UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Indian art/Aboriginal title Crosby, Marcia Violet 1994

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0400.pdf [ 7.72MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087525.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087525-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087525-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087525-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087525-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087525-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087525-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Indian Art/Aboriginal Title by Marcia Violet Crosby  B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1994  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Fine Arts)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1994 © Copyright Marcia Violet Crosby, 1994  In presenting this thesis partial in fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of department my or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  (Signature)  Department ofØ/9 The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date /27.  //  11  ABSTRACT  In 1967, the Vancouver Art Gallery held an exhibition entitled Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian in celebration of Canada’s centennial. The following thesis discusses the way in which the curators of the Arts of the Raven exhibit constructed the Northwest Coast “Indian-Master” artist as a strategy that figured into a larger, shifting cultural field. The intention of the exhibit organizers was to contribute to the shift from ethnology to art. While this shift can be dated to the turn of the century, this thesis deals primarily with the period from 1958-1967, a decade described by the preeminent First Nations’ political leader, George Manuel, as the time of “the rediscovery of the Indian”. How the formation of an Indian-master artist (and his masterworks) intervened in art historical practice, and dovetailed with the meaning that the affix “Indian” carried in the public sphere, is considered. In the 1960s, this meaning was fostered, in part, through a reassessment of Canada’s history in preparation for the centennial. This event drew attention to the historical relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples through public criticism of the government by public interest groups, Indian organizations, and civil rights and anti-poverty movements. The category of mastery, which functions as a sign of class, taste and prestige in European art canons, “included” the Indian under the rubric of white male genius. Yet the Indian as a sign of upward mobility was incommensurable with the Native reality in Canada at the time. In other words, the exhibit produced an abstract equality that eclipsed the concrete inequality most First Nations peoples were actually experiencing. This thesis concludes by arguing that the Arts of the Raven exhibit came to serve the important purpose of creating a space for the “unique individual-Indian” from which collective political First Nations voices would speak.  111  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS  iii  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS  iv  INTRODUCTION  1  CHAPTER ONE: THE EXHIBIT CONCEPTUALIZED  7  The Exhibit Design Setting New Standards Modernism and Quality VAG and International Success Internationalism Exhibit Programming Summary  17 26 31 33 36 43 44  CHAPTER TWO: THE NATIONALISED INDIAN  46  The Indian Act, its Indians and Aboriginal Title Equality or Assimilation  52 68  CHAPTER THREE: INDIAN INSTITUTIONS AND REPRESENTATION  76  CHAPTER FOUR: “PROGRESS” AND “MASTER ARTISTS”  89  Anthropology and the Modern Indian Indian Arts and Social Welfare  91 99  CHAPTER FIVE: AUTHORITIES OF NORTHWEST COAST FIRST NATIONS CULTURES. WHO ARE THEY? 106 Origins and Contamination by Modernity Hoim Reid Duff Postscript  106 107 109 115 116  ILLUSTRATIONS  118  BIBLIOGRAPHY  147  iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1: Advertisement for William Hoim’s Indian Dance Group, Museum of Anthropology (MOA), University of British Columbia (LJBC) Archives, Box 2-417. Figure 2: Letter regarding Holm’s Potlatch Camp, MOA, UBC Archives, Box 2--117.  Figure 3: Lay out of galleries for Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian, exhibit,Vancouver Art Gallery (VAG) Archives, Box 1470. Figure 4: “Entrance” of exhibit with Edward Curtis photo-murals, Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box 1470. Figure 5: “Faces: Gallery 1” of exhibit, Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102. Figure 6: “Orientation: Gallery 3” of exhibit. Map of Northwest Coast (NWC) “tribal” styles. Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102. Figure 7: Close up of NWC map. Figure 8: “Small sculptures in Wood: Gallery 2” of exhibit. Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102. Figure 9: “Slate, Ivory, Bone, Silver: Gallery 4” of exhibit. Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102. Figure 10: “Flat Design: Gallery 5” of exhibit. Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102. Figure 11: “Masterworks: Gallery 6” of exhibit, including photograph of Charles Edenshaw as Master artist. Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102. Figure 12: Close-up photo of Charles Edenshaw in Masterworks gallery. Original photo, Museum of Anthropology, UBC Archives, Wilson Duff Files. Figure 13: Close-up of Charles Edenshaw, UBC Archives, Wilson Duff Files used in fig. 11. Figure 14: Gallery 6 emphasis on Haida flat design. Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102. Figure 15: “Gallery 7: “Kwagiutl” exhibit. Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A 102. Figure 16: “Gallery 8: Contemporary Art” of exhibit. Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102. Figure 17: Lineage chart of Charles Edenshaw, leading to Bill Reid (Harris 1966, n.p.).  V  Figure 18: Newspaper photographs of Exhibit opening (no citation available). Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102. Figure 19: Newspaper photograph of Bill Reid, James Siwiid and Bill Holm at Exhibit opening. Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102. Figure 20: Advertisement for the Arts of the Raven exhibit in The Buzzer. Figure 21: “Forgotten Man,” cartoon. Native Voice. February 1947, p. 5. Figure 22: “The Provincial Vote,” Native Voice. March 1949, p. . 1 Figure 23: “Native Indians Granted Full Citizenship Rights,” Native Voice. Special Edition February 1960, p. . Plate VI. 1  Figure 24: Canada’s Indians and the Centenniel.A Guide to Indian Events in 1967. (booklet cover). Department of Indian Affairs (DJA), Indian Art Centre Archives, Expo ‘67 Folder.  Figure 25: “Schedule of Events,”Canada’s Indians and the Centenniel. A Guide to Indian Events in 1967. DIA, Indian Art Centre Archives, Expo ‘67 Folder. Figure 26: Photograph of George Manuel, First Nations political leader. Native Voice. March 1962, p. . 1 Figure 27: “Totems Take a Trip to Storage,” and “Special Report on Indian Lands,” Native Voice. February 1959, p. . 1 Figure 28: “A Totem Pole Works Hard to Sell British Columbia”, from Land of Destiny: The Golden Age of British Columbia by Charlie Lillard & Michael Gregson. Vancouver, Pulp Press 1990. p. 55  1  Introduction  The following thesis contributes to the study of “curatorial politics”, or how power relations are constructed, both intentionally and unintentionally, through the selection of works of art, their context, placement and juxtaposition with other works. The 1967 exhibition of Northwest Coast Indian art entitled Arts of the Raven: Masterworks  by the Northwest Coast Indian, mounted at the  Vancouver Art Gallery in celebration of Canada’s centennial, stands as a focus of this thesis, and will be used as a vehicle to examine how these factors constructed particular meanings for varied publics at the time. The ways in which the curators of the Arts of the Raven exhibit constructed the Northwest Coast “Indian-Master” artist and masterworks in a bid to contribute to the shifting definition of Native art from ethnology to fine art will be discussed. These processes of cultural transformation, however, are more complex than a simple interdisciplinary shift, and will be discussed as part of a larger, shifting social and political field. As the concept of Indian “masterworks” or creating an Indian “Art” exhibit was not new at the time of the Arts of the Raven show, this thesis will survey the historical precedent or the earliest constructions of the concept of an Indianmaster artist that led to the 1967 Vancouver Art Gallery exhibit, with a limited discussion of the way in which the master-artist construction developed in British Columbia. As the study will indicate, exhibitions of Indian art had already been produced much earlier in the United States and Canada. To name just a few exhibits, the earliest were the “Exposition of Indian Tribal Arts” (sponsored by the privately funded College Art Association), which opened at Central Art Galleries in New York in 1931, Indian Art of the United States, at the Museum of Modern Art in 1941, and the 1946 exhibit of Northwest Coast Indian Paintings at  2 the Betty Parsons Gallery in New York. Aboriginal material culture from the Northwest Coast was displayed as “Masterworks” in the 1962 Seattle World’s Fair. In Canada, qibway artist Norval Morrisseau was identified as a “master artist” in his first commercial art exhibit in Toronto in 1962. In contrast to these earlier instances, the distinctiveness of Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian lies in its exhibit of forms, materials and practices distinctive to some Northwest Coast aboriginal peoples, delimited by western terms and explanations for the “artistic practice” of Northwest Coast “Indian” culture. Furthermore, it was the first exhibit of Northwest Coast material culture that constructed a curatorial history for an individual artist within those terms and explanations. Central to this thesis is the issue of how the concept of “mastery” was used by the Raven exhibit curators to contribute to the shift of anthropology to art. Recognizing that “mastery” is a complex term, the three components of mastery that I will limit my discussion to consider how it was used: First to construct not only a Northwest Coast masterworks and an Indian master, but also a patriarchal form of lineage and a curatorial history, which together served to provide a pedigree for the category of Northwest Coast Indian art, and which made sense within western art historical discourse and canons. Second, in an exhibit that included the material culture of the Tlingit, Tsimshian Haida and Northern Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwagiutl)’), mastery served to further established Northwestcoast Indian artists as “individuals”. For example, Haida artist Charles Edenshaw (1835-1920) was used as a model for Northwest Coast artistic practice. Significantly, his lineage served to validate his heirs, Bill Reid and Robert Davidson, whose individual works of “genius” were shown in the  ‘The term used in the exhibit was “Kwakiutl” which continues to be the more commonly used and recognized nomenclature used in public institutions. However, for the purpose of this thesis, I will use the term most often used by respected Kwakwaka’wakw leaders to identify themselves.  3 Contemporary Art section of the Arts of the Raven exhibit’s eight galleries. Third, in considering such aspects of the exhibit’s production, I discuss the way in which the application of mastery and the formal language that art historian Bill Holm coined to describe Northwest Coast material culture to an art gallery exhibition audience, established a particular standard with which to identify “quality” in Northwest Coast Indian art. This in turn was used to increase the social and monetary value of existing collections of Northwest Coast material culture on a national and international scale. Further, as an exhibit in a western institution, the ‘explication and establishment of its claims to greatness’ would depend on, and further establish, the expertise and authority of non-Native “art” professionals. Chapter One introduces the argument of the thesis and considers in some detail how the construction of mastery was circumscribed in the Arts of the Raven exhibition to reproduce the existing categories of Northwest Coast Indian art and artisan. I discuss the exhibit organizers’ focus on “the wide range and aesthetic excellence of [Northwest Coast art] forms which, “explicate and establish its claim to greatness”. 2 This construction, as I will argue, ironically and inevitably led to the deletion of the Northwest Coast Indian component. As the Raven catalogue declared in its introduction to the final chapter entitled, “The Art Today”: “But now these [Native artifacts] are arts in a different sense. Though truly enough of Indian descent, they are now Canadian Art, Modern Art, Fine Art” (Duff 1967, N. pag.). It is this merging of “Indian” art with “Canadian art” and a form of Modernism that has important implications in respect to the exhibit as a whole. This chapter also investigates the significance of a formal analysis, one based on exhibit curator Bill Holm’s text, Northwest Coast Indian Art: an Analysis of Form (1965), and the way in which it informed the organisation of the exhibit Doris Shadbolt qtd. in The Telegram, (Sept. 2  9, 1967), 18.  4 and the installations. The relationship of such formal analysis to the exhibit design, to notions of status, to Greenbergian ‘modernism’ and to “quality” play an important role in how Indian-mastery figured into the larger shifting cultural field of art/gallery practice. This investigation will show some of the ways that the material culture of some Northwest Coast aboriginal peoples was transformed, produced and legitimised under the national and international categories of ‘Canadian Art, Modern Art, Fine Art’. It will also examine what was at stake for the Vancouver Art Gallery, its Director, the exhibit collection organisers and consultants, and for those who endorsed Arts of the Raven as a legitimate project. To provide a context for the exhibit, Chapter Two considers some of the historic, social and political forces that may have molded the consciousness of those who produced the Arts of the Raven as curators, designers, contributing artists, those who were the exhibition audience, and those who ratified it as a legitimate project--or not. I discuss some of the possible meanings that being identified as “Indian”, or identifying things as “Indian” would have had in the 1960s. It is necessary to consider how those meanings informed those who participated in producing the exhibit, and how an audience might have viewed the exhibit in relation to their understanding of the term “Indian” at that historical moment. The introduction to Chapter Two considers national debates about ethnic diversity, equality, racism and poverty as they related to the social conditions of “the Indian”, and First Nations’ right to self-determination, aboriginal title and the existing treaties made between the Crown and aboriginal peoples. I also consider contrasting media images of “the Indian” as impoverished or as culturally rich within the context of a Canadian heritage, the legal definitions of “Indian” and their social corollaries, and the way in which some First Peoples defined themselves.  5 I demonstrates that while the Art of the Raven exhibit organizers were committed to elevating the status of ‘indian art”, First Nations’ leaders were committed to changing the socio-political conditions for their peoples as “the most socially, politically and economically disadvantaged minority in Canada” (Hawthorn et al. 1966-67). This chapter serves to underline that the empirical reality for most First Nations peoples in Canada in 1967 was incommensurable with the Vancouver Art Gallery’s representation of the Northwest Coast Indian culture. At the same time it is significant that in relation to the limited discussion in Chapter One of mastery and patriarchal lineage, patriarchy also made sense in terms of western political systems imposed on First Nations’ cultures. In Chapter Three I discuss the political concerns addressed by the leaders of the Northwest Coast peoples whose cultures were ostensibly represented in the Arts of the Raven exhibit. Beginning with the Raven exhibit organisers’ assertion that “the old Indian cultures [were] dead,” I establish that the authority over the meanings that Northwest Coast First Nations invested in their poles, masks, crest and rituals, in terms of aboriginal title, property rights, land use and other privileges, were not alienated, bought, sold, stolen or appropriated. Rather, they were reasserted in the public sphere through contemporary political intertribal organisations, which represented, as they do today, an integral aspect of living and changing Northwest Coast cultures. The first section of Chapter Four provides a limited survey of how the concept of an Indian-master artist developed in British Columbia (B.C.) in the 1940s and 1950s through government and institutional interest in the “progress of the Indian” in relation to a wage economy. Much of the development of “Indian art” in the early years can be viewed within the context of non-Native interest in preserving what was perceived to be “Canada’s heritage”, and in promoting commerical tourism in the province. While some First Nations  6 people were committed to establishing and legitimating “Indian art and artists” in the public sphere, as in the 1960s, creating interest in Northwest Coast material culture was ultimately dependent on the expertise of the “official” holders and disseminators of Indian culture--western institutions, academics and Department of Indian Affairs officials. Chapter Five will conclude with a discussion of the curators for the Arts of the Raven exhibit, who were established as the as the experts of Northwest Coast culture. These were: Bill Holm, art historian; Bill Reid, Haida artisan; and Wilson Duff, archaeologist and Professor of Anthropology, at the University of British Columbia. Specifically I will examine their roles both as curators for an art exhibit and as the “experts” of First Nations Northwest Coast cultural history, in relation to Northwest Coast aboriginal leaders’ position on the right of First Nations peoples to self-determination, self-government and self-definition.  7 CHAPTER ONE The Exhibit Conceptualised  These vanished men and women have emerged through their art out of a formless mass of ancestral and historical stereotypes--warriors, hunters, fishermen, every man his own Leonardo--to become individuals in a highly individual society. (Bill Reid 1967) .  .  The 1967 exhibition, Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest Coast  Indian, at the Vancouver Art Gallery (VAG) was held “in honour of the one hundredth anniversary of Canadian confederation”. The opening of the exhibit, held June 15, 1967 was one of many nation-wide cultural events supported by the federal government to promote the spirit of confederation. These events were to assert and confirm unity and equality for all of multicultural Canada, including French Canada (Quebec) and “Canada’s Indians”. In an era of economic affluence, and in an environment of radical change in artistic and curatorial practice, works by artists once considered marginal to “high art” were being shown in major institutions. That year the Vancouver Art Gallery held a series of craft demonstrations entitled “Art in Action”, produced mixed media exhibitions such as  “Op Art Play Walls and Musical Play Screen”, and held  exhibitions of difference such as “Masterworks in Miniature: Japanese netsuke” and “African Sculpture”. 3 Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian was initially conceived by VAG Director, Richard Simmins, as one of four Centennial  exhibitions, including also: Painting ‘66, Vancouver Between the Eyes and Images for a Canadian Heritage. According to exhibit organisers the intent of the Arts of the Raven exhibit was to me Vancouver Art Gallery Association Annual Report 1968 (Vancouver: 3 Vancouver Art Gallery, 1968). 4 A rnold Rockmand, acting as a juror for Painting ‘66 (Nov. 30,1966-Jan. 8, 1967) declared B.C. painters ‘in the vanguard of the country’ (Lowndes 1983, 142, 43).  8 make an explicit and emphatic statement contributing to the shift from ethnology to art. It propose[d] to bring together many of the Northwest masterworks of Coast Native art, to show the wide range and aesthetic excellence of its forms and to explicate and establish its claim to 5 greatness. .  ..  The “masterworks” were represented by 516 objects, collected from museums and private collectors around the world (Holm 196Th, 4). Of the thirty-two museums represented, only six were art museums, which underlines what an ambitious project the Raven exhibit was in terms of its goal to contribute to the shift from ethnology to art, by shifting the focus of Northwest Coast material culture from an anthropological focal point to that of art--from the museum to the gallery. The development of the Arts of the Raven exhibit took place over a two year period. When Simmins resigned from the Gallery in December 1966, during the development of the exhibit, senior curator Doris Shadbolt took over as acting Director, and brought the show to its realisation. 6  Both Simmins and Shadbolt  worked with the project’s consultants, described in the catalogue and the exhibition programming as the experts of Northwest Coast art and culture and as professional advisors. These were: Wilson Duff, writer of the catalogue and curator of anthropology at the British Columbia Provincial Museum (BCPM became the Royal British Columbia Museum (RBCM) in 1986); Bill Reid, described as Haida craftsman and master artist and “the foremost authority of Haida culture” (Shadbolt 1967); and Bill Hoim, art historian, long-time [nonNative] student and practitioner of Northwest Coast art and dance (Fig. 1 & 2) and curator of Northwest Coast Indian Art at the Thomas Burke Washington  Doris Shadbolt qtd. in The Telegram, (Sept. 9, 5  1967), 18.  The exhibit opened June 15, 1967; Tony Emery began his appointment as Director, 6 July 1, 1967.  9 State Museum. Robert Boal, a recent graduate of the Vancouver School of Art, was the exhibition designer. Duff, Holm and Reid were responsible for [the exhibit’s] conception, the search for and selection of the works comprising the show, their thematic organization within the exhibit and the catalogue... [which represents] their criteria of excellence (Ibid.). Although they are not explicitly identified as “curators” of the exhibit, the above description of these individuals’ responsibilities certainly are curatorial. Therefore, for the purposes of this paper I will refer to them as such. In addition to these responsibilities, both Holm and Reid were contributing artists to the contemporary exhibit, Gallery 8, “The Art Today”. Northwest Coast cultural objects had been exhibited as “Indian art” or “masterworks” previous to the Raven exhibit, but this was the first time that they had been exhibited in the context of an individual Indian-master artist. This exhibit, then, was distinct from the modernist practice of using Northwest Coast artifacts as a referent for Primitive and Surrealist art works as in the 1946 exhibit, “Northwest Coast Indian Painting” at the Betty Parson gallery in New York (Carpenter 1975, N. pag.). It was distinct from earlier Northwest Coast Indian Art exhibits, such as the 1962 Seattle World’s Fair fine art exhibition, which compared the works of “Old Masters” from El Greco to Klee with the “Masterpieces of Northwest Coast Indian Art”--works whose ‘masters’ in fact remained unidentified. The contemporary exhibit of Northwest Coast masterworks was not aboriginal iconography transposed onto Western mediums, as were Ojibway artist (also identified as a master artist) Norval Morrisseau’s mural and canvas paintings first exhibited in Toronto’s Pollock gallery in 1962 (Pollock 1979, 21).7 Nor were the Northwest Coast masters and masterworks constructed as a cultural practice outside the field and tradition of For a discussion of Morrisseau’s relevance to the development of “Indian” art in 7 Canada, see also Tom Hill. “Indian Art in Canada: An Historical Perspective,” in Art Gallery Norvel Morrisseau and the emergence of the image makers (Toronto:  of Ontario, 1984).  10 western high art. Rather, First Nations carvers who used traditional Northwest Coast design and mediums were identified within Western, contemporary art practice through a paradigm whose field of problems was circumscribed and delimited by a focus on aesthetics, form, medium and mastery. At the same time, the discursive shift in category from ethnography to art, which was predicated on exclusionary practice, maintained the status quo--that the cultures of differing First Nations and Euro-Canadian cultures were mutually translatable. This assumption has informed the inclusion of Northwest Coast First Nations’ linguistic and material culture, rituals, and images in historically changing western categories and explanations for aboriginal peoples and cultures. However, the inclusion of material culture of First Nations peoples must also be viewed as acts predicated on our exclusion, or otherness. Anthropologist Virginia Dominguez argues that when we acknowledge that an idea, object, history or tradition is not ours, and we then proceed to incorporate or represent it, “we arrogate the right to employ what we acknowledge is not ours... [and] it is something we do because of our perception of it as other.”(Dominguez 1987,  ).  And in a broader context, the colonisation of  First Nations’ cultural heritage reflects the political attitude of the Canadian government towards First Nations people and our land. Creating categories and standards for Northwest Coast material culture through a Western criteria of aesthetic excellence has been part of on-going processes in the taxonomic development of “Northwest Coast Indian Art” in Western institutions--processes that have eclipsed the complex, socio-political and economic significance of contemporary Northwest Coast aboriginal cultural objects and the territories from which they emerged. Many of the issues arising from the formal approach used by the Arts of the Raven exhibit curators and endorsed by VAG administrators have been discussed by art historian, Marnie Flemming and others (Duffek 1983, 106;  11 Townsend-Gault 1993, 52). In Flemming’s critique of the 1982 exhibit, The Legacy: Continuing Traditions of Canadian Northwest Coast Indian Art  ,  produced by  RBCM and reviewed in its mounting at the Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia (MOA), Flemming contends that The Legacy exhibit was problematic on various counts. As an exhibit that was objectoriented, it divested the objects of their religious, political and mythological meanings--that is, it separated the objects from the context of their oral histories, thus placing the importance on objects rather than on people. In doing so, emphasis was effectively placed on the objects and/or their marketable value. (It is also important to note that commercial “Indian art” has become an integrated and important aspect of First Nations economy in rural and urban communities, a consideration of which lies beyond the limitations of this thesis.) Flemming also contends that the ahistorical approach used in such installations created the illusion of a seamless tradition of Indian art. Several aspects contributed to this: the use of term “artifact” served to imply continuity of object, whether it was two, or three hundred years old. Also significant is that while the exhibit organisers made reference to distinctive personal styles, they did not locate that person in their own history; all of the objects were treated with the same analysis regardless of how they function(ed) in society. Ignored by such analysis was the history of colonial imperialism, which led to the “dying people” theory 8 out of which the supposed “renaissance”--which this or salvage paradigm, exhibit signified--was seen to emerge. This paradigm is premised on the power relations inherent in a situation in which saviors or experts (the only ones who purportedly still recognise the cultural value of the “dying” cultures) ‘salvage’  The salvage paradigm is discussed by Virginia Dominguez, Trinh T. Minh-ha and 8 James Clifford in Discussions in Contemporary Culture, Hal Foster, ed. (Seattle: Bay Press, 1987). See also, Marcia Crosby. “Construction of the Imaginary Indian,” for a discussion of how this paradigm has animated Canadian art, and the so-called revival of Northwest Coast Indian art in Vancouver Anthology: the institutional politics of art, Stan Douglas, ed. (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1991).  12 what is left of the--in this case--dead” culture. Through this ahistorical approach, objects in the exhibit were divested of history, and were free to be invested with new meaning and the more familiar exotic and romantic meanings. Flemming concluded that this approach created value and imposed worth, which implied a certain status, thereby creating a polarity between the didactic information and art (1982, 18-21). While Flernming’s arguments cogently raise many critical issues in regard to what is at stake when one culture “arrogates the right” to represent another (many of which will be considered throughout the thesis), the purpose of this chapter is to look at curatorial politics: the selection and arrangement of works and how meaning was constructed through these choices, and to explore how and why Northwest Coast material culture was reproduced as “Canadian art, modern art, fine art” (Duff 1967, N. pag.) at a particular historical moment. To paraphrase the original “Rationale” for the exhibit, its primary goals were: to assemble the finest artistic products of the Northwest Coast, and show why they were the finest; to produce a higher aesthetic standard than any previous show; to go farther in the interpretation of the art style; to make the first attempt to bring together the masterpieces of coast Indian art; to provide the first explicit recognition of the greatest master of the style, Charles Edenshaw (1839-1924); to demonstrate the full theatrical impact of the arts of the Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl); to provide perspectives on the directions and quality of present-day Indian arts--all of which would result in establishing this as a ‘high’ art of fine quality and wide range; to maintain this criteria, objects having only ethnological or historical significance were to be excluded (emphasis 9 mine).  araphrased “Rationale” for “People of the Salmon and the Cedar,” one of the 9 P earlier, possible titles for the exhibit.  VAG Archives, Box A-102  13 In the struggle to produce new meanings for Northwest Coast material culture so as to increase the existing standards, prestige and value for these already historically, meaning-laden objects, the exhibit curators clearly had to take Northwest Coast Indian art into a new arena. Curator Bill Holm’s text, Northwest Coast Indian Art: an analysis of form (1965) was to provide the conceptual framework for producing the exhibition. As the “Rationale” for the show stated, “Since this [was] the first show since the publication of Bill Holm’s book,.  .  .  prominence will be given to the northern two-dimensional style which  10 it analyze[d] so well”. According to Holm, his analysis was premised on existing texts that had established aspects of Northwest Coast material culture within a “highly developed system of art principles.  .  .  described most notably in the works of  Franz Boas” (Holm 1965, 8). Holm asserted that his paradigm for examining Northwest Coast art took anthropologist, Boas’ (and other ‘Western authorities’ of Northwest Coast culture) precepts further than their recognition of Northwest Coast cultural objects as “art”. Critiquing their texts as dealing primarily with elements that were concerned with “representation rather than of composition, design, or form”, Holm’s asserted that in his analysis of form, “[n]one of the principles of representation that [were] so well described in the literature would be reviewed, except as they related directly to organization and form” (Ibid., 13). Holm’s description of the stylistic characteristics of Northwest Coast art was based on his analysis of it as an essentially two-dimensional art based on painting, whose rigid rules and principles could be applied to plastic and sculptural arts. In the Arts of the Raven catalogue, “carving” was described as a two-dimensional concept--a flat design wrapped around a half cylinder (pole) and carved in relief, or applied to a woven chilkat blanket and worn on the body. The primary element of design was identified as a swelling and diminishing ‘°Ibid.  14 “form-line”, which Hoim asserted was more than a line because of its “importance as a formal element.. .more natural to painting than to carving” (Hoim, 1965, 33). In fact Hoim contended that objects which were carved after painting proved that “the painted aspect of the design was basic and the carving was an elaboration of it (Catalogue, N. pag.). Formlines established the primary and secondary divisions of a design, which included elements that were formline structures identified as “ovoids, u-shapes, split-u, solid-u”. The way in which Holm’s paradigm for what constituted Northwest Coast Indian Art informed the organisation of the Raven exhibit included more than the formalist language used to describe its characteristic elements. The work on display had to be linked with genius, imagination, virtuosity and the ability to express originality within the framework of rigidly observed rules. It was the artists interpretation of those rules, according to Holm, “which elevate(d) the masterworks to their place over the many competent but less inspired examples of Indian work” (Holm 1967a, N. Pag.)” And finally, the success of the exhibit would depend on establishing a pedigree for Northwest Coast masterworks by historically linking them to a patriarchal lineage of master artists. Charles Edenshaw had already been identified by late 19th century and early 20th century anthropologist, Franz Boas in the literature that Holm had 1 ‘Hoim 1967a, N. pag. Bill Reid also stated that “innovation within a tradition” was the challenge to the artist... .without such freedom of creation the art would have been nothing more than a static system of hieroglyphics”(qtd. in Art in the Life of the Northwest Coast Indians by Erna Gunther (Portland: Portland Art Museum 1966), 8. See also Alan Hoover. “Bill Reid and Robert Davidson: Innovations in Contemporary Haida Art, in American Indian Art, vol. 18, No. 4 (Autumn 1993), 48. Hoover discusses “Innovation” as being “identified as an indicator of aesthetic excellence in northern NWC art” (49), citing various authors, Reid, Holm and Duffek as his sources. Anthropologist, Martine Reid also states that “The real [Northwest coast] artist not only works successfully within the rules, but varies them to go beyond a static system of icons” (1993, 75; emphasis mine). Within the broader context of North American “Indian art”, see also Margaret Archuleta, “The 4th Biennial of Native American Fine Arts Invitational at the Heard Museum,” in American Indian Art, vol. 15, No. 1 (Winter 1991), 54, which identifies Marcus Amerman as winning an award for “innovative uses of traditional techniques” at the 83rd Annual American Indian Market in Sante Fe, New Mexico (58).  15 researched, “as the best carver and painter among the Haidas” (Boas, 1927, 175). The curatorial decision to establish Edenshaw as ‘the greatest master of style’ (original rational above), was also based on Hoim’s position that any “real” understanding of Northwest Coast Indian art required an understanding of the northern coastal tribes’ design system--a system that he identified as “strongest in the art of the Haida and [which] lessened progressively among more and more distant people” (1967a, N. Pag). Edenshaw’s established identification as “the best” artist among the Haida, was further extended in the Raven exhibit to his being the greatest master of the Northwest Coast style through Hoim’s identification of the Haida design system as the point of reference for ..ll Northwest Coast design. Legitimising an Indian-master artist then was as contingent upon the ‘Indian-master’ being Haida, as it was on constructing him as an individual whose personal interpretation of the rigid rules and principles of Northwest Coast design signaled his artistic genius, and “elevated [his] masterworks to their place over the many competent but less inspired examples of Indian work” (Ibid.). Further, Holm argued that individual Northwest Coast Indian-master artists’ concern with the aesthetics of form and composition often took precedence over representation and meaning. For example, Holm claimed that while crest display would “seem to be the most important aspect of the artists’ work, [which are handed down, signifying ownership of First Nations land resources, and as representations of oral histories]  .  .  .  in fact, a good deal  more attention was given to the arrangement of the design for purely aesthetic 12 motives” (Ibid.). Certainly anyone familiar with Northwest Coast material culture could argue that considerations of design and aesthetics were important, and that those individuals who carved, painted and wove images and crests into various 12 an earlier text, Holm also states, “Formal elements of the design very often 1n takes on such importance as to overshadow the symbolic element to a point where the symbolism becomes obscure” (Holm 1965, 9).  16 mediums had a particular place in those societies. However, the problem with Hoim’s analysis of the social history of Northwest Coast First Nations peoples was  his presumption (and that of those before and after him) that the values  and meanings of the western categories of art and artist could be simply applied to non-western forms as a means of enabling them to transcend time, place and culture. Indeed, the limited scope of Hoim’s paradigm for Northwest Coast Indian mastery makes room for only a lineage of de-politicised Indian artists, more concerned with formalist aesthetics and issues of design than with the socio-political function of the objects they were producing. Further, Holm’s “official” recognition and definition of traditional practices, which codified and transformed flexible practices into prescriptive definitions, were most 13 For significantly broken with innovative practices learned from the dominant. example, Bill Reid’s work was (and is) considered ‘innovative’ and therefore superior because he applied European technology and jewelery making practice to ‘traditional forms’. While relegating “traditional” images and practices to the past refuses recognition that something called traditional could also be contemporary through its contextual use in space and time--not necessarily 14 privileging because of actual innovative changes by individual artists, recognition of individuals and individual innovation by-passed an integral aspect of Northwest Coast aboriginal cultural histories, which included, respect for clan (group) ownership of images and their socio-political meanings. 13 Constructing a polarized past and present (tradition from the modern), is itself a  very ‘old’ tradition in Western institutional practice. Historian, Bernard S. Cohn argues in his article, “Representing Authority in Victorian India,” (in Hobsbawn and Ranger  1983), that by officially recognizing indigenous traditions  through  western institutional apparatus, the dominant underlines the colonized peoples’ “difference,” thereby naturalising their perceived ‘need’ for a shift from the traditional ‘old ways’ to the ‘new ways’ of colonial governments (166).  14 the implications of polarizing a traditional past from a contemporary or Today, ‘modern’ present, is that it fails to honour the relevance and contemporary use of what is identified as “traditional” by some First Nations peoples (objects, ritual, government, knowledge) to address issues of sovereignty, control of land and resources, recovery of history, and self-identity.  17 The Exhibit Design The Vancouver Art Gallery’s exhibition space was divided into eight individual galleries (Fig. 3), in which Northwest Coast material culture was categorised “in sequence following gallery themes” (Catalogue, N. pag.) The individual galleries were labeled: 1. Faces; 2. Small Sculptures in Wood; 3. Interpretation; 4. Slate, Ivory, Horn, Bone and Silver; 5. Flat Design; 6. Charles Edenshaw: Master Arts & Masterpieces of Northwest Coast Indian Art; 7. Arts of the Kwakiutl (Kwakwaka’wakw) and 8. The Art Today. In the entrance to the exhibit, walls and panels were covered with enlarged Edward Curtis photographs of supposed authentic images of Northwest Coast peoples (Fig. 4). The photographs were taken by Curtis on expeditions to the Northwest Coast between 1908 and 1914, where he used wigs, imported costumes and artifacts, and directed poses and scripts (Knight 1978, 23). 15 For the purpose of the exhibit, the photo-murals functioned in the entrance as a form of documented introduction to the Northwest Coast tribal groups, who were more familiar to a western public as peoples without history. In contrast, the largerthan-life images provided the viewer with a sense of the spacial and temporal origins of the Northwest Coast Indian--a necessary component in providing lineage for contemporary Indian masterworks. At the same time, the image of the exotic Indian of the past provided a familiar locus of recognition for an audience that was being newly formulated. Although most of the collection located in Gallery 1 consisted of masks, the gallery was entitled “Faces”, which is more closely associated to the figure, that is sculpture and high art--as opposed to masks which would call up tribal or Indian See also: Christopher Lyman, The Vanishing Race and other Illusions: 15 Photographs of Indians by Edward S. Curtis, (New York: Pantheon Press, 1982). In  a book review of the text, Bill Hoim argues that Lyman’s critique of Curtis reveals Lyman’s own racial biases, and that many of his arguments are inconsistent and at times poorly researched. Holm argues that while many of Curtis’ photographs were contrived, they also reveal important historical documentation about that historical period. See, American Indian Art, (Summer 1983b), 68-70, 73.  18 art. In fact, the theme of the first gallery extended to the entire exhibit through the image of a face on the 1967 catalogue cover, and which was taken from a Northwest Coast rattle. The catalogue’s introduction to Gallery 1 was also important in this respect: “To sense a man’s personality or character we search his face. To glimpse the character of an art style, we may also begin by searching the faces it offers to the world” (1967, N. Pag.). Through the redefinition of a mask into a “face”, and the contiguous arrangement of language, the text produces meanings through association. The words “man”, “art style” and “the world” locate Northwest Coast aboriginal masks in the broader context of universal mankind and the “world” of international art. However, reading the catalogue’s scholarly analysis of Northwest Coast masks as “Faces” was distinctly different from experiencing those faces as masks in the dark theatrical space of the exhibit (Fig. 5). As with the Curtis photo-murals, the faces (masks) provided an existing audience with recognisable images of the Indian, and produced a new audience for the scholarly concept of Northwest Coast Indian Art as Canadian art, fine art, modern art. From this broader context, the audience moved to Gallery 3, “Orientation and Information”, where a map of the different tribal groups in British Columbia signaled the re-mapping of anthropological tribal categories into fine art styles (Fig.s 6 & 7). These categories were different than, for example, Franz Boas’ reclassification of material culture into groups of objects that depicted differences between tribal groups (Jacknis 1985, 75-111). The point of the tribal arrangements in the Raven exhibit was primarily to signify that there were different Northwest Coast art styles, not that there were different tribal groups. Following the criteria for establishing the greatness of the design styles of the northern coastal peoples, the cultural material from the southern part of the province, Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) and Salish peoples were excluded. No doubt these were identified by the curators as those styles and design system that “lessened progressively among  19 more and more distant people” from the design system which Hoim identified as “strongest in the art of the Haida”(1967a, N. pag.). The various mediums and forms of the northern style were located in galleries forward and adjacent to the Orientation and Information centre: to the right in Gallery 2: “Small Sculptures in Wood” (Fig. 8), to the left in Gallery 4: “Slate, Ivory, Horn, Bone, Silver” (Fig. 9), and forward in Gallery 5: “Flat Design” (Fig. 10), which focused on the “northern graphic style  .  .  .  in its purest form on  the flat surfaces” (Duff 1967a, N. pag.) of chests, boxes, woven chilkat blankets. These introductory exhibits were representative of Hoim’s description of Northwest Coast art as essentially a wooden art carried out by painting, shallow relief carving and/or a combination of the preceding two. It also demonstrated the ability of the Northwest Coast Indian-master artist to move fluidly between two-dimensional art forms to plastic and three-dimensional works. The audience was introduced to the “Masterworks” in Gallery 6 with an enlarged photograph of carver Charles Edenshaw (Fig. 11 & 12), who was born in Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands) (1835--1920). The use of new photo technology photo-murals was an important catalyst in linking the past to the present. Interestingly, the portrait photo of Edenshaw could have been taken at the same time as the Curtis photos in the entrance (Fig.s 13 & 4). But this individual has a name, wore contemporary clothes and was engaged in an activity that was recognisable to a Canadian public, associations which were reinforced with the accompanying text and the title “Master Artist”. As a result the nameless Indians in the Curtis photos at the exhibit entrance were then catapulted into modernity through an association with Edenshaw, whose lineage reaches back to the origins of Northwest Coast Indian art, which those figures served to signify. As the only model of an Indian-master artist, a Haida individual provided a point of reference for the exhibit with 65 of the 532 masterworks attributed to  20 him. His central position in an exhibit celebrating confederation was reinforced in the exhibit catalogue, by association, with the illustrious origins of Canada’s body politic--British royalty: “In 1884 [Charles Edenshaw’s] uncle was baptised Albert Edward Edenshaw,.. and he himself became Charles, after the Bonnie .  Prince Charlie of Scotland”. 16 This reference to Canada’s British heritage also reinforced the notion of Edenshaw as a producer of masterworks reflecting traditional standards and taste, and suggested a parallel lineage between the 17 Northwest Coast and western Europe. The Haida exhibit which was to be “unobtrusively interpretive” using large flat pieces (Fig. 14), stood in binary opposition to the Kwakwaka’wakw exhibit in Gallery 7 (Fig. 15), reflecting the two main stylistic distinctions in the exhibit. The style of the Haida, Tlingit and Tsimshian is described in the catalogue as “austere”, “intellectual” and “elegant”, in opposition to the “flamboyant histrionic style of the [Kwakwaka’wakw]” (Shadbolt 1967, N. pag.). Curated to demonstrate the Kwakwaka’wakw ‘s theatrical arts, Gallery 7 was filled with colours that were “warm and rich, light and shadow strong and dramatic.  .  profusion of objects and all possible devices such as sound and movement.  a  .  .  .  to  18 Through the juxtaposition of the galleries, the convey the essence of the style”. Kwakwaka’wakw exhibit acted as a foil to individual works of genius by Charles Edenshaw in Galley 6--and his designated heirs (Bill Reid and Robert Davidson) in Gallery 8. A closer examination of the opposition could be drawn between the Kwakwaka’wakw and the Haida, including a consideration of produced divisions and hierarchies between Kwakwaka’wakw performance arts and Haida ”Gaflery 6, Charles Audience: Master Artist,” (Duff 16  1967a, N. pag.).  Christie Harris’ historical narrative of Haida artist, Charles Edenshaw in 17 Raven’s Cry is written by a non-native who refers to the account as “my story” (4)--and it is. It compares Haida social positions to kings, princesses, lords, patricians, and then in turn links Edenshaw’s “aristocratic” position to the “quality” of NWC design (11, 12).  Exhibit “Rationale and General Theme,” VAG Archives, Box A-l02. 18  21 visual arts: between Kwakwaka’wakw “art” that was implicitly described as emotive, in opposition to Haida art as cognitive; between material culture that had (has) use-value in contemporary society (Kwakwaka’wakw potlatch), and the material culture of the Haida designated as abstract, and as reflecting aesthetic disinterest. Before considering the relationship of this opposition to the final and eighth Gallery, “The Art Today”, I would like to return to my introductory point about the exhibit’s curatorial thesis that constructed the primacy of the Haida, and the way in which this thesis was emphasised by the other exhibit organisers. In the Raven catalogue “Foreword”, Doris Shadbolt made a specific reference to a Haida artist and then Kwakwaka’wakw art, moving from the specific to the general, from master works to theatricality, from an individual work of genius to a category describing works by a group, concluding, Perhaps for the first time, the work of one master artist is singled out for recognition--Charles Edenshaw (1839-1924). The arts of the [Kwakwaka’wakwl are presented for their full impact of theatricality and the direction of the arts as continued today is suggested (N. pag). In Wilson Duff’s catalogue essay, “Contexts of Northwest Coast Art”, he explicitly asserts that while all of the maritime nations were artistic, the most intensely artistic of these were the Haida. Duff discusses the Tlingit, and then describes other coastal nations’ geographical location in relation to the Haida, reiterating the original rational in which Gallery 1 was entitled, “The Two19 Dimensional Style of the Haida and their Neighbors”. My point is this: although one newspaper article referred to the exhibit as “the one man show of Charles Edenshaw”, Edenshaw actually served the more Duff draws a similar comparison to Shadbolt’s in tracing the development of 19 Indian art from the late eighteenth century to the nineteenth century. In the Arts of the Raven catalogue essay, ‘The Time,’ Duff describes the “Golden age of the Haida,” as a period when “Charles Edenshaw grew up and began his distinguished career as an artist (N.pag.)” contrasting the period and the man with a general reference to Kwakiutl art, which he states reached its golden age later.  22 important purpose of providing a lineage for his heirs, whose works were exhibited in the contemporary gallery. Bill Reid is the centre post of a patriarchal form of lineage that reaches back to his great uncle, Charles Edenshaw, and which extended forward to a young Robert Davidson who it was implied was “destined to follow in the footsteps of his great-great grandfather, Charles Edenshaw. Yet according to the constraints of Haida matriarchal lineage, neither 20 Bill Reid or Robert Davidson’s lineage is legitimate. The contemporary works in Gallery 8 (Fig. 16) included the work of Bill Reid, Robert Davidson (Haida artists), Doug Cranmer, Tony and Henry Hunt (Kwakwaka’wakw artists) and three artists who were not First Nations from the Northwest Coast: Bill Holm, Don Lelooska Smith and Michael Johnson. Although representation of the “northern style” also included Tlingit or Tsimshian, no contemporary artists from those Nations were included in the exhibit. Significantly, art critic for the Province newspaper, Joan Lowndes concluded her article of the Raven exhibit this way, “Finally in the airy contemporary room with which the exhibition ends, the work of Bill Reid soars 21 Interestingly, Peter Macnair, the Assistant above that of every other artist”. Anthropologist at the then British Columbia Provincial Museum in 1967, wrote to Doris Shadbolt a month after the show opened to request that two more of the Kwakwaka’wakw carvers’ works be added to the contemporary exhibit; he states, “I feel that our carvers, Henry and Tony Hunt, are not well represented” (Royal British Columbia Museum Archives; emphasis mine).  For the purpose of the Arts of the Raven exhibit, Robert Davidson’s lineage was 20 traced through his father, Claude Davidson, and Claude Davidson’s mother,  Florence Davidson whose society was his mother, just as her father, Charles  who was Charles Edenshaw’s daughter. However, as Haidas, and is matriarchal, Robert Davidson would follow the lineage of mother--not Florence Davidson would follow the lineage of Edenshaw. See also footnote 22.  Joan •Lowndes. “The Revelation of the Raven: firmly establishes the claim to 21 greatness of Indian art,” The Province, (July 16, 1967), n.p.  23 Reid, on the other hand, had 13 works in the exhibit, a silver box, three bracelets (two silver and one gold), a gold brooch, an ivory carving, a wood mask (painted), argillite panel pipe, platter and two totem poles. All of these objects demonstrated the various ways in which the two-dimensional, design system (“strongest in the art of the Haida” according to Holm) could be applied to different mediums and forms. Specifically Reid’s ‘masterworks’ demonstrated the scope of his expertise compared to the other Native artists who only showed one to three objects. For example, Holm contended that engraved bracelets “frequently represent the best of two-dimensional art” (Holm 1965. 15; emphasis mine). Significantly, Reid’s repousse gold bracelet was the only work representing contemporary art in the catalogue. Through Reid’s application of European methods of jewelry-making, and the northern style of design to a precious metal that had intrinsic value as an investment associated with class, taste and prestige, Reid demonstrated that he was the contemporary Indianmaster artist. He was the model for the Northwest Coast modern artist who could understand the complexity of an art style based on painting. In fact, Reid’s lineage of genius and mastery was also mapped out in Christie Harris’ book, Raven’s Cry (1966), described by anthropologist, archaeologist and curator Wilson Duff as historically accurate, and one of the best studies of culture contact “from the Natives’ point of view” (see footnote 15). According to Duff, Harris’ book recounted the history of “Haida art in the hands of the genius Charles Edenshaw and also in the hand of Bill Reid today.  .  .  (jacket  cover)”. The book included a lineage chart connecting Reid to Edenshaw through his mother’s father, Charles Gladstone, who was the son of Charles Edenshaw’s sister(Fig. 17).22 In the final chapter of Raven’s Cry, Bill Reid is quoted as describing the work of Charles Edenshaw as have followed 22 Reid does follow the lineage of his mother, she would While the lineage of her father, Charles Gladstone. However, in the lineage chart (Fig. 17), Charles Gladstone’s lineage quite correctly is traced through his mother, who was Charles Edenshaw’s sister. Perhaps in recognition of the error of what Harris  24 the distillation of thousands of years of evolution in one decorative style, [which] some genius must discover.. as Picasso discovered African art, and evolve a great new art form. But until that genius comes along... (Harris 1966, 193). .  Although the final sentence of Reid’s quote trails off into an ellipsis, the text’s narrative maps out the lineage of Edenshaw’s forebears and his heirs, implicitly pointing to Reid as the “Picasso” who would “rediscover” Northwest Coast Indian art--as did the Raven exhibit itself. But what place could there be for an Indian-Picasso, in an era when the concept of genius, and the hierarchy, centricity, autonomy and boundaries of the discipline of fine art, was being questioned? As a hyphenated category, a new and exclusive space was created for an “Indian-master”, which did not make room for most contemporary “craftsmen” whose works” were incorrectly formed and placed” (Holm 1965, 80-81). According to Hoim most of the contemporary carvers lacked an understanding of the design principles governing the northern style as he defined them (Ibid.). In fact, the state of Northwest Coast Indian art in the sixties is explained by Holm in his discussion of the limitations of his study for his book, Northwest Coast Indian Art: An Analysis of Form: Ideally, a study of this sort should lean heavily on information from Indian artists trained in the tradition that fostered the art. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate a qualified informant for the area covered, i.e., the coast region from Bella Coola to Yakutat Bay. That there may be some still living is not questioned, but contemporary work seen from the area reveals a lack of understanding by Indian craftsmen of the principles that are the subject of this study. Bill Reid, perhaps the best Haida craftsman working today thoroughiy understands the art, but he like the author, has reconstructed the rules from examination and analysis of old pieces (Holm 1965, vii; emphasis mine).  attempted to established in the first edition, the chart is not included in the 1993 edition of the Raven’s Cry.  25 Reid had demonstrated that he was more than just “a wood chipper”, 23 At the making copies of past Indian art like his Haida Skidegate relatives. same time that Hoim referred to himself and Reid as two of the few individuals having the knowledge to create Northwest Coast masterworks, the exhibit organisers’ evaluation of local and contemporary knowledge about Native art by local artists was explicitly expressed in the original rational for the show this way: The public is in need of guidance as to the quality of present day Indian Art. A few Indian artists are producing materials which are either valid developments of good traditional styles or new forms of intrinsic merit. Most of the present ‘Indian art’ is junk. 24 Of course this evaluation had as much to do with circulating forms of what was identified as “tourist art” that many Native artists were producing at the time. 25 Given the curators’ position that there was a paucity of qualified carvers who understood the principles of Northwest Coast northern design style, and an  23 Christie Harris’ book, Raven’s Cry, she asserts that Reid saw his “old 1n Skidegate relatives who were still chipping slate. ..as straight copyists. .[and he] certainly did not want to be a totem pole chipper” (190). ..  See “Rationale”, “Title: ‘The Present State of Northwest Coast Art’....Subject: The 24 Production of present day Indian artists, and of non-Indians using Indian styles. Influence of Indian art on art in general”. VAG Archives, Box A-102.  In Karen Duffek’s unpublished M.A. thesis, “The Contemporary Northwest Coast 25 Indian Art Market” (1983), she describes souvenir or tourist art as “characterised  by a reduction and distortion of the producer’s belief and symbolic systems that is determined in part by the tourist buyers’ preconceived notions of what is representative of the producer’s culture and by the producer’s perception of the tourists’ preference” (Duffek 1983, 71). While this description is not entirely incorrect, it raises some important issues in relation to the Raven curators’ aims not only to contribute to the shift of artifact to art, but in the assumptions made in for “Masterworks by the Northwest Coat creating a standards for the ‘quality’ Indian”. The opposition drawn between tourist art and fine art implies that there are certain differences between the production and consumption of popular and fine art forms of Northwest Coast material culture: that the “classical” form is created not produced; that the formal art historical terms and categories for Northwest Coast Indian art were and are not reductive or a distortion of the objects’ contextual meanings within First Nations communities; that “creating” commissioned reproductions for museums does not determine the production of “Masterworks”; and that Northwest Coast “Masterworks” exist as discrete works of genius somewhere outside of institutional practice and the commercial art market.  26 abundance of “incorrectly” rendered work or “junk”, the curatorial strategy was to: provide a standard against which people can measure their tastes and their favorites. The incentive of having their pieces in the category of masterpieces will help induce institutions and collectors to lend them to us; the honor will increase the prestige and value of their collection. 26 Setting New Standards The goals of the exhibit organisers to create “a” standard, can also be seen then as a strategy that placed what was categorized as “tourist art” in opposition to “quality” work. More than that, their goal to increase the prestige and value of existing collections of Northwest Coast Indian art, and its corollary, economic value raises the issue of what was at stake for the curators of the Raven exhibit and the Vancouver Art Gallery. Historically, there had been many stakeholders who had contributed to the movement aimed at increasing the prestige and value of Northwest Coast Indian art, each for reasons specific to their historical moment. The standard for exhibiting Northwest Coast Indian Art, which the VAG was now attempting to surpass, had been set, in part nearly a decade earlier, in two previous shows at the Gallery that exhibited Northwest Coast cultural objects: People of the Potlatch: Native Arts and Culture of the Pacific Northwest  Coast (Morris, 1956), and 100 Years of B.C. Art (1958). The catalogue for the 1956 exhibit was produced as a handbook that was to add to the then sparse number of publications on Pacific Northwest Indian Art. Like the Arts of the Raven exhibit’s goals, expressed in the Foreword of the catalogue, People of the Potlatch proposed to “show a wide range of the art form.. [with] as many objects as .  possible of high quality which have not previously been published elsewhere” (Morris 1956, N. pag). While the intention of the exhibit was to focus on the quality of art objects, its discussion of Northwest Coast material culture centred  ”Rationale” for People of the Salmon and the Cedar, VAG Archives, Box A-102. 26  27 primarily on the geographic and ethnological context in which the ‘art’ developed. Two years later, in celebration of the Province’s centennial, the Vancouver Art Gallery exhibit, 100 Years of British Columbia Art (1958) included in one of its six sections, “Art of the B.C. Indian”, thereby providing a lengthy artistic history for what was considered to be ‘a young province’. Then VAG curator, Robert Hume, contended in the preface of the catalogue that British Columbia’s “artistic endeavour extends far into our history and prior to the arrival of white people (N. pag.; emphasis mine)”. The Haida design on the front and back of the catalogue cover was an original drawing prepared by Bill Reid especially for the catalogue. While the exhibit recognised Northwest Coast First Nations cultures within the context of western historicising and British Columbia’s artistic endeavor, the catalogue did not provide its audience with individualised names of the “artists” or any kind of curatorial history--as did the Masterzvorks by the Northwest Coast Indian exhibit. And yet, consider the way in which the term masterworks was contrasted with contemporary art in Artscanada, 1967 The periodical featured alternating monthly artides of “Masterworks, presenting important works of art history from Canadian collections” one month, and Contemporary art the next. 27 Implicit in the editorial organisation is a distinction between the old and the new, the recognition of a past that provides contemporary art with a pedigree. On the one hand, as Masterworks signifying a Canadian past, the Raven exhibit was not much different than the VAG’s 1958 exhibit that provided British Columbia with its long history of “artistic endeavor”. On the other hand, an exhibit of “Indian” Masterworks could also be described as a contemporary art exhibit that functioned as a tool of intervention against normative modernist practice. ”Masterworks in Canada’.. .will alternate with the series, ‘Contemporary Art in 27 Canada,’ which first appeared in the January issue” in artscanada, (February 1967), n.p.  28  In the text, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Pierre Bourdieu draws attention to the production of the aesthetic disposition by the ‘educated nobility’, who claim: the capacity to consider in and for themselves, not only the works [of art] designated for such apprehension. but everything in the world, including cultural objects which are not yet consecrated--such as at one time, primitive arts or nowadays, popular photography or kitsch--and natural objects (1984, 3). .  .  However, such a concept presupposes intellectual binarisms such as high/low culture and production/consumption. For example, it implies that the reclassification of objects previously associated with Northwest Coast material culture and with referents in the social world, into a sign that signifies nonaboriginal quality, taste, and prestige (and which still function as signs within First Nations communities, or anthropology, or science and so on) are completely absorbed into a program for perception that remains fixed or unchanging. Clearly a multi-reading of the exhibition could not simply be erased through its regulatory apparatus--the educative processes of the exhibitions installation, texts (catalogue, reviews, advertisements), lectures, and the production of new categories. Even though the Northwest Coast cultural objects have been reworked to mean something different, they are nevertheless objects of extremely diverse histories. Bourdieu’s argument explains a part of the struggle or process by which meaning is negotiated in the public sphere. The cultural industry’s power to define and reshape representation cannot be ignored. However, this argument does not account for the process of the effect of this transformation of Native material culture on the First Nations communities themselves. Bourdieu’s explanation of the appropriation and transformation of cultural objects does not address why First Nations artists and speakers participated in the exhibition: nor does it account for the different ways  29 in which a diverse public, including Native and non-native audiences may have decoded the exhibition. As cultural studies theorist, Stuart Hall points out: These definitions don’t have the power to occupy our minds; they don’t function on us as if we were blank screens. But they do occupy and rework the interior contradictions of feeling and perception in the dominated classes; they do find or clear a space of recognition in those who respond to them (Hall 1981). The question then arises, how did the inclusion of other cultural voices, not just cultural objects (i.e., a Haida curator, writer, and artist, Bill Reid, and artist Robert Davidson, practising Kwakwaka’wakw artists, Douglas E. Cranmer, Tony and Henry Hunt, and Native speakers, Salish Chief Simon Baker, and Mrs. Dorothy Francis, from the Salteaux Nation) change the shape of institutional practice at the VAG, and perhaps other institutions? In recreating Northwest Coast art as a cultural commodity that also signified prestige and honour, the exhibit organisers were not attempting to redefine and consecrate what they considered “junk” as fine art. Rather, through the use of Holm’s paradigm and the exhibit’s focus on Northwest Coast masterworks linked to individual genius, they sought to “re”-create an “authentic” model used by traditional Northwest Coast “artists”--whose knowledge, according to the experts, could now only be found in western academic texts, and whose masterworks were only accessible in western institutions and private collections. The “quality” of the work was then instituted by the “educated nobility”--the curators and self-defined experts of Northwest Coast art, and eventually by an audience and patron who would also be educated as to how to evaluate “quality” Northwest Coast art created through individual acts of genius. It was this position of individual genius (as defined by Holm’s modernist paradigm) that would contribute to the creation of a standard linked to taste and prestige. In his article, “The art of big business”, Brian Wallis discusses the official ideology of the humanities, that of liberal humanism that stresses the importance of the unique individual. He states:  30 [lit prefers purified aesthetics divorced from politics. validates the proclivities and dominance of the upper classes [and the] valorization of wealth and upper-class values (1983, 7-10). .  .  .  .  .  .  In keeping with status that the exhibit organisers sought to produce, Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian opened as a champagne and  black tie affair (Fig. 18 & 19). Very few First Nations people attended the opening, but those who did came in the appropriate “Native costume”--or black tie. However, the opening was well-attended by those who represented wealth, power and upper-class values of Vancouver society and Canadian government. These were, after all, the target audience and the patron, and those who had the power to facilitate the shift of Northwest Coast material culture from ethnography to art at a structural level. Bill Reid points to Wilson Duff as a key player in creating value and patrons for Northwest Coast Indian art, not only in relation to the Raven exhibit, but to his long-time commitment to the study and promotion of Northwest Coast material culture as “art”: [Wilson Duff was].. a powerful propagandist for the art of the Northwest coast people. Many wealthy dealers in primitive art in New York and London should pay tribute to the part he played in bringing this great treasure to the attention of the public (Reid 1981, 14). .  Both Holm and Duff were curators in charge of acquisitions, building the collections of their institutions. From these institutional positions, the three curators also reinforced and expanded on their area of expertise in Primitive and/or Indian art, which had not yet fully recognised Northwest Coast Indian art as masterworks. In the case of Reid and Holm, they were in a position as curators and as writers for the Raven exhibit catalogue to create a legitimate space for themselves as contributing master craftsmen who were two of the “few” artists (according to Holm) who understood the rules and principles of Northwest Coast design. In terms of the curators’ academic expertise, Wilson Duff was recognised for his continued interest in Northwest Coast “art”, which had begun in the early  31 1950s (Suttles 1982-3, 88, 89)28 as an extension of his study of and pedagogical contributions to Northwest Coast material culture as archaeology and anthropology. Regarding his interest in Northwest Coast indian art, Duff stated in his biographical notes, I am aware. that I am redefining ethnological materials as ‘fine arts’ and discovering ‘great artists’ of the Haida past, thus strengthening an aspect of Indian identity and creating authentic Indians heros (MOA Archives, Box 2-93, n.d.). .  .  One of those Haida “heroes” that Duff helped to “create” was, of course, Bill Reid, who was recognised as one of the ‘rare’ contemporary Haidas who understood Northwest Coast design through his scholarly knowledge and his artistic expertise. Bill Holm was recognised for his significant contribution to the existing discourse of Primitive and Indian art.  Modernism and quality In the catalogue for Vancouver Art and Artists: 1931-1983, a retrospective exhibit of the Vancouver Art Gallery, Doris Shadbolt explained the central role of Hoim’s analysis in the exhibit in relation to the prevailing modernist discourse at the time: When we did the Arts of the Raven for 1967 we proudly announced that we were presenting an exhibition of art--”high art.” We weren’t ignoring its anthropological or historical aspects, but in putting it assertively in an art context we were sure we were doing something important, even somewhat innovative at the time. The confidence with which we could make that assertion had a lot to do with the prevailing modernist attitude which had helped to make native art available to us--for, whatever complex appeals the arts of indigenous people first made to Western societies, the modernist attitude, with the superior status it conferred on Suttles points to Duff s interest in NWC material culture as “art” as beginning in 28 the early fifties through his involvement in the totem pole salvage/restoration which entailed “salvaging” poles from the NWC, restoring them, and creating copies of the original. In the 1950s, this project was jointly sponsored by the British Columbia Provincial Museum and the Museum of Anthropology at UBC, as discussed in Chapter Three.  32  formal qualities and structures, gave us a way of looking at native art that we could comprehend and were accustomed to. Bill Holm spelled out that approach as it applied to West Coast Indian art in definitive terms in his book of 1965 (Shadbolt 1983, 268, 69; emphasis mine). In other words, the existing maxim for modern art and the superior status it conferred on formal qualities (within what was in effect a “Greenbergian” modernist paradigm, which I will discuss below), could be extended to “include” Northwest Coast material culture. By expanding on the “prevailing modernist attitude”, Hoim and the other curators were able to attract an existing audience for Primitive, Indian and Modern art, who were then able to comfortably “comprehend” masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian. Within this framework, the exhibit became more than a centennial celebration of a regional or national art; it was, according to Bill Hoim, “the centennial of the high point of a significant movement among the world arts” (196Th, 4). While the notion of quality as a criteria for assigning value to art itself can be dated back to medieval times and/or the Renaissance, I will briefly consider the prevailing methodology used in the sixties for assigning value to works of western modern art. As Francis Franscina and Charles Harrison have noted in,  Modern Art and Modernism: A Critical Anthology (1982, 5), this methodology was initially given prominence, in part, by Alfred H. Barr Jr. in the 1936 Museum of Modern Art exhibition catalogue, Cubism and Modern Art  .  Barr focused  primarily on formal and technical criteria, which determined the value or quality of modern art within the supposedly disinterested realm of aesthetics. This particular history for modern art, supported by certain institutional, political and social forces, was greatly influenced in the fifties and sixties by art theorist, Clement Greenberg. In this period Greenberg and others created a linear ‘avant-garde’ history of modern art for Abstract Expressionist painters, such as Jackson Pollock, that reached back to Manet. It was during these years that the New York School “style” of Abstract Expressionism became a kind of “international style” with its emphasis on the development of art style within an  33 autonomous discipline (Franscina 1985, 91 1O6),29 thereby effectively disseminating internationally as superior, asocial and apolitical art forms whose principle site of meaning lay in form and technique, and notions of quality as “disinterested discriminations of value”. 30 Greenbergian modernism with its formalist aesthetics was a complex phenomenon. My argument is that it was used as a paradigm by the producers of  the Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian. In effect, this particular form of formalist modernism then intersected with Holm’s analysis of Northwest Coast material culture as a world or international art, in terms of its concern with flatness, two-dimensionality and paint, and a patriarchal, linear progression of artistic practice by disinterested Indian artists. Northwest Indian masterworks then were not concerned with the politics of land, resources and First Nations Northwest Coast histories--other than the ones constructed in text though western expertise.  VAG and International Success The international success of the Raven exhibit was described eight years later by Wilson Duff as “the threshold over which Northwest Coast art came to its full recognition as fine art as well as primitive art”. Further, Duff attributed the success of the exhibit to the singular, aesthetic eye of Richard Simmins as the initiator of the project (Duff 1975, 13). Although Simmins left the VAG before the project was completed, it is important to consider the part he played as  See, Franscina et a!. 1985 for a discussion of the way in which formal and 29 technical appearances were used in the 1950s and 1960 to create a historicist  validation of Abstract Expressionism. 1bid., 15, 93. The above summary is based on Introductions to Chapters I & II 30 (Franscina et al. 1985) which deal with the shifts and developments in the tradition of Modernism from the 1930s to the 1970s vis a vis Alfred H. Barr Jr., Clement Greenberg, Michael Fried, and Rubin (3-20 & 91-106; any errors are my  own).  34 Director of the Gallery in bringing the exhibit to fruition, and the relationship of the exhibit to the Gallery’s goals within art practice at the time. By 1962, the Gallery’s primary objective was to address an impending threat of bankruptcy (Harris 1985).31 The terms of Simmins’ appointment as Director in February 1963 entailed, among other things, expanding exhibitions, programming and funding. According to Doris Shadbolt, who became curator in 1963: Richard Simmins was determined to get us [the VAG] out of the kids’ league, and everything that meant. I think that was his real contribution. Richard would say, “If you are into art, which we are, you are in all the way. You are concerned with quality all the way through” (1983, 135). And quality was the operative word for securing financial support from outside sources, and to increase the grant received by Canada Council, whose mandate was to fund only “excellence” or “the best”--which had, up to this point, mostly excluded amateur and regional work. While these standards are clearly reflective of the values of those who have the power to determine what constitutes excellence or quality, Simmins’ “aesthetic eye” and the “superior status conferred on formal qualities and structures” (See Shadbolt, above) obviously figured into the kinds of exhibitions that the VAG would have to produce in order to access funding, and create new audiences for a floundering institution. Under the direction of Simmins, the Vancouver Art Gallery held its first major historical show, The Nude in Art (November, 1964), featuring the works of Manet, Cezanne, Durer, Matisse, Picasso and other canonical figures.  31 Harris’ unpublished M.A. thesis, “Of Rauschenberg, Policy and Representation at the Vancouver Art Gallery,” examines the history of the transition of the VAG from its inception as a civic institution in 1931, to an institution that gained national status in the sixties. His discussion of the Gallery is framed within what he describes as “the Scylla of government funding and the Charybclis of private interests” (1). See also: Chapter 2, “The Vancouver Art Gallery 1966-74: Success and Failure” (68-75) for an analysis of the VAG’s financial history, which provides the background for this paragraph and the following two (Department of fine Arts, University of “British Columbia, 1985).  35 Tutankhamen Treasures (January, 1965) had a record attendance of 78,000 during its one month exhibition. Attendance at the Gallery tripled between 1962-1965, due in part to the success of Simmin’s strategic shift into the international arena by producing ‘quality’ exhibitions. With VAG’s growing reputation, Simmins brought in London: The New Scene (1966), exposing Vancouver to British Pop, Op and the shaped canvas. By September of 1966, Jean Marineau, head of the Canada Council announced that the VAG was ‘the most progressive in Canada’ and the VAG was awarded the largest operating grant because, compared to Montreal and Toronto, the Gallery was moving ahead so fast (Wilcox 1983, 142).32 This shift in status for a provincial art gallery to one that gained national recognition must also be addressed in relation to Canada’s history at the time. Steven Harris’ “Of Rauschenberg, Policy and Representation at the Vancouver Art Gallery,” discusses the Canada Council’s (CC) lack of support for the VAG before 1965 in relation to CC’s limited funds, and the limitations of the VAG Council’s ‘civic’ vision of the Arts in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This situation at the Gallery during this period is discussed in the context of Vancouver as a city with no art market, and as a place where only a handful of artists were able to teach. 33 The shift into becoming the most progressive gallery Wilcox (former visual arts officer for Canada Council) also states that it was 32 “Simmins irrepressible determination which made it subsequently possible for m e to change the priorities for art galleries in [CC’s] programs of assistance” (157). As one of four Canada Council (CC) recipients, the VAG received $68,000.00 in 1967, a substantial increase from the CC grant of $17,000. in 1965, and $38,000. in 1966. Tony Emery, stated in relation to the Raven exhibit, that its quality was of sufficient impact to generate this kind of support, and that much of the grant would go to offset the high cost of the Raven exhibit. The Province, (Aug. 15,  1967), n.p.  Despite the VAG’s “success,” a 1967 artscanada article, described Vancouver as a 33  regional centre with no collectors, no commercial galleries (at least none that fulfilled the function of the Ferus or the Dwan Galleries in Los Angeles), except for the Douglas Christmas Gallery. It describes Doris Shadbolt (temporary Director of the VAG) and Alvin Balkin (Director of the UBC Fine Arts Gallery) as two of the few forward looking individuals who were working toward making their respective galleries centres for younger artists in Vancouver. “Vancouver: scene with no scene,” artscanada, vol. 24 No. 6, 7 (June/July 1967), 2-8.  36 in Canada, as Harris writes, takes place in the juncture between a civic gallery’s route to survival (after Simmins arrives on the scene), and the federal government’s desire for an increased role in the nations’ cultural life (Harris 1985, 70). The Liberal party’s focus on culture in the sixties was examined by David Howard in his unpublished thesis, “Progress in the Age of Rigor Mortis”, in which he asserts that federal support for cultural projects was a strategy to create a federalist ideology that would address regional and cultural disparities and provide an alternative to ‘colonialist’ American influence (Howard 1986, 112) (This will be more thoroughly discussed in Chapter Three). Given this, the Canada Council funding made available to VAG in 1966 and 1967, had as much to do with federal restructuring of cultural policy in 1963 as part of a nationalist agenda, and the formation of the Secretary of State (under which Canada Council began receiving Parliamentary appropriations in 1965) (Harris 1985, 69-73), as it did with the vision of Richard Simmins.  Internationalism In a preview of the exhibit, Holm drew attention to the fact that  “.  .  .  one  important by-product of Arts of the Raven will be a new realisation of the actual person among the hitherto faceless artists of the world’s non-literate cultures .“.  Holm then referred to the “versatile Haida master, Charles Edenshaw” who  died in 1924, and linked him to the exhibit’s “contemporary artists” (Holm 196Th, 4). Yet, ironically, none of the contemporary master artists were identified by name, which raises the question, whose name and position were the exhibit organisers trying to legitimise--Northwest Coast First Nations artists, or the individuals who sought to establish the legitimacy of a modernist paradigm for a hitherto, unrecognised quality art form to be exhibited in a gallery committed to “getting out of the kids league”? In the above review, one of Holm’s concerns  37 was that the recognition of the aesthetic qualities of Northwest Coast art had not yet been established, pointing to a major art museum’s refusal of a proffered gift of a private collection of Pacific Northwest Coast Indian art. Clearly, institutional processes (educative, literary and scholarly apparatus), as well as media coverage, would be required to establish and sustain a shifting inventory of Northwest Coast “Indians” and their material culture to the new category of Indian-master and masterworks. The VAG’s cultural claim for ascendancy was to be realised in part through the international dissemination of the exhibit’s catalogue, which explained the aesthetic and scholarly criteria for “quality” Northwest Coast art. While this exhibition will coincide with and constitute a major celebration in this country of the Canadian centennial, the exhibit is planned as an event of international significance,. [comprised of objects] selected on the basis of aesthetic criteria .The scholarly catalogue which we will produce will be distributed to galleries, museums, libraries, and to other centres on this continent and abroad, giving the exhibition permanent form and extending its significance. 