.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Artists shoot videos all over the place. The video for the new song by British singer Adele was filmed in the Eastern Townships of Quebec.

The images used in that video, including the images of East LA, are clearly there to represent gang themes, so I'll rephrase the question... Why is Drake portraying gangster imagery in his videos when he is not a gangster? Does Drake have a gangster background?

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Neither art nor entertainment is intended to be strictly, or even primarily, autobiographical is it?

There are many definitions of art, but I primarily definite it as a way to communicate using emotions or by illustrating experiences (either one's own or someone else's) rather than simply relaying information in a direct, factual way. But there's nothing that would require an artist or entertainer to strictly base his work on his own experiences is there? Couldn't one just as easily base his work on his ideas, fantasies, ambitions, or even create pure works of fiction? We've all heard the adage "Write what you know", but often artists will tackle unfamiliar topics or settings by embarking on research beforehand.

Cultural entertainment really amounts to a sort of art on demand, in the sense that artists aren't simply trying to observe the world and express its truths by conveying unsolicited opinions or ideas (aka raw art which often end up being provocative or unwelcome) but instead trying to create the art based on audience tastes. This type of art still needs to connect with the audience on a basic emotional level in order to be successful, and therefore the artist needs to avoid limiting himself any more than the audience tastes already limit him. And compared to raw art, entertainment art may seem less pure as it is inherently censored due to its limited scope, but it also has a much wider audience. So it can potentially be even more influential than raw art is.

[Prometheus]

Let's keep in mind that just about every city in Canada has produced a super-famous pop star or band at one time or another (and will continue to do so). To name a few:

Alanis Morissette (born and raised in Ottawa)
Nelly Furtado (born and raised in Victoria)
Shania Twain (born in Windsor, raised in Timmins)
Sarah McLachlan (born and raised in Halifax, based in Vancouver)
Arcade Fire (formed and based in Montreal)
Celine Dion (born and raised in Charlemagne)
Michael Buble (born and raised in Metro Vancouver)
Leonard Cohen (born and raised in Montreal)
Bryan Adams (born in Kingston, raised in Vancouver)
Joni Mitchell (born in Fort Macleod, raised in Saskatoon)
Nickleback (formed in Hanna, based in Vancouver)
K.D. Lang (born in Edmonton, raised in Consort)
Carly Rae Jepsen (born and raised in Metro Vancouver)
Guess Who (formed and based in Winnipeg)

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ Neither art nor entertainment is intended to be strictly, or even primarily, autobiographical is it?

There are many definitions of art, but I primarily definite it as a way to communicate using emotions or by illustrating experiences (either one's own or someone else's) rather than simply relaying information in a direct, factual way. But there's nothing that would require an artist or entertainer to strictly base his work on his own experiences is there? Couldn't one just as easily base his work on his ideas, fantasies, ambitions, or even create pure works of fiction? We've all heard the adage "Write what you know", but often artists will tackle unfamiliar topics or settings by embarking on research beforehand

I've watched probly thousands of music videos. I don't think these type of videos are suppose to be expressions of art. They are exploitive and used for marketing and image building. You can have a gangster theme, but do it in a respectful and meaningful way. These videos are so ridiculous they almost look like SNL material.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by logan5

The images used in that video, including the images of East LA, are clearly there to represent gang themes, so I'll rephrase the question... Why is Drake portraying gangster imagery in his videos when he is not a gangster? Does Drake have a gangster background?

Apparently he was one of the poorer children in Forest Hill, growing up (so I'm not really sure what that means; Forest Hill is one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the country). He was also one of the main characters on DeGrassi for about 3 seasons. Based on his music, his upbringing sounds pretty average middle-class Toronto. If he's ever shot a gun it was probably hunting, although I think he'd feel too sad for the animal to hunt. Any "gangster" kind of stuff he did was probably limited to rapping on street corners (or at house parties in the Muskokas), and probably smoking (but probably not selling) a lot of weed.

Edit: he's probably portraying gangster imagery in his videos because it's a pretty huge influence on modern pop culture. I would go as far as to say that this is even more prevalent in Toronto than in most of Canada (based on a few years ago, not sure if this is still the case).

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by glasscity

and when it comes to toronto, drake's been huge. He mentions it in countless songs and put it on the map not just in hip hop but in general pop culture. He even had a shout out for mississauga in his latest album! Toronto was really not on the radar here growing up. Obviously every one knew about it, its position in canada, etc.. But drake made it cool. Now other pop artists are shouting it out too and it seems like people are paying more attention to it. From an outsider's perspective, drake has done great things for toronto's image and cultural relevance, and i would kill to have an artist like him represent vancouver like that.

+1

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't think the U.S. boosterism of that era was born out of a feeling of being unappreciated. So in this sense it differs quite a bit from whatever we might have going on in Canada.

Unfortunately, that "unappreciated" feeling kind of skews things. Think of how individuals act when they feel that way.

The US boosterism in the post-Civil War, pre-World War I era had a lot of sides to it. When you read material from the time it can seem expansive, provincial, innocent, ominous or whatever else, but there is always a sense that it was essentially the byproduct of an ascendant nation in rude health.

While Canada actually IS in rude health in 2015 (economically and culturally, the country is probably bigger and better than it ever has been, both absolutely and comparitively), the character of our boosterism has this unflattering sort of... cattiness. It is alternately grandiose and bitter, and then this latter category is further concealed beneath a sort of faux-sophisticated "over it all" stance of apparent incomprehension and indifference.

