Exhibition Review: Canadian Art at the AGO
Whether Indigenous works of art should be given their own dedicated space or integrated into a country's already established historical displays in museums has been a debate for many years. As a form of reconciliation, many Indigenous people in Canada have asked for their cultural heritage to be returned to them but many have also asked art institutions to keep their collection to best preserve them. Many people believe that, since they have been discarded for so long, Indigenous art and artifacts should be given a unique space where they can be appreciated to the fullest and can be seen without influence from European-derived works. An exclusive space focused on Indigenous works can also be a means of reparations by allowing Indigenous artists, contemporary and historic, to have their spotlight. However, some argue that they should be included within Canadian historical displays. Because they have been omitted, or rather erased, from Canadian history, having an Indigenous presence within Canadian Art History is a more accurate retelling of the establishment of Canada through colonization. In this essay, I will detail my experience in the Canadian Art Gallery at the Art Gallery of Ontario and the lack of representation, insignificant acknowledgement of Indigenous art history, and the inadequate curation of Indigenous works in conversation with European-Canadian artists. This will clearly show how and why Indigenous art should be given its own space separate from European Canadian artists.
First, it is important to understand the layout of the Canadian Art Gallery and the presence of Indigenous art within. To begin, when facing Dundas St W, away from Walker Court, the first two rooms of the Canadian Art Gallery which are visible to a viewer are both filled with modern work from the 60s to 80s. None of these is done by Indigenous artists. Two didactic panels introduce the Canadian Art rooms of the AGO, but neither of them mentions the importance of Indigenous culture in Canadian history. Further into the gallery, behind those two rooms, there is an entire room filled with works from members of the Group of 7, with the majority of them being by Lauren Harris. This entire space, which I will call the Atrium of the Canadian Art Gallery, is the first space viewers see when entering the gallery from both the Galleria Italia and the Walker Court staircase. The fact that neither of these spaces has any trace of Indigenous works or even depictions of Indigenous peoples is telling of the AGO’s priorities in illustrating the history of Canada through art. The smaller rooms to the right of the Atrium are home to more Group of 7 paintings and some other European Canadian artists. In one of these rooms, there are three wooden items displayed which seem to be carved in the West Coast Style. These have no labels whatsoever and are not mentioned in the room’s didactic panels. In the farthest rear right corner of the Canadian Art Gallery is a small room containing First Nations and Indigenous Art of North America, African and Oceania. These works do not bear any identifier to indicate the culture to which they belong or their intended purpose. Rather, they symbolize the acceptance of the AGO in possessing and displaying cultural items, with little to no real acknowledgement of their intended purpose or history. A third room on the right side of the Atrium contains two more Indigenous works, a carved wooden comb and a long wooden stick carved into what seems to be the form of a bird. Neither of these is mentioned in the didactic panels. Moving on to the rooms to the left of the Atrium, there are more works by the Group of 7, moving from landscape paintings to include some depictions of Canadian settler life. There are two portraits of Indigenous men, the Mohawk chief Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea) and another unidentified First Nations Chief. The presence of 2 portraits allows for the AGO to claim that the European Canadian artists within this room “capture details of both Indigenous and settler culture, as well as cross-cultural exchanges”. Furthermore, the gallery’s informational texts suggest that the Anishinaabe, Wendat, and Haudenosaunee people were united by the “European intrusion into Upper and Lower Canada” as their relationship had previously been “defined by conflict”. This gross misrepresentation of pre-contact Indigenous life is yet another form of violence upon Indigenous peoples, done through the endorsement of colonialism. Among many other rooms filled with work by European settlers and The Group of 7, there is one room containing Indigenous work. The room contains work by Emily Carr and Charles Edenshaw (Tayharen), both identified on the didactic panel in the corner. This is the only room in the entire Canadian Art Gallery, it seems, which properly identifies the artist and culture which influenced all of the artists in this room. In conclusion, the Canadian Art Gallery in the AGO is a failed attempt at integrating Indigenous artwork into Canadian art history. The gallery offered no explanations or indications of the history and purpose of the few Indigenous objects they do have on display and seem to push colonial values upon the viewer in the rooms which have no Indigenous presence at all, leading to a confusing and contradictory message about the place of Indigenous artists and their work in Canadian history.
As previously mentioned, only one of the rooms in the Canadian Art Gallery, which can be found in the very rear between two large rooms dedicated to the Group of 7, is that featuring works by Emily Carr and Charles Edenshaw. This is the only example of Indigenous works being brought into conversation with European Canadian artists which was well executed and respectful. In this situation, both artists were identified, not only the European artist, and the works had common themes. Since both Carr and Edenshaw are from the West coast, both of their works depicted the same lush forestry and referenced traditional Indigenous practices from the area, such as the carving of totem poles. To begin, Charles Edenshaw was one of the best known and most accomplished Haida carvers of the 19th century. He survived the smallpox epidemic as well as the missionization and colonization by European settlers, going on to “[develop] a personal style that is renowned for its originality and innovative narrative forms, yet acclaimed for its adherence to the sophisticated form line-design principles that characterize Haida art” (Wright 1998). Edenshaw’s works often explore Haida stories of creation and morality through the depiction of mythical beings. The piece in this room which is most interesting is his carved Walking Stick (c.1890-1910), as it shows his incorporation of diverse cultural influences and innovation resulting from increased contact with Europeans. For Edenshaw, European contact was something to be resisted, of course, but also allowed him to broaden his artistic practice, inspiring many walking sticks and engraved silver spoons. Also, Emily Carr was very well known for her depictions of West Coast Indigenous peoples and their culture. The piece in this room which has clear ties to Indigenous art and culture is her painting Thunderbird (1942). This painting was produced after an expedition Carr undertook in July 1912 to the Haida villages along the East Coast of Vancouver Island, along the Skeena River, and through the Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwaii) (Tippett 2016). In this and many other pieces she made after this journey, she “made the totem pole, rather than the village scene, the central motif of her Post-Impressionist-inspired work” (Tippett 2016). This work resembles Edenshaws carvings not only in subject matter but also in the intimacy and care for the art being practiced. Both Carr and Edenshaw spent most of their lifetime on the West Coast and have a love for the Indigenous nations there which is well reflected in their art. Within this space, the presence of Indigenous and European-Canadian works are inextricably linked and the curation of the pieces is incredibly cohesive. Both of the artists have works touching on Haida traditions, Edenshaw depicting spiritual traditions and Carr painting artistic traditions. The combination of both of these works in the space allows for the narrative of the room to demonstrate a more whole picture of the Haida culture, and thus Canadian history.
Although the main Canadian History Gallery is quite insufficient in its incorporation of Indigenous artwork into the existing collection, it does not lack contemporary and historical Indigenous artists or work. In recent years, the gallery has been expanded. Although the original gallery is still very unrepresentative of the role Indigenous people and art plays in Canadian history, the newly reopened J.S. MacLean Centre for Indigenous Art “features some of the best art from [the Art Gallery of Ontario’s] Indigenous and Canadian collections, presented in an engaging and accessible new showcase” (AGO 2018). This portion of the Canadian History Gallery is incredibly well-curated in terms of engaging Indigenous historical and contemporary works with those of European Canadian Artists. It features 20th-century artists such as Peter Pitseolak, Norval Morriseau, and Daphne Odjig alongside more contemporary artists like Barry Ace, Kent Monkman, and Shelley Niro. All of these artists are the focus of any didactic panels in the gallery, with European-Canadian works given a much smaller role in the curation of the gallery. Furthermore, the gallery also features non-indigenous Canadian artists of colour, such as Sandra Brewster, and features their work with Indigenous artists addressing similar topics of identity, transformation, and community building. This portion of the gallery contains many didactic resources, which are all offered in Anishinaabemowin, French and English, with works from the Inuit collection featuring texts in Inuktitut. This is a perfect example of why Indigenous works and European Canadian works should be given individual spaces. While the room with works by Charles Edenshaw and Emily Carr was an example of well-integrated Indigenous and European Canadian artworks, the rest of the main Canadian Art Gallery leaves much to be desired. Rather than include a few Indigenous works in the broader Canadian Art Gallery as an afterthought, the prioritizing of Indigenous and Diasporic Canadian Artists in their dedicated gallery leads to a much more accessible and engaging show. In the J.S. MacLean Centre, there is room for the works to be explained in detail, and their historical significance to be absorbed as essential in the formation of Canadian History. The works have more space and seem to fit better with works of similar style and narrative. While the MacLean Centre does have some contemporary art, it does not detract from the more historical works but allows for the historicity of indigenous artists and works as something considered exclusively of the past to be broken down. The few European-Canadian historical works within this gallery work very well with the Indigenous art as they have been paired with Indigenous works of similar subject, for example, portraiture of varying styles and representations of the land.
Finally, it is important to understand that, though this essay critiqued the Art Gallery of Ontario’s Canadian History wing, there are reasons for their lack of historical Indigenous works. At one time, they certainly possessed a large collection of Indigenous items, both cultural and artistic. Within the past decade, Indigenous communities have fought very hard for their culturally significant artifacts to be returned to them and museums and galleries have begun to listen. The ROM in Toronto is very well known for its collection of Indigenous artifacts and at one time, even remains. These have begun to be repatriated to their respective communities but the process is a slow one. For the Art Gallery of Ontario, if they do have any works in their collection which may be considered artifacts of cultural or spiritual nature, it makes sense for them to be removed from view in fear of criticism. For this reason, I understand why they choose to have few Indigenous cultural objects in the Canadian History Gallery and place any historical and contemporary works in their own portion of the gallery, where they can form a cohesive and respectful collection with input from Indigenous artists. In conclusion, the AGO very poorly integrated Indigenous works into their Canadian Art Gallery. They have few objects which have little explanation and historical recognition. Furthermore, those objects exist in spaces where colonial values are perpetuated through misrepresentation of Indigenous peoples within idealized portraiture and textual documents praising the invasion of Indigenous territory by Europeans. While all of this suggests that separation of Indigenous and European-Canadian art would be ideal, the application of this separation in the J.S. MacLean Centre is the most encouraging in showing the effectiveness of this separation. By placing Indigenous works in their own wing, the AGO can best illustrate Indigenous art history and its role in Canadian History. They do so by creating in-depth didactic panels explaining the importance of certain cultural practices in establishing Canadian settler life, as well as the effects of settlers on Indigenous communities. Furthermore, they illustrate the current state of struggle, reclamation and growth of Indigenous nations expressed in contemporary works by artists making work in a variety of mediums. For these reasons, it is clear that historical Indigenous artwork should be separated from European-Canadian historical art, not only to best curate works with common themes but also for the sake of bringing Indigenous artists to the forefront of Canadian History, from which they have been removed for far too long.