34 .  .  .  .  .  Of course, a crucial contribution to the ‘scholarly catalogue’ was Bill Holm’s text Northwest Coast Indian Art: An Analysis of Form (1965). This catalogue that was  to ‘give the exhibition permanent form and extend its significance’ was sent to the New York Times and Art News. According to Joan Lowndes, art critic for Pacific Press in Vancouver, the responses that the catalogue elicited from art critics John Canaday and Edouard Roditi, attested to the VAG’s ability to mount a show of international calibre, declaring the VAG’s need for a space commensurate with its merits and the importance of Vancouver (1983, n.p.). The Province  ,  a Vancouver newspaper, also proclaimed in 1967 that the acclaim  for the show by New York critic, Canaday was “[piroof of Vancouver Art Gallery’s increased stature and its ability to mount an original exhibition of  Doris Shadbolt, Draft form letter for request for loan of collections to the 34 exhibit. VAG Archives, Box A-102.  38 international standards”. However, Canaday, like Hoim, focused his discussion on the art style and its form. None of the craftsmen/master artists’ works shown in the contemporary gallery of the Raven exhibit, were identified or discussed in this review. Canaday’s recognition of Northwest Coast material culture as fine art, was therefore only a partial recognition; one that maintained marginalization by refusing a contemporary present for First Nations peoples, but recognised the potential for positioning this “style” of a formal art practice in 35 the canons of western art history. At the same time that this exhibit sought to produce an international audience for Northwest Coast Indian art, some of those same objects still had currency as regional, provincial and national promotions for tourism, as relics, as scientific evidence of Canada and/or British Columbia’s archaeological past, as a provincial or Canadian heritage that translated into logos for corporations and public institutions, as handicraft or tourist art, as ethnology, as Indian art, and, to a limited degree, Primitive art. Despite the ambitious objectives of all the stakeholders in the Raven exhibition to rework Northwest Coast objects into something different, they were, nevertheless, objects of extremely diverse origin that had to be accounted for. An examination of a series of changes made to the Raven exhibit’s working title partially reveals the way in which the exhibit organisers attempted to  35 Coptic, Not Melanesian, Not Even African,” New York Times, (Sept. 3, 1967), ”Not n.p. Ironically, although many of the newspaper articles written about the Arts of the Raven exhibit refer to Canaday’s review of the show and the attention he pays to the Canadian exhibit, his review is framed within the boundaries of the  U.S.. The image used to illustrate his article is a Tlingit mask from Alaska. He locates the NWC between the Northern and Southern points of the Alaskan panhandle and Washington’s Puget Sound. He also compares the show to the 1962  exhibition of Northwest Coast “Masterworks” at the World’s fair in Seattle. By referring to the fact that only 3 of the 27 private collectors represented were from New York, and that NWC art is all but unheard of by Europeans (but would be a revelation in the international arena), Canaday implied that Canadian representation of NWC art could easily be an American one--if the right collectors took an interest. Further, he intimates that Canadians have been remiss in recognizing an existing art form in their own country.  39 address their own struggle with changing definitions and conventions regarding “the Indian” among anthropologists and art historians. The initial proposal for the exhibit in the Summer of 1966 had been entitled, People of the Salmon and 36 Privileging an ethnological context, the title was incongruous with the Cedar. the Raven exhibit’s goals to focus on Northwest Coast art, nor did it “go farther” than the earlier shows’ focus on an ethnological context for the ‘art’. In a draft letter to Dr H. L. Shapiro, Chairman of The American Museum of Natural History in New York, D. Shadbolt suggested that Reid “ask Wilson [Duff] and Richard [Simmins] et. al, about the title, Legacy of the Raven”. 37 However, hard copy of the letter to Shapiro dated December 6, 1966 refers to the show as,  Creatures of the Raven: Masterworks of West Coast Indian Art. And in a December 14, 1966 draft cover letter to potential lenders, the space for a possible title is left blank. 38 The title, Legacy of the Raven  ,  does not specifically refer to  what the significance of the “Raven” was --although all of those involved in 39 planning the show may have understood that a reference to masterworks or art would follow the first phrase. In the next suggested title, Creatures of the Raven: Masterworks of West Coast Indian Art, beginning the first phrase with ‘Creature’ puts stress on the art’s difference, rather than Art itself, and infers a relationship  Draft cover letter to potential lenders states, “We first wrote last summer 36 concerning a major exhibition of West Coast Indian art... .Formerly referred to as People of the Salmon and the Cedar, the title of the exhibition will be [this section is left blank]” (Dec. 14, 1966). VAG Archives, Box A-102. ...  37 final page “p.s., Bill...and try ‘Legacy of the Raven’ on Wilson, Richard, et See a!.” (letter is cc: Bill Reid) VAG Archives, Box A-102. 38 January 1967 edition of artscanada refers to the exhibit as “People of the The Salmon and the Cedar, a major northwest-coast Indian art exhibition”. See also: Barry Lord. “The Birthday Party,” artscanada, (January, 1967), 2. ”me significance of the raven in terms of Northwest coast oral histories was its 39 depiction as a transformer, or trickster. Whereas the Eagle didn’t really do much  other than sitting around looking important.” Bill Reid. (private conversation, July 8, 1993). Raven mythologies also were included on didactic panels in the orientation  gallery.  40 between creatures and masterworks that emerges from an established art category (Indian art). Whereas, Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian  ,  directs attention to the relationship between “Art” derived from a  ‘different’ culture, and the universal or international category of Masterworks. In the second phrase,.  .  .  by the Northwest Coast Indian, the definite article “the”  refers to a specific Indian--albeit, one that calls up both the individual Indian and a singular, homogenous group entity. The masterworks are made b this particular subject, which is different than the previous title, which infers that masterworks simply evolve out f the Indian art category. The grammatical structure of the final title puts its initial emphasis on the Arts of the Raven; while this art is different, it is still linked to the universal category of Masterworks. Interestingly, Northwest Coast Masterworks are created by an Indian with agency, but who still is not in the subject position. At the same time that the Raven exhibit organisers sought to establish a lineage of de-politicized Indian-master artists “more concerned with formalist aesthetics and design than the socio-political significance of the objects they were producing” (p.14 above), the “international style” of Abstract Expressionism and the hierarchical notions surrounding fine art, were being challenged. For example, in Canada in 1967, regionalist artist, Greg Curnoe was concerned with “getting as far away from ‘fine art’ as possible, and was opposed to imitating any international school, before [Canadians] had experienced it themselves” ° That same year, a painting by Claude Breeze, Sunday 4 (paraphrased). Afternoon: From an Old American Photograph (1965), which depicted African Americans who had been lynched, created a furor when it was produced in artscanada (Silcox 1983, 156). According to an artscanada article dealing with the Vancouver art scene, ‘avante-garde’ artists, such as Gary Lee Nova parodically criticized the “uptightness with which the most advanced art in New York Woodman. 40  artscanada. vol. 24, No. 8/9, (August/September, 1967) n.p.  41 niggles with problems of flatness [in] a genuine search for convincing alternatives”. Ian Baxter’s McLuhanesque, photography-based work provided a critique of what an artist was, and Michael Morris parodied the concerns of all shaped canvas artists (vol.24, No. 6,7, June/July 1967: 7, 8). While the above artists work can be described as positioned against the rigidity and prescriptive rules of formalism, as protesting social injustice, and producing works which sought to explode the hierachy of fine art, the New York School’s formal aesthetic values still-informed art historical discourse (See footnote 75). As in any self-reflexive or parodic approach, the artists both engage in a critique while acknowledging in their work the history it emerges out of--a history that was firmly in place, unlike the work of the Northwest Coast Indian-master artist whose curatorial histories were just being established. By the 1960s, the formalist discourse that art historians such as William Rubin, Alfred Barr, John Rewald and art critic, Clement Greenberg had mapped out, had become prescriptive, reductive, easily digestible and subject to the machine of mass culture. In other words, it ceased to call up its particular historical reasons for being, and had become a predictable formula. Yet as Thomas Crow asserts: Greenberg’s critics have almost exclusively focused on the prescriptive outcome of his analysis and there is some justice in this in that since 1950 or so Greenberg himself has been rather myopically enamored with those prescriptions which push aside the initial logic of his criticism and the particular urgency that prompted it (237). .  .  .  Here, Crow refers to the highly political historic circumstances that Greenberg first sought to address, in which he argued for the necessity of creating an ‘art for art’s sake’ that was asocial and apolitical. As writers, Franscina and Harrison have observed, Greenberg issued a call for a particular kind of art, one which could not be appropriated to political agendas; and he did so within the complexity of a particular historical moment concerned with political issues such  42 as Trotskyism, Communism, Fascism, Democracy and the Cold War (1982, 98, 99). However, as Crow asserts above, the complex socio-political history of the development of a “Greenbergian” form of modernism had become prescriptive, at once digestible and of “superior status”. This was the theoretical underpinning of a formalist modernism that informed Holm’s analysis of Northwest Coast fine art. Overlaid onto First Nations images, the formal language produced a hybrid object that did not, and could not, refer to “the initial logic” of modernism’s inception. Correspondingly, Northwest Coast material cultural objects as “Canadian art, fine art, modern art” could not refer to the complex layered histories out of which they emerged, confined as they were to “Greenbergian modernism’s” rules: art is about itself, cannot refer to objects, (textual or oral) narratives, or the politics of the “real” world. Impotent and  silenced, Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian, initially did not speak to the strength of the oral socio-political histories, institutions, rituals, social hierarchies, laws, territories, rights and privileges, and languages of Northwest Coast First Nations peoples--past or present. Contained and de limited by what would later become a prescriptive formula for good, or quality, Northwest Coast art, an evacuated formalist modernist discourse held the hybrid objects in suspension in the apolitical, asocial and bourgeois void of an international arena--an arena to which most First Nations artists would not have access. When individuated Northwest Coast Indian art made its debut in the international arena in 1967, most Native artists did not have agency as representatives of Northwest Coast Native cultures within institutional practice in British Columbia. Even eleven years later, very few First Nations artists had been privileged enough to enter the realm of the international artist. In October of 1978, a Toronto-based art consultant told Native artists at the first National  43 Native Artists Conference held on Manitoulin Island that, “To survive in the international art world you have to fight a very difficult fight. You have to be an individual and a master first” (Lazore 1978, 83).41 Perhaps more importantly, in a review of the First National Native Artists’ Conference, the writer observed that the agenda topics (international marketing, self-management and the legal and business aspects of art) “were in the distant future for the majority of the participants”; Hill referred to one artist, who stated that “he hoped that he would be successful enough.  .  .  to encounter some of the problems being discussed by  the resource people” (Hill 1978b, 37).  Exhibit Programming The social positions of Native people in relation to Euro-Canadian society in 1967 was implicit in the contrast between the “lectures” given by the experts who were associated with institutions and particular academic disciplines, and the Native “storytellers” whose programmed audience were children. The “experts” spoke at MOA and at the VAG about a form of universal art, Indian/High Art. The two “story tellers” were Simon Baker (described as appearing in Coast Salish ) and Mrs Dorothy Francis, from the Salteaux Nation. Significantly, 42 “costume” both of these individuals told their “stories” in the children’s gallery, which had been converted into an “Indian longhouse setting”. According to newspaper accounts and advertisements, they both enthralled and delighted children with stories and legends of the days when only Indians lived in B.C.. Implicit in an  1n the same periodical in “A Retrospect of Indian Art,” Tom Hill discusses First 41 Nations artists, Arthur Shilling and Clifford Maracle’s recognition that, “they couldn’t. make it now selling themselves as Indians, that to sell themselves, they had to be an individual and they could not sell their paintings under some sort of label called Indian art. They had to sell it under their names” (37). 42 Storyteller at the Art Gallery,” Western News & Advertiser, (Jul. 20, ”Indian 1967), n.p. See also, Fig. 18, where Shadbolt and Baker are discussing Baker’s ‘costume’. The reference to regalia and native dress as costume associates contemporary ‘difference’ with theatre, storytelling, or fiction.  44 exhibition that featured contemporary speaking Indian subjects, who only told tales of the past in a staged setting, and which focused on creating a curatorial history for an artist who died early in the 20th century, was that First Nations peoples were not recognised authorities of their own culture and history. In other words, when aboriginal life (past and present) was related by the experts, it was culture and history; when Native peoples spoke, it was legend, myth and story. When B.C. Hydro advertiser, The Buzzer, advertised the exhibit and some of its programmes, it referred to Salish Chief Simon Baker and Dorothy Francis! program at the VAG with a cartoon of a chief in the ‘Tribal Legend Corner’ who scared the audience with ‘supernatural’ tales. In contrast, the text below the cartoon, advertised the exhibit as “honour[ing] the one hundredth anniversary of Canadian Confederation  .  .  .  and the important Native cultural heritage of  [the] province”. However, accepted attitudes toward contemporary Native people in contrast to the honourable place the “past Native cultural heritage” of British Columbia held, is painfully reinforced where on the last page appears a ‘joke’ about a cute Indian waitress and a buck (Fig. 20).  Summary The above discussion of the VAG’s attempt 43 to make a significant contribution to the shift from ethnology to art has not been an argument for the appropriation and transference of First Nations material culture into a fixed centre. Rather, I ”Attempt” because the question of what constitutes “Indian” art 43  was a question  that was raised at the 1978 National Native Artists’ Conference and which remains  to some degree today. Regarding “Indian art”, Aaron Milrad a lawyer and board member of the Art Gallery of Ontario stated at the Conference in 1978: “The Art Gallery of Ontario has made a specific determination that they will not collect Indian or Inuit art as ethnological art. Ethnological art does not belong in an art museum... .It has been the policy of the National Gallery to allow the Museum of Man to look after indigenous art and the National Gallery to look after the rest of the art fields... .1 think representation should be made to transfer some of the fine artistic works from the Museum of Man to the National Gallery... .it is really up to  [Native people] to do something about it”. Bunny Sicard, “Lack of Native Art in Art Gallery of Ontario,” The Native Perspective (vol. 3, No. 2, 1978), 79. The National Gallery held and exhibit of works by artists of Native artistry, entitled, “Land Spirit Power” in the Summer of 1992.  45 have attempted to anthropologise the way in which the Arts of the Raven exhibit manifested the reproduction and consumption of the west’s own discourses of difference. While recognizing that interest in the Northwest Coast Indian is at once complex, subjective, historical, individual and institutional, and cannot be reduced to any one perspective, I believe that one of the purposes  that Masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian served was to create a space for those who sought an established place for themselves and the galleries, museums and collections that they represented. While western institutions and practice are not monoliths that have the power to erase or reconstitute First Nations peoples at will, in the intertextual or interdisciplinary shift of one western discipline to another, the exhibit organisers had to deal with the classification “Indian”, which was already fettered with meanings from the disciplines of archaeology, anthropology, ethnology and law, as well as the public sphere.  /  46 CHAPTER TWO The Nationalised Indian  Equality and human rights had become central issues for the Canadian government in the 1950s and the 1960s, and were formally addressed in Parliament due to public concern at regional, national and international levels. The Conservative government played a leading role in condemning South Africa’s apartheid policy in 1959. For Aboriginal people in Canada, the decade of the sixties began with legislation, ratified on January 8, 1960, which gave status or registered Indians the right to vote federally for the first time. This legislation ostensibly changed First Nations Peoples’ position in society to citizens who would have equal opportunity to ‘integrate’ into Canadian society. This legislation evolved out of a long history of pressure at regional and national levels from public interest groups, such as, The Indian and Eskimo Association of Canada (TEA), 44 and from some First Nations leaders, particularly those from British Columbia, who had not yet established treaties with the federal or provincial governments 45. While the federal vote would ostensibly provide  44 there were a few native peoples on the executive, lEA was a mostly Although non-Native, Toronto-based support group that emerged out of the Canadian Association for Adult Education. lEA was responsible for the most systematic public efforts to foster research and produce information on Indians in the sixties. Although lEA initially played an important and supportive role to First Nations provincial organizations and to the “Indian cause”, its interests were not necessarily those of First Nations leaders and their constituents. lEA was urged to play a •supportive role after 1969, rather than a spokesperson-role (Weaver 1981, 12, 18, 42, 43). 