It's like if David Brent was promoted to CEO.



"Well if you hadn't heard about how great we're doing, I guess I just feel sorry for you, ultimately"

[kool maudit]

Some of my favourite skylines are small, hyper-localized and lack office towers altogether:

[mcminsen]

Downtown Vancouver, Nov.11 '15, my pic

[kool maudit]

Vancouver is unusually strong for a Canadian city in terms of its pre-war landmarks.

[kool maudit]

And I am still thinking about that greatest-ever city thing. There's no objective answer but the idea of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon makes me feel fanciful.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Let's keep in mind that just about every city in Canada has produced a super-famous pop star or band at one time or another (and will continue to do so). To name a few:

Alanis Morissette (born and raised in Ottawa)
Nelly Furtado (born and raised in Victoria)
Shania Twain (born in Windsor, raised in Timmins)
Sarah McLachlan (born and raised in Halifax, based in Vancouver)
Arcade Fire (formed and based in Montreal)
Celine Dion (born and raised in Charlemagne)
Michael Buble (born and raised in Metro Vancouver)
Leonard Cohen (born and raised in Montreal)
Bryan Adams (born in Kingston, raised in Vancouver)
Joni Mitchell (born in Fort Macleod, raised in Saskatoon)
Nickleback (formed in Hanna, based in Vancouver)
K.D. Lang (born in Edmonton, raised in Consort)
Carly Rae Jepsen (born and raised in Metro Vancouver)
Guess Who (formed and based in Winnipeg)

Still 4/ or 5 artist from one region of the country (when you include Bieber) for the past several months dominate the US top 20, and sometimes with multiple songs. That is ridiculous.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Vancouver is unusually strong for a Canadian city in terms of its pre-war landmarks.

The first time I arrived in Vancouver, after the Prairie cities I found it to be more of a familiar place in terms of appearance. In many ways it was more like central Canada, especially Ontario, even though it was further away. Which kind of makes sense as in its historical development Vancouver is somewhat more a contemporary of Toronto and Ottawa than it is of Calgary and Regina.

[mistercorporate]

I wish there was a way to tag members here based on what industry they're in. People in the arts (or on the oil patch for different reasons and to a far lesser extent) sure communicate differently to people in commerce, I find them completely illogical and they in turn don't understand a damn thing I say. Age would be another useful category (if we're all willing to self-identify). In real life, we are selective about who we communicate with and who we take seriously, there are many valuable voices on this board and it would be nice to selectively discuss with those that have common interests and on the same page as us when it comes to communication style even if we disagree with things. I think it would be valuable for all concerned.

[kool maudit]

It's better if we just have the conversation. Interrupting it to start meta-conversations about the quality and admissability of various contributions or contributors is passive-aggressive and indirect.

For posters who feel that they are being harassed or insulted, the forum has an ignore feature. But for those who merely feel alienated or nonplussed by certain opinions or communication-styles, well, that'll happen. Takes all kinds.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It's better if we just have the conversation. Interrupting it to start meta-conversations about the quality and admissability of various contributions or contributors is passive-aggressive and indirect.

For posters who feel that they are being harassed or insulted, the forum has an ignore feature. But for those who merely feel alienated or nonplussed by certain opinions or communication-styles, well, that'll happen. Takes all kinds.

For a guy who asked me not to make personal observations/statements about you, you sure throw around quite a few personal comments of your own..."provincial", "passive-aggressive". If you're going to say things like that, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't complain when people call you out on your prententiousness, illogic, hypocricy, etc. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye so I'll try to refrain from commenting on your posts and I suggest you do the same with me (I don't like to use the block feature as it breaks the flow of threads). Thanks.

[kool maudit]

The way you are handling this is not OK.

The discussion about provincialness was about a city: Halifax. I generalized from my experience that the English Canadian culture – my culture – is particularly eager to avoid being characterized this way. At no time did I ever use that term to describe anyone here.

As for passive-aggressive? Yes – I am directly calling your "I wish there was a way to tag members here" post passive-aggressive.

I believe this is an accurate characterization because it is obviously a continuation of your earlier criticisms of my contributions – and let's be honest, your insults. It is constructed in a roundabout, indirect way, though: you didn't say, "kool maudit, you're incorrect about this and here is how it really is"; rather, you essentially communicated your distaste or disagreement with a meta-complaint about things you don't take seriously and a wish that the forum didn't contain those things.

We might not ever see eye to eye, but I don't think that's the worst thing in the world, really. So we don't see eye to eye! It doesn't really matter. It doesn't mean we have to air this disagreement in tones of how nauseated or put out we are that it exists. We could benignly leave it be.

I am happy to observe your request to essentially ignore-without-ignoring your posts, of course. I don't think it's necessary because I think it would be easy to disagree at even a profound, stylistic level without getting into things like this, but I'm not going to force it. If you want a casual ignore, you've got it.

But if we're going to do this then let's do it honestly. I don't want to accept this agreement and then read vague imprecations after I comment. Because I am going to comment and I am going to keep holding the views that piss you so massively off, and that's not because I want to bug you but because I think they are true.

[kool maudit]

Anyway, this is a city forum and we're being a drag for the rest of you guys.

Montreal: