Editor:
Regarding derelict boats, I have read both the editorial as well as the two letters from artist Gordon Halloran and his partner Caitlin Hicks. I think there are good points and bad points in those three opinions. My main point is that I would agree with Caitlin Hicks when she says that the original article lacked important information, and that it was too soon for the project to be the Question of the Week.
I did not answer the Question (I never do, since I think it’s an irrelevant exercise considering that it’s the opinion of only about one per cent of the population of the Coast), but if I had had to answer, I would have also denied the project for lack of information.
After reading the article, I thought this was a great project, but I wondered about the viability of the artwork. If a boat is considered derelict, it means it will sink sooner or later, which means the artist will either work a lot on a project that is quite short-lived, or that he will first repair the boats, so they can stay permanently afloat. In the latter case, shouldn’t the boats be then used as boats, since we spent money to keep them afloat?
The pompous description of Halloran’s talent by his partner Hicks made me smile (reminded me of Trump’s style), but I agree with their intention to set up a public forum on this project. I think it’s a great idea, and I think that if the population is well informed, it might catch up. I am quite curious to see how the artist plans to prepare the boats for the project.
Marc Theriault, Sechelt