45 The Native Voice (Vancouver). From its first issue in 1946 through to the late See, sixties the journal was used as a vehicle to express the socio-political concerns of First Nations leaders as they were related to the land question and the right to selfdetermination. See especially, “The Indians Act and The Indian Act” Dec. 1946, 1, 7 which discusses the disparity between Canada as a democratic state and the conditions under which First Nations peoples lived, and the need to revise the Indian Act, aiid “Ottawa Hearing Lifts ‘Iron Curtain” by Leonora McNeilly, Toronto Saturday Night, Feb. 21, 1948 in The Native Voice, (Mar. 1948), 5 for a discussion concerning the shocking living conditions on reserves. Infant mortality was 132 per 1000 vs. 49 per 1000 for Canadians; tuberculosis mortality was 5,792 per 100,000 vs. 42.2 per 100,000 for Canadians. The article also discusses the “backwardness” of the Indian, comparing  47 registered Indians with equal opportunity and access to democratic process, it also provided the Canadian government with an ideal (abstract) international 46 in terms of law and policy that did not exist in fact. profile In.the 1960s, the images and meanings that the term Indian called up were framed, to some degree, within the reassessment of the historical relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples. In an era where issues of equality and Indians who have not “adapted” (about 140,000 living on reserves) with Indians who have: Dr. Oronhyatekha (Oxford graduate), Pauline Johnson (Poet), Brigadier Oliver Martin (Police Magistrate), Dr. Elmer Jamiseson (Head of Dept. of Physics), Chief Oskenonton, a singer who has performed in all the art centre of Europe, all of whom “point to the Indian’s successful competition with the white man given equal opportunities”. “Indians and the Vote” July 1948, 2, 15, 16 is an overview of  discussions by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons as to whether the Indians should be given the vote. The discussion revolves around the ultimate goal of assimilation for different kinds of Indians who the committee identified as being at various stages of “civilization”. “Lend us your Vote” Feb. 1949, 10 is a discussion of the federal vote and social services, and the fact that there was no  First Nations representation on the Joint Committee. “B.C. Indians of Today” June 1949, 16 discusses the differences in the concerns of all the “different” Indians in the province, and the above stated issues. “Native Unite” July 1949, 4 discusses treaty and non-treaty Indians and the treaty Indians’ concern that they would lose their special rights by accepting the same position of citizenship of other Canadians. This article calls for Indians to unify as other oppressed people all over the globe have in order to throw off “their shackles”. It also advises First Nations in each province to handle their own affairs so as not to impede non-treaty Nations’ struggle’s for Canadian equality. “History of Fight for Indian Land” Feb. 1959, 4,5 is a detailed discussion of provincial/federal government’s legal responsibility to honour aboriginal title. “Native Indians Granted Full Citizen ship Rights,” (Special Edition). Feb. 1960, 1+. This article discusses the history of securing the vote but is not as comprehensive as the articles in preceding years. 46 a speech to the House of Commons, by Prime Minister John 6. Diefenbaker 1n stated that, [W}herever I went last year on the occasion of my trip to the Commonwealth countries, it was brought to my attention that in Canada the original people within our country, excepting for a qualified class, were denied the right to vote. I saw that so far as this long overdue measure is concerned, it will remove everywhere in the world any suggestion that colour or race places any citizen in our country in a lower category than the other citizens of our country (House of Commons, January 18, 1960, qtd. in “Native Indians Granted Full Citizenship Rights,” Special Edition. The Native Voice, February, 1960, 1; emphasis mine). That same year at the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Canadian government adopted “A Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial  Countries and Peoples” which recognized the “necessity of bringing to a speedy and  unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations” Within this context, it is of note that the Indian vote was put forward as a racial issue, rather than one of colonialism, which would have been a national and international issue, addressed through law (as aboriginal title eventually was).  48 human rights had centre stage, the IndianH entered into public consciousness through a chorus of increasing criticism of government policy by public interest groups that compared Indian Reserves 47 with ‘ghettos and segregation’. The “Indian”, as a sign of the failure of Canada’s democratic process, and/or the object of social or philanthropic concern, meant that issues defined by First Nations which they had been attempting to address for years, finally received some attention during the “rediscovery of the Indian” period, which was sponsored primarily through funding from the federal government, universities and foundations. Comparisons, for example, which compared Indian Reserves with ghettos, were informed and stimulated by civil rights and anti-poverty movements in the United States; however this interest also provided First Nations and Metis leaders with a limited platform for the “Indian cause,” as did the emerging nationalism of third-world countries. However, it is important to note that although there was wide public interest in “the Indian”, there was little substantive published information on Native peoples in general, either nationally or provincially. 48 Media coverage of, and public interest in First Nations peoples was therefore largely uninformed. In this historical context, and in a period when technology and education were receiving so much public attention, an exhibit such as Arts of the Raven would play an important role in filling the knowledge gap about “Indians”. The positions taken by the curators, as individuals who were identified as authorities of Northwest Coast culture, would hold much weight regarding the past and contemporary histories of Northwest Coast first nations peoples. lndian Reserves are commonly referred to as “reserves”, and will be referred to 47 as such throughout the thesis, both in my own text and in many of the quotes.  48 relevant data by government personnel] and academics on Indians [Nationally] were almost non-existent (Weaver 1976, 18, 53-55). Commenting on the provincial situation, Paul Tennant notes, “from 1890-1960, Indians were of little concern to whites. Non-native politicians were poorly informed about Indians. Until after WW II, in British Columbia, racial fears and anxieties were focused on the Chinese and Japanese” (Tennant 1990, 74).  49 The images of “the Indian” in the 1960s, and the meanings they called up, were different than those that had currency after World War II, when registered Indians were legally designated “non-persons”, and as wards of the federal government were not entitled to vote. Many First Nations at the time, especially in British Columbia, expressed their concern about their human rights on the platform of “No taxation without representation”--a quote from the U.S. 49 For example, in 1946 the Native Voice newspaper (Vancouver, revolution. ° referred to First Nations peoples “prisoners in their own homeland”, and 5 B.C.) Canada as a country that “enslaved” the First Canadians under the guise of democracy and freedom (Fig. 21), in reference to the fact that Native people did not yet have the vote (December 1946, 1). In response to public interest in “Canada’s Indians”, the 1947 Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons was appointed to act on a “new deal” for the Indian through revisions to the Indian Act. While First Nations leaders voiced their concerns before the 1947 Joint Committee, it was the anthropologists’ recommendations “for programs of forced assimilation” that gained the most receptive hearing by the parliamentarians (Dyck and Waidram 1993, 9). In fact, few First Nations leaders’ concerns regarding education, taxation, social services and laws pertaining to the Indian Act 51 were addressed then or after Indians were granted the provincial vote in 1949, or the federal vote in 1960 (Fig.s 22 & 23).  This platform was referred to by some parliamentarians as a concern of the 49 “more cultured Indians who will be paying most of the tax, because in ordinary circumstances the more cultured among them have higher incomes” (The Native Voice July 1948, 2, 15, 16). Since all First Nations paid tax except for income on reserve land--where there was little economic development, and thus few wages to pay tax on--those who were considered the “more cultured Indians”, who paid “most of the tax”, would have secured their income off-reserve. Thus being “more cultured” meant being in a higher income bracket, and being more like Euro  Canadians. The only First Nations newspaper in Canada and British Columbia at the time. 50 One of the first Native newspapers on the West Coast, entitled Hagaga, was  published in 1891 by the Nisga’a. It was used for discussing the Land Question.  50  While Native leaders continued to seek legal recognition for existing treaty rights, the right to self-determination and aboriginal title as a means to address their social conditions, the elected Liberal government in 1967 determined to address the symptom of colonialism--Indian poverty--through federally developed and managed economic development projects and social welfare programs. At the same time, the federal government recognised Native culture as part of a larger strategy to focus on culture as the means for creating a federalist ideology that both contained and encouraged regional diversity. This federal strategy would stress allegiances both to particular regions and to the federal state. In an unpublished paper, “The Shadow of Bureaucracy: Culture in Indian Affairs”, Serge Bouchard and Ignatius E. La Rusic discuss how, in 1964, the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) adopted the concept of using “Indian cultures” in the development of their programmes. DIA’s position was that an Indian who has a firm base in his own culture, and who has been given the opportunity to acquire a solid understanding of the traditions and values of that culture, is much more willing to participate in a larger society (1981,3,4). The catch was that “Indian culture” was never clearly defined when it was tacked onto a federal programme. According to Bouchard and La Rusic, the presentation of Indian cultures as “local colour.  .  .  tradition or folklore.  .  .  [provided a way for  DIA to side-step] any connection between the notion of culture and a political identity” (Ibid.). For example, in the booklet, Canada’s Indians and the Centennial: A Guide to Indian Events in 1967 (Fig. 24 & 25), the image of an  Indian child signifies the historical relationship between the paternalistic government and its “childlike ward”: the big doll-like eyes, buckskin dress,  51  discussions about including the Indians under the Hospital Insurance Act were instituted in 1949, issues concerning education did not begin to be addressed until the 1950s. Public schools were not open to Indians until after they were granted the federal vote in 1960. For a discussion of First Nations and the public school system, see Jean Barman, Yvonne Hebert, and Don McCaskill. Indian Education in Canada. Volume One: The Legacy (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1987).  51 headband and feather call up curio images commonly used as promotion for tourism and other purposes. The use of the most salient features of being Indian inside the catalogue--drum, tee-pee, birch bark canoe, Plains head-dress and a Mohawk hairdo--completes the cultural image of Canada’s (singular) Indian, predominantly represented as a child who is in need of care and government intervention. Inside the cover, Indian cultural projects ranged from “art galleries, museums and monuments” built through the cooperation of “Indian people with the Centennial Commission”, to projects that focused on the rich heritage of Indian customs, legends, stories, songs and dances.  .  .  emphasis[ing]  the indispensable contribution that Canada’s Indians made in helping build the nation “(Fig. 24). Implicit in the booklet’s theme of a childlike subject and Indian culture is a depoliticised and dependent subject, whose “successful integration” into Canadian culture is signaled through the adoption and support of EuroCanadian cultural edifices. In the 1960s, the image of the “Indian” as a shifting sign, was produced in the media as, at once, economically impoverished and as part of Canada’s rich cultural heritage. Within the context of public concern about equality, vis-à-vis the ‘War on Poverty’, the Arts of the Raven exhibit’s representation of the richness of Northwest Coast Indian culture defined in western terms could be seen as a strategy to elevate the image of the Northwest Coast Indian, and to elicit a more favorable social response by the public toward Native peoples. However, the limitations of the Arts of the Raven exhibit’s construction of a depoliticised subject and culture as a strategy for change, raises the question, who had agency in defining the Northwest coast Indian identity represented in the exhibit? In a newspaper editorial columnist Jack Wasserman noted that on the opening night of the exhibit “nobody thought to ask any of the descendants of the original inhabitants who were involved to join the roster of speakers”; one Native leader, Guy Williams, responded to the omission with: “too many chiefs. No  52  52 In fact, many Northwest Coast and Interior Native leaders were Indians”. declaring a different reality for First Nations peoples in the place now called British Columbia, which existed outside the bounds of the so-called disinterestedness of western class and taste, and government definitions of Indians and their cultures. However, these leaders spoke their reality amidst many and varied, and often contesting, Indian voices. Before discussing the situation these leaders sought to address in contrast to the Indian” that the Raven exhibit organisers constructed, it is necessary to understand the complexity of what it meant to be (named) Indian. Such an understanding will frame the argument presented in Chapter Four, which deals primarily with Northwest Coast Native peoples (whose cultures were represented in the Arts of the Raven exhibit) and their elected leaders, most of whom lived on a reserve, were status (registered) Indians who had not yet established aboriginal title through treaty negotiation with the provincial and federal governments. These peoples, however, had a different position both in relation to aboriginal people not considered Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act, and in relation to First Nations who had established treaties with the Canadian government.  The Indian Act, its Indians and aboriginal title The following discussion considers what being identified as Indian, or identifying things as Indian, might have meant when the Raven exhibit was produced, in terms of existing legal and social definitions and the way in which First Nations people defined themselves. The premise for this discussion is that all groups or individuals legally and/or socially recognised as “Indians” were implicated as referents in the Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest  Coast Indian (emphasis mine). As such, it provides a context for some of the  The Vancouver Sun. n.d., n.p. VAG Archives, Box A-102. 52  53  historic, social and political forces that may have molded the consciousnes s of those who produced and/or participated in the Arts of the Raven exhibit as curators, designers, contributing artists, its audience and those who ratified  it as a  legitimate project--or not. At the same time, I acknowledge that diverse Nations of aboriginal peoples cannot be contained or explained solely in relation to the political and social corollaries that the term “Indian” might impose. As the legislative vehicle for administering Indians and Indian lands, the Indian Act defined the parameters of those who could be legally defined and recognised by the Canadian Government as “Indians”. From its inception as the 1850 Land Act and the 1857 and 1859 Civilization and Enfranchisement Act, the Indian Act’s central purpose has been--ostensibly--to “protect” Indian 53 lands. This it did, by creating Indian Reserves and limiting their occupation to only those who could trace descent through a patrilineal line to 1874. Federally imposed forms of governance for reserves were created as “Indian bands” with a municipal style “chief (mayor) and council”. In British Columbia, Indian Reserves and Band Administrations, by and large, were set up within First Nations’ traditional territory. According to Paul Tennant, professor of politic al science at the University of British Columbia, this facilitated the contin uance of traditional forms of governance within an imposed federal one, and the on going commitment of Native leaders’ to protecting traditional lands, of which the government-legislated “Indian Reserve” was only a part (1990, 9, 26-29, 71). An “Indian” within the meaning of the Indian Act was and still is a legal entity registered with and defined by the state in terms of race, blood quantum and, until 1985, only through legitimate male 54 lineage. The legal designation The Historical Development of the Indian Act. Policy, Planning and 53 Research Branch, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, January 1975. See Janet Silman, Enough is Enough: Aboriginal Women Speak Out, 54 (Toron Women’s Press, 1987). Several aboriginal women recount how they challen to: ged the Indian Act, which defined Indians in terms of their relationship to “a male person who is a direct descendent in the male line of a male person”. This law strippe d  54 (which included being defined as “non-persons”) had to do with government officials’ belief that all aboriginal people would eventually assimilate into EuroCanadian society. In the 1960s, issues of race in relation to Indians called up words such as ghettos and segregation, which in the U.S. context had created laws and policies designed to keep African Americans separate. In contrast, in Canada, the official federal policy for the Indian was assimilation. This goal required first legislating legal terms to identify Indians as separate and apart in order to assimilate them through the process of “enfranchisement”. The legal process of enfranchisement meant that an Indian would “surrender his (sic) special legal status as an Indian and join the Canadian community at large.  ...  [and] not be an Indian within the meaning of this Act”  (Cumming and Mickenberg 1980, 7). However, the legal equality that enfranchisement guaranteed did not often ensue in fact. Most Native people who became enfranchised were still visually identifiable as aboriginal peoples, and thus faced racial discrimination in public establishments and institutions. Furthermore, without registered status, they did not figure into the government’s public concern for the Indian, nor were they recognised as legal actors in the yet-to-be-addressed land question in British Colum 55 bia. women of Indian status if they married other non-status Indians or non-Indians. On the other hand if a non-native woman married an Indian man she became a status Indian. In 1985 Bill C-31 was tabled with amendments on May 6 and finalized in June of 1985, giving status back to anyone who had lost it for any reason. Bands were also given the right for the first time to determine their own membership,  with the exception of reinstating former members.  Two examples of contrasting positions to the federal government’s are those of 55  the Nisga’a and the Haida. The Nisga’a Tribal Council stated in 1976 that it “does not recognize the artificial barriers of the Indian Act between status and non-status Indians. There are no non-status Nis[ga’a]” Citizens Plus: The Nishga people of the  Naas River in Northwestern British Columbia (New Aiyansh: Nishga Tribal  Council, 1976) 3. A more recent booklet refers to the Nisga’a population at specific locations within their traditional territory and adds, “Another 3,500 live  elsewhere in Canada and around the world”. Nisga’a: People of the mighty river (New Aiyanch: Nisga’a Tribal Council, 1992), N. pag. In Article II, S.2 of the Haida Constitution it states that, “All people of Haida Ancestry are citizens of the Haida Nation” (1987). However, the reality is even status Indians living off reserve are  not legally entitled to vote for Band Councils, and they do not have the access to funding• for education and other aboriginal rights that persons residing on-  55 Treaties between the Government of Canada and First Nations have always been based upon recognition of “aboriginal title” as evident by the First Nations signatories on existing treaties. 56 The origin and recognition of aboriginal title dates back to the early acknowledgment by colonising countries that aboriginal peoples “had institutions of their own and governed themselves by their own 57 In Canada, aboriginal land ownership and authority was set out in the laws”. Royal Proclamation of 1763, and recognised by the Crown as continuing under British sovereignty. While the courts have had to consider, in particular cases, whether or not title was taken away, 58 the “original use and occupation of the land has always been the legal foundation for the assertion of Native claims in Canada today” (Berger 1981, 56; emphasis added)”. Partly on the basis of this legal premise, Native leaders in the place now called British Columbia began an reserve do. Non-status Indians and Metis are not legally entitled to any treaty rights. See, Art is Never a Given: Professional Training in the Arts in Canada Report of the Task Force on Professional Training for the Cultural Sector in  Canada (Minster of Supply and Services Canada, 1991), 98.  ”Aboriginal rights” are derived from First Nations peoples’ original possession 56 of lands in what is now called North America. Cumming and Mickenberg describe U.S. Chief Justice Marshall’s assignment of aboriginal title early in the 19th  century, which forms the basis of the common law theory of aboriginal rights by the U.S. and by Canadian courts. They state, “an aboriginal claim was a legally recognized right to occupy those lands held by Indians from time immemorial. On discovery, the legal title or fee to the newly claimed land went to the discovering State, subject to this aboriginal right of occupancy. The Indians’ property right was further limited in that alienation could be made solely to the State or Crown. The Indian title could be destroyed (extinguished) by either conquest (cession) or by purchase”(1970, 21). These rights exist whether aboriginal peoples have been categorized as status or non-status Indians, (Eskimo) Inuit, or Metis--that is, they are not defined by the Indian Act. It is the recognition that Canadian and English law and policy have given to the principle that native people have a right to retain possession or be compensated for the loss of their aboriginally held land, which underlies and explains the complex legal theory of aboriginal rights (1970, 3).  Chief Justice Marshall. Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) 21 U.S. 543 qtd. in Thomas R. 57 Berger, “Wilson Duff and Native Land Claims,” The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff (Victoria: Morris Printing, 1981), 56. 58 Although “extinguishment” by “conquest or purchase” severely limited the  strength of claim to aboriginal title, [Chief Justice] Marshall reasoned that “the American Indian was savage and warlike. As such, the normal principles of international law whereby property rights in the acquired nation are respected simply could not apply” (Cummings and Mickenberg 1970), 18.  56 organised fight for recognition of aboriginal title, circa 1870, through treaty negotiations. At this time, the colonial government adopted and officially announced the policy for denying aboriginal title and seizing all territories for British Columbia without treaty or compe 59 nsation. However, by 1967 no treaties had yet been ° 6, and neither the British Columbia nor Canadian signed governments recognised aboriginal title or First Nations right to selfgovernment. The lack of a clear understanding as to what aboriginal title and rights were, is explained in part by lawyer and Native rights advocate, Thomas Berger: Our profession has too often demonstrated an incapacity to understand the fact that the native peoples had well-defined and sophisticated concepts of legal relations and legal rights.. judges and lawyers simply could not appreciate the fact that people without a written language may, nevertheless, have well-developed legal 61 concepts. .  See, The Native Voice (Feb. 1959), 4, 5 for a detailed discussion of 59 provincial/federal government’s legal responsibility to honour aboriginal title, and the historical development of aboriginal rights and title in British Columbia. Neither had any treaties been established with First Nations of Quebec, the 60 Maritime, the Yukon, and parts of the Northwest Territories at this time. As of December, 1990, “A Task Force was created ...by an agreement between representative of First Nations in British Columbia, the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada.. .We are convinced that the process must be open, fair and voluntary. The result of the negotiations must be set down in modern treaties, the blueprints for a new relationship” (First Nations Summit Memo to: All Tribal Councils [Leaders and Representatives], Independent Band Councils. July 22, 1993). 6156, 63. Although the Supreme Court of Canada found that the Nisga’a held aboriginal title, they disagreed on whether title had been extinguished between 1858 when the mainland Colony of British Columbia was established and Confederation in 1871, or whether title was still good at the time of the decision. See Thomas R. Berger, “Wilson Duff and Native Land Claims,” in The World is as Sharp as a Knife, (Victoria: Morris Printing, 1981). For a discussion of the Nisga’a dispute, see also Nisga’a: People of the mighty River (New Aiyansh: Nisga’a Tribal  Council, 1992), N. pag.  57 In fact, Canada’s highest court did not affirm the concept of aboriginal title until 1973 in the Nisg.a’a case of Calder v. Attorney-General of B.C. 62 It is important to note that the platform of aboriginal title was not accessible to all people of aboriginal ancestry. Enfranchised individuals, their non-status descendants or other Native people who did not meet government criteria for recognition of Indian status, did not have the venue, as did status First Nations leaders, to speak on issues of education, renewable resources, local government, law and order, and delivery of health and social services. 63 Metis writer, Howard Adams, describes the effects of being legally defined “mixed blood” in Prison of Grass: Canada From a Native Point of View (1975):  As Metis people we did not have a choice as to whether we would be Indians, whites or in between. The dominant society defined us as a distinct subordinated racial minority. The implication of “Metis” is that as native people we live half in the white world and half in the Indian world. Most of us live largely in an obscure marginal native society (7).64 “Mixed bloods”, were not only categorised as Metis. “Nomad” was the term used for mixed blood Inuit (Eskimo), or Indians who lived in the Northwest or Yukon territories. Nomads, like the Metis and other non-status Indians, were not considered Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act. (One wonders what they would have been called if they left the borders of the Northwest  As of 1982 treaties and aboriginal rights are protected under Section 35 of the 62 Constitution Act. See, Anonymous, The Report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force (1993), 17.  Many of these social and political rights are inherent aboriginal rights, some 63 are defined as “special rights” within the Indian Act and as established rights defined through treaties between the federal government and other First Nations.  64 The Metis are defined in Section 12 of the Indian Act as any person who received money scrip or half-breed lands as an alternative to treaty rights; this section specifically refers to the Metis in the Prairie provinces. Although many individuals who claim First Nations ancestry are excluded from the Act, the Act  cannot affect a person’s status as an Indian under the terms of the British North America Act (Cumming and Mickenberg 2nd ed., 1980), 6, 7. See also: Bruce Sealy. The Metis: Canada’s Forgotten People, (Winnipeg: Manitoba Metis Federation, 1975).  58 Territories?) Historically, registered Inuit were not subject to the provisions of the Indian Act until 1939 when the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Inuit were “Indians”, and as such, were the responsibility of the federal govern 65 ment. Interestingly, “Eskimo” art would be unproblematically exhibited as “masterworks” at the Vancouver Art Gallery in 1972,66 around the time that complex problems were being addressed concerning the legal definition and identification of Eskimo status, in relation to the Alaskan land claims settlement, and the legal protection of Inuit arts and crafts. 67 From these various communities and circumstances, many Native peoples moved to cities such as Vancouver. As in many other cities in Canada, social reserves emerged, whose adumbrated boundaries were circumscribed by ignorance, racism, fear and the hubristic assumptions of Euro-Canadian ideology. The existence of these unofficial reserves were denied under the guise of a supposed equality for all of those who made up Canada’s “multi-cultural mosaic”. Yet, as Howard Adams points out in his autobiographical sketch of Metis life in Canada (as do many other accoun 68 ts), many citizens of aboriginal  See Derek G. Smith, “The Emergence of ‘Eskimo Status’: An Examination of the 65 Eskimo Disk List System and Its Social Consequences, 1925-1970,” Anthropology, Public Policy, and Native Peoples in Canada, (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993) 64. Smith discusses the state identification system for Inuit peoples which was devised initially to facilitate medical records, but rapidly became a  comprehensive  administrative  system.  Sculpture of the Inuit: Masterworks of the Canadian Arctic (Nov. 10-Dec. 12, 66 Vancouver Art Gallery, 1972) As the first comprehensive presentation of Inuit Art, it included 405 works by 117 artist from “prehistoric” to present times. The  exhibit was curated by Doris Shadbolt in collaboration with George Swinton, James Houston and Barbara Tyler. Like the Arts of the Raven exhibit, it was the curators’ intention “to establish the high quality of this art among other art forms of the world and to demonstrate the quality which distinguishes the finest Eskimo carving from the vast production of souvenirs and craft items”. See Doris Shadbolt in Vancouver: Art and Artists, 1931 1983, (Exhibition Catalogue Oct. 15 Dec. 31, 1983), 338. -  -  Ibid 67 There are countless resource materials based on ethnological studies, personal 68 and historical narratives, documentaries, photo-histories, and so on that deal with the effects of colonialism on Native peoples. Two that deal with the late  59 ancestry had been shut out explicitly and implicitly from participating in a capital economy, from entering the public education system, or from entering public establishments and institutions, such as museums and galleries. In the “Summary and Conclusions” of a national survey prepared for DIA in 1967 entitled, Indians and the Law, the authors concluded that: Underlying all problems associated with Indians and Eskimos in this country are the prejudice and discrimination they meet in the attitude of non-Indians.. Few non-Indians would admit to feelings of prejudice against the Indian and Eskimo people because such views are no longer acceptable, but the facade of tolerance often vanishes when problems arise (emphasis 69 added). ..  The Diaspora of First Nations peoples created through the Department of Indian Affairs administration policies, Indian enfranchisement and other programs for ‘assimilation’ was such that by the 1960s, a multiplicity of aboriginal peoples with complex, layered histories formed heterogeneous and diverse groups. Some were status and non-status, treaty and non-treaty, living on and off reserve in rural and urban communities. Some commuted between the two--as did the Raven exhibit artists, Henry Hunt, Tony Hunt and Robert Davidson. While many First Nations people remained on reserve, others chose enfranchisement, believing it was the only possible way to live a decent life--as did Dorothy Francis, one of the exhibit “storytellers”. Yet she, like many others, continued to identify herself in relation to her traditional territories and cultures. Some others chose to integrate as fully as possible in “modern” Canadian society 70; still others did not self-consciously choose their place in society, but were born and raised sixties and early seventies are First Nations leader and activist, Harold Cardinal’s book, The Unjust Society: The Tragedy of Canada’s Indians, (Edmonton: M.G. Hurtig, 1969), and Heather Robertson’s, Reservations Are For Indians, (Toronto: James Lewis & Samuel, 1970). 69 Canad ian Corrections Association, Indians and the Law, (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1967), 55. Some historical analyses of Native politics draw a distinction between non70 status Indians who sought aboriginal rights and equality with non-natives, and registered Indians who sought human rights and ‘special status’ in relation to the land question.  60 within the unquestioned centricity of Euro-Canadian ideology and its liberal 71 This was the circumstance of Raven exhibit artist and curator, Bill values. Reid. Out of these existing groups, contemporary organisations were formed to address various concerns. For example in 1961, the National Indian Council was formed from a mostly urban membership of aboriginal peoples, through which it was hoped all Indians would be able to address their concerns and positions to the federal government. However, despite the government’s goals for unity--and initiatives by First Nations people to unite themselves--the social effects of institutionally imposed distinctions and aboriginal peoples’ diverse backgrounds made such a goal an unrealistic task. The National Indian Council was disbanded in 1968 because of strains between status and non-status interests, treaty and nontreaty (including Metis), and questions regarding the ability of the organisation to represent First Nations peoples on reserves and in rural areas. First Nations leader George Manuel, maintained that despite its problems, the National Indian The following is an excerpt, from the British Columbia Indian Advisory 71  Newsletter in 1963. The newspaper was designed to encourage communication between Native in B.C. and the provincial government. While a few of the articles in the paper are identified as written by First Nations representatives, most articles are unsigned. [‘Indians do nothing but drink and live off welfare’] is an old story often repeated.. .Because such false ideas are so common it is worthwhile for the Indian himself to know the other side of the story so that he can develop pride in the accomplishments of his peoples. Most Indians in this province do no fit this picture and many are outstanding citizens whose  contributions to life in the province in are as great as those of anyone else. Consider [so and so] the president of the integrated Princess Royal School Parent Teachers Association.. .member of the Nanaimo Council of Women and the District Safety Council. Her daughters...were the first Indian girls from Western Canada to be honoured as debutantes (for those of you who are a bit confused about “high society”, this means that they were  “presented” at the annual Navy League dance at Nanaimo where they were introduced to the Lieutenant-Governor. The tribal customs of whites are not always easy to explain or understand but this honour is a bit like receiving an important name at a potlatch” (Anonymous, Jan. 2, 1963). This comparison sets up a binary opposition between an Indian stereotype and an Indian citizen’s participation in Canadian cultural life--the point of reference for ‘pride in one’s accomplishments’ being Euro-Canadian traditions and values. The “patronizing” reference to the “tribal customs of whites” presumes that all cultures are mutually translatable.  61 Council served to bring First Nations leaders together from across the country, and within the provinces to discover their common interests. Clearly there was not a “unified” singular Indian political position, however, a shared resistance to the colonialism of the Canadian government was gaining momentum in the public sphere. 72 It must be noted that the following discussion of the way in which First Nations leaders represented their own cultures and their people as it is juxtaposed against the curatorial premise of the Raven exhibit organisers’ interpretations of Northwest Coast aboriginal culture, will be limited to a particular group of First Nations peoples and a particular political position. As discussed in Chapter One, the image the organisers of the Masterworks by the Northwest Coast Indian exhibit were attempting to produce was of an individual Indian more concerned with the aesthetics of “his” work than its socio-political significance. At the same time, curator and anthropologist Wilson Duff, wrote in the exhibit catalogue that “the old Indian cultures [were] dead”, meaning, of course, that the original socio-political, and spiritual significance of the crests and images no longer existed. Yet Duff played a central role as an “expert” witness in confirming the cultural legitimacy of the Nisga’a aboriginal title to traditional Nisga’a lands, which was affirmed in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973. Thomas Berger asserted that it was “Duff’s evidence that linked the past to the present”, and which most influenced the decision of Mr Justice Hall who concluded: The Nishgas in fact are and were from time immemorial a distinctive cultural entity with concepts of ownership indigenous to their culture and capable of articulation under the common law, having in the words of Dr. Duff, ‘developed their culture to higher peaks in many respects than in any other part of the continent North of Mexico’ (Berger 1981, 63).  See: Manuel and Posluns 1974, 167; and Cardinal 1969, 109-111. 72  62 Yet just two years after the landmark decision, Duff, as an expert consultant to an art exhibit, asserted that contemporary Indians in British Columbia did not know the meanings of their cultural heritage. In the exhibition catalogue for  Images: Stone: B.C.(1975), a “prehistoric stone sculpture” exhibit held at the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, British Columbia (where former VAG Director, Richard Simmins was now the director), Duff stated that the meanings of the stone images, including those collected in Nisga’a territory were “not known by the present generation of Indian people” (1975, 178-185).73 Through this position on the stones’ meanings--which the Nisga’a and Tsimshian people assert have been preserved through their oral histories--Duff revealed the interested nature of his work by reinforcing the authority of western science and his expertise as an archaeologist and anthropologist: [W]e do not have any way of knowing what the stone sculptures really ‘meant’ to their makers and users. We have not observed them in use, or known anybody who has. Nor do the present generation of Indian people, their more rightful inheritors, have any better way of knowing their deeper meanings. The best we can do is make surmises, based upon what we know from archaeology, ethnography, and mythology, upon parallels with other objects of better known use and meaning, and upon our own perceptions of the images themselves the only certain area of overlap is that which results from a sharing of the concerns of the human condition (Duff 1975, 14; emphasis added). .  .  .  Duff’s use of the comparative “more” in regard to ownership indicates that he subscribed to the common view of that time that he and the public institutions he represented were also “rightful owners” of the “stone sculptures”, previously defined as relics of Canada’s past, and British Columbia’s heritage. Yet, “[a]ccording to Anyyichl Nisga’a, every Nisga’a belongs to a wilp (House) which owns its songs, crests, dances, stories and territory handed down through matrilineal succession [emphasis added]”. 74 As owners of both the objects and  ltems, 64, 68, 69, 99, 103, 104 of the Catalogue are identified as coming from the 73 Nass River, the traditional territory of the Nisga’a.  63 the “meanings” or oral histories related to the stone “sculptures”, the Nisga’a would not necessarily have shared that information with Duff. His assumption that if he could not access particular information, that it no longer existed, and thus could only be found through scientific discovery, reveals his lack of a true understanding of what constituted aboriginal title to the Nisga’a. In fact, it was the authority of Nisga’a oral histories and traditional laws that were the impetus and premise upon which Calder and other Native leaders of territories claimed by British Columbia had fought for over a hundred years--albeit within the framework of Canadian jurisprudence and English common-law. While Duff was prepared to argue for “aboriginal title and rights” of contemporary Indians based on British and Canadian law, he did not seem to recognise the authority and strength of the Nisga’a’s arguments, which were based on cultural knowledge of their traditions, laws and territories. What, then, is the relationship between these two seemingly incongruous  positions taken by Duff? Quite simply, since the legal definition of aboriginal title is based on the “original occupation and use of the land” by people who had “well-developed legal concepts” of ownership, Duff did not have to base his testimony on the contemporary knowledge of the Nisga’a. The authority of Duff’s anthropological and archaeological knowledge of the Nisga’a origins or past history was all that was required of him as an expert witness to establish aboriginal title. He was called on to establish that the Nisga’a had “developed their culture to higher peaks  .  .  .  than in any other part of the [Northern]  continent”. In fact, Duff’s court testimony regarding the Nisga’a cultural history as quoted in Berger (1981, 52-63) is all in the past tense. While many individuals--both Native and non-Native--have recognised and honoured Duff for the work that he did on behalf of Native rights, the dangers of relying on western expertise to authorise cultural knowledge must ”Did you know,” NISGA’A: People of the mighty river, (New Aiyansh: Nisga’a 74 Tribal Council, 1992), N. pag.  64 also be noted. As anthropologists, Noel Dyck and James B. Waidram point out in the text, Anthropology, public policy and native peoples in Canada:  [R]epeated acts of cultural translation can transform aboriginal peoples into clients whose ability to represent their own interests is further undermined each time an anthropological advocate speaks on the their behalf (1993, 20).75 Further, Dyck and Waldram appeal to anthropologists to weigh what is at stake between, ‘being asked to ‘act like an expert’ and the longer-term gains to be achieved by anthropologists through acknowledging and revealing the interested nature of all knowledge.  .  .“(1993, 22). The construction of supposedly “dead”  cultures of the past, authorised in the present only through western expertise, begs the question: what is the relationship between the authority with which the texts and images about First Nations Northwest Coast histories, culture and material culture were produced in one kind of public institution--the Vancouver and Victoria art galleries, and the authority with which the same histories and cultures were represented in another public institution--the Supreme Court of Canada? At the same time, it is important to realise the limitations of the above discussion. With all of the public debates in the sixties by Natives and nonNatives regarding the Indian, the Canadian government was not legally obligated to deal with enfranchised individuals and their non-status descendants, and other Native peoples who did not meet government criteria for recognition of Indian status. Some participants in the exhibit were not  Similarly, Bruce, G. Trigger argues well for the recognition of First Nations 75 peoples in his text, Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s ‘Heroic Age’ Reconsidered  (McGill-Queens University Press, 1985). However, Trigger believes that “native people have affirmed their lasting and important role as part of Canada’s cultural mosaic [with]in Canadian history. Further he argues that there has been a chronic failure to recognize “native peoples as an integral part of Canadian society”(3,4). While Trigger is intent on giving First Nations a history, which he confirms through anthropological and archaeologal findings, he does not seem to recognize that First Nations have their own histories as Nations. .  .  .  .  65  considered Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act, these included Bill Reid (non-status), Lelooska (part Cherokee from the United States), Dorothy Francis (non-status through personal decision to become enfranchised). My purpose in discussing the state-imposed categories for the Indian and their social corollaries, as well as the way in which First Nations organised and represented themselves, is to clearly demonstrate the complexity of who (or what) constituted an Indian in Canada in contrast to the seamless construction of the Indian in Arts of the Raven: Indian Art of the Northwest Coast. This provides a  context for how First Nations people as an audience may or may not have responded to the exhibit. It also contextualises the exhibit’s relative importance in the public sphere to what First Nations peoples were seeking to establish. The Arts of the Raven exhibit at once individualised and homogenised the diverse  Northwest Coast Nations by using a paradigm that did not account for the complex and intersecting histories of Euro-Canadian and Northwest Coast Nations together, thus only recognising an individual master artist. Limited by the constraints of a formalist reading, the exhibit does not indicate how those intersecting histories led to an exhibit of Northwest material culture as “Art” in a western institution for a mostly non-Native audience. Nor is there a context for the consumption and production of the “masterpieces” at various historical moments, in either a First Nations context, or within western historicising. However, this formal approach was consistent with the approach taken to discuss other exhibits at the time. 76 When curator/art historian/artist Bill Holm interpreted the exhibit as a collection of masterworks that constituted the “survival of a few saved treasures and some aptitude and desire on the part of some of the descendants of the Indian masters” (Hoim, 196Th, 4), the diverse  76 Harris points out that in the 1969 VAG exhibit, New York 13, diverse art Steven forms were linked through formal similarities. For example, various art critics linked artists’ works through colour and shape, before proceeding to the so-called figurative artists like Rauschenberg, Warhol and Segal (1985, 98, 99, Note 79).  66 and layered histories of the contemporary exhibiting artists were by-passed. Simply constructed as having an “aptitude and desire” to produce “masterworks” as their forebears did, Hoim asserted that the “[p]ieces by a few living and working artists tie[d] the exhibition to the present” (Ibid.). Thus, a  giant leap from the past to the present was naturalised through the so-called innate and timeless artistic abilities of Northwest Coast Indian artists. In fact, Holm asserted earlier that Franz Boas’ statement about North American Indians, “perhaps the artists have greater eidetic power than most adults among ourselves’ (Boas, 1927, 158) may [have been] well-founded  “  (Holm 1965, 69;  emphasis mine). Consider also First Nations peoples as an audience for the Raven exhibit during an era that gave rise to one commissioned inquiry after another of the socio-economic plight of aboriginal peoples (Manuel and Posluns 1974, 162). A brief submitted by DIA to the federal and provincial Conference on Poverty and Opportunity in Ottawa in December 1964 stated that the average life expectancy of the Indian was 33.31 years for females, and 34.71 for males. For Canadians, the average life expectancy was 64.1 for females and 60.5 for males. The average per capita salaries and wages for the Indian was $1,600.00 as opposed to $3, 500.00 for Canadians. In relation to VAG audiences at the time, Harris’, “Of Rauschenberg, Policy and Representation at the Vancouver Art Gallery”, reveals that museum patrons with the lowest income and academic education had the most difficulty with museum structure, personnel and displays, and were those for whom a museum visit provided the least satisfactory experience. Given the socio economic conditions for most Native people, an exhibit that opened as a ‘black tie and champagne” affair would hardly be accessibly to most Northwest Coast people it supposedly represented--most of whom lived in rural communities. Nor would the elite image of the Northwest Coast Indian have much in common with the non-status, Metis, “enfranchised Indians” and other urban  67 Native peoples who lived in the social ‘reserve& that emerged in Vancouver. Rather,. the exhibit instead set up a false ideal against which First Nations peoples could be measured. What was validated through the exhibit was the institutional acceptance of Indians as individuals and their cultural contributions within the bourgeois world of art and culture--a world in which few First Nations and Metis could afford to circulate. It is, however, necessary to consider those First Nations peoples who tacitly accepted the centricity of Canadian society’s middle-class values. For example, in 1969, in response to the critical living conditions for most First Nations peoples, H.A. Smitheram, a one-time active and leading member of the Indian-Eskimo Association, and a non-status Native of Okanagan and English descent, formed the British Columbia Association of Non-Status Indians (BCANSI). The mandate of BCANSI was not to seek recognition and revival of Indian culture, but rather: Our main purpose in organizing is to bring about the acceleration and upward social mobility of our people... [W]e must train [our people] in the social skills that will make it easier for them to cope with their non Indian friends of the middle class. Music, painting ceramics, sculpture and creative writing, as well as Indian crafts, must be offered to our young people (Tennant, 161). .  ..  Clearly, there was a place where the exhibit intersected with the values of a changing--yet limited--group of First Nations peoples. For Smitheram and those who subscribed to BCANSI’s goals, it was the addition of middle class values, Euro-Canadian values in the Arts that would facilitate the upward mobility of First Nations peoples, as it did for the Edenshaw lineage. This would result in an “equality” with other Canadians based on Euro-centric values. However, the adopticn of these values by some First Nations peoples must also be considered in relation to the government’s many programs for assimilation or integration, at every level of institutional practice in Canada. Government programs often posed stereotypical images of contemporary Indians as poor, drunk, dirty, and/or  68 culturally impoverished, in contrast to the Indian who had successfully integrated by adopting Euro-Canadian values.  Equality or Assimilation Canada’s posturing in the national and international arenas, and its nationalist goals of equality and integration in the 1960s, were criticised as blindly assimilationist by George Manuel, pre-eminent Native leader from the interior of what is called British Columbia (Fig. 26). In Manuel’s book, The Fourth World, a historical and autobiographical account of the “story of the Canadian Indian”, he writes: Aboriginal rights was too vague a term to be used as a basis for discussion. Treaties should be respected but were also regarded as an anomaly. Equality of opportunity was defined so that it was indistinguishable from assimilation. Multi-culturalism was for European immigrants. Bi lingualism for French/English relationship. And assimilation for Indian people (Manuel & Posluns, 1974, 169). Manuel’s position was that the federal government identified the socio economic and political problems raised by First Nations leaders as a “poverty problem” (Manuel and Posluns, 182), rather than recognizing it as a symptom of colonialism. Poverty was not the problem. For the First Nations leaders in British Columbia who maintained that jurisdiction over their traditional lands had never been ceded through treaty, the problem was the lack of recognition of First Nations’ authority over their land, resources and by extension, their own cultural system. Rather than address the issues of First Nations’ right to determination, DIA created economic development programs to ‘assist’ the Indian in joining an upwardly mobile Euro-Canadian middle class. Manuel summarised these processes this way: The symptoms remaining from one social disruption became an excuse for another social disruption [through which] Indian culture is undermined (Manuel and Posluns, 1974, 183) .  .  .  69 Yet according to DIA, as discussed above, it had begun to take “Indian cultures” into account in the development of federal programs. Bouchard and La Rusic (as discussed above) maintain that the only difference between earlier assimilation programs, and the newly defined “integration” process, was: “through integration, one could justify the retention of certain tangible ‘authentic’ cultural traits even if only by the process of incorporating them into the dominant society”( Bouchard & La Rusic, 1981, 6). Both the image of the Indian as impoverished, and the newly promoted image as Indians-having-culture, had actual referents in fact. But as produced images, they were managed through government bureaucracy and institutions, thereby masking the strength of First Nations’ self-defined histories, territories and laws, which included their cultures, and which were the impetus and premise upon which First Nations in British Columbia sought legal recognition of aboriginal title as discussed above in the Nisga’a case. Federal acknowledgment of self-defined Indian cultures linked to political identities would have exploded the Liberal government’s Canadian image of unity and equality. The premise for the promotion of federalist ideology through cultural projects was based on the Liberal belief “that individual Indians both desired to be and were entitled to be assimilated as equals into Canadian society” (Tennant 1990, 139). This is also true of the earlier government and institutionally sponsored economic development projects for “Indian art” in British Columbia in the late 1940s and 1950s, which preceded its development as “Fine Art” in the sixties. (See Chapter Two) Given this context, the produced image of Northwest Coast Indian cultures in the Arts of the Raven exhibit takes on new dimensions. Improved programs for Indians were implemented from 1963 to including provincial and national Indian Advisory Boards, which were 77 1967, mese 77 programs included: 1. Hawthorn Report 2. Community development programs 3. Transfer of certain federal programs to provinces 4. Grants to Indian bands for self-administration 5. Indian Advisory Boards 6. Research on the administration of justice to Indians 7. Experimental relocation programs (this  70 designed to collect information from Native peoples and improve DIA services. These programs were initiated because earlier programs resulting from recommendations made by the 1961 Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons “to speed up assimilation” were not working (Weaver, 1981, 12, 18; See also Weaver 1993, 76). The link between government-sponsored programs and assimilation also extended to gathered research. The Indian and Eskimo Association of Canada (TEA) provided DIA with current information on Indians that was used as a basis for the new programs implemented in 1961. This is not to say that the position of the TEA researcher was to facilitate the government’s policy of assimilation. In a brief prepared by TEA in 1960, its authors did acknowledge the right of Native people to either choose enfranchisement and assimilation and “go the whole way with whites”, or go “their own ways”. 78 The Hawthorn Report (1966/67) also recommended that Native people should have the freedom to choose integration, but only when they were in a position of equal opportunity to make such a choice (Hawthorn, 1967, 6, 13). Clearly, there were many different positions taken by the stakeholders involved in government programs for the “Indian”. Both the TEA research and the Hawthorn report underline that assimilation was not a monolithic government conspiracy carried out without question by non-Natives on First Nations peoples. The Indian Advisory boards (part of the programs mentioned above) were set up at both provincial and national levels with appointments made by the provincial and federal governments. Wilson Duff was appointed to sit on the British Columbia Indian Advisory Committee along with Native leaders, such as George Manuel, and other professionals. What was significant about the board in  entailed moving whole communities to new geographical areas, i.e., Davis Inlet), and 8. Draft legislation for an Indian claims commission (Weaver 1981, 20). See, “Approach to the Future”, brief prepared by the Indian Eskimo Association 78 of Canada for Parliamentary Committee on Indian Affairs, (Toronto, 1960), 4.  71 British Columbia was the refusal of First Nations members to be contained by the prescribed function of an advisory committee, and to simply provide the government with their “personal views as experienced leaders” (Weaver 1981, 30). In refusing to speak as individuals rather than representatives of their people, or to act solely in an advisory capacity, they subverted a federal initiative for assimilation. In doing so they exploded the assumption that the “Canadian Indian population was composed of individuals without serious desire to survive as members of Indian communities or tribal entities” (Tennant 1990, 141-146). As a committee member, Wilson Duff was privy to observing First Nations’ structures of governance and their expertise in organising and democratic decision-making. He knew perhaps, more than the other Arts of the Raven exhibit curators, that the integrity of First Nations communities would be undermined by an individualising process. The canonisation of Edenshaw and his heirs as individuals who successfully integrated through the adoption of Euro-Canadian middle-class values would dilute the need to establish aboriginal title as a means of addressing social injustice and the lack of equality. However, as was demonstrated earlier, Duff drew a distinction between his work (the interpretation of aboriginal material culture) and the contemporary politics and lives of Native people in British Columbia. The authority of lEA research, the Hawthorn report, and Duff’s anthropological and archaeological knowledge, would affect their audiences’ view of Native people, as did the anthropologists’ recommendations for assimilation in 1947. None of the researchers actually had agency in terms of implementing their research as policy. As anthropologist Sally Weaver reveals in her article on the Hawthorn Report and Indian Policy (1993), it is impossible to assume a homogeneous governmental perspective regarding research, since it is subject to the personal philosophies of the policy-makers and political ideologies,  72 which can shift rapidly. Underlining this point, she discusses the way in which “the new Trudeau government (1968) dismissed the [Hawthorn Report] as a useful approach to a new policy” for Indians (Weaver 1993, 90). In making her point about the limited agency of the anthropologists as an arm of the federal government, Weaver also recommends that anthropologists consider it their responsibility “to make serious efforts to predict the political implications of [their] recommendations not just on.  .  .  First Nations Indians in Canada but on  the government as well” (Ibid.). Although I acknowledge that Hawthorn, Duff and others may not have made any final decisions regarding their research, they were, nevertheless, complicit in reinforcing themselves as “experts” of First Nations histories and cultures. In consort with Canada’s nationalist aims and concerns, DIA established a “Cultural Affairs Section” in their Social Programs Division in June 1965--just  two years before Canada’s centennial. The purpose in creating this section was to develop “non-commercial support” for Indian arts and crafts, which previously 79 Part of its goals and had been under the jurisdiction of Industry and Mining. objectives was to hold special exhibitions and projects, develop publications of interest to Indians and maintain liaison with the National Film Board, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Museum and the National Gallery of Canada. Its mandate was to encourage and provide financial support for artistic and cultural activities among Indian communities. However, First Nations artist, curator and art historian, Tom Hill, stated in his retrospective of Cultural Affairs that officials were not interested in programs with a sound cultural base, whereas programs with a sound economic base “got all the support in the world”  See: Gerald McMaster, “Tenuous Lines of Descent: Indian Art and Craft of the 79 Reservation Period,” In the Shadow of the Sun: Perspectives on Contemporary Native Art, (Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization, 1993), 93-120 for this writer’s  discussion of development of Indian arts and crafts in Canada and its relationship to the Department of Indian Affairs. This discussion does not discuss British  Columbia or Northwest Coast “Indian art”.  73 (Hill 1978a, 35). In fact, the conflation of government recognition of Indian culture with economic development programs would enable the federal government to officially recognise Indian culture as part of its multicultural agenda, and to participate in the “War on Poverty” through the reification and commodification of First Nations’ cultures. Expo ‘67 was the first major opportunity for the Cultural Affairs office to promote Native culture to a Canadian and International audience (Sullivan 1965-1966, 48). The “Indian Pavilion” at Expo ‘67, like the Arts of the Raven, exhibit was just one of many projects contributing to the shift of “Canada’s Indians” to the new category of Art and Culture. Sponsored by DIA at a cost of $1,250, 000. 00,80 the Department proposed that the site would be a venue in which Canada’s Indians could represent themselves. DIA attempted to represent the pavilion as a joint Indian/DIA project, but even the advisory board for the Pavilion was selected without consultation with any segment of the Indian community. When Manuel was informed that he had been selected as a board member, he only accepted his appointment after the leaders of B.C. Indian organis.ations affirmed that he should represent them. It is under these circumstances that artist, Bill Reid’s path crosses with that of the elected First Nations leader George Manuel. According to Manuel, years before the Indian Advisory Board for the “Indian Pavilion” at Expo was even confirmed, a non-Indian member of the board had gone to the West Coast to select a totem pole carver for the Pavilion-by passing the kind of decision in which the board was supposed to be included in. A civil servant group had commissioned Bill Reid to carve the pole for a sum of $12,000.00 on the recommendation of a federal government organiser. Although Manuel was instructed by DIA’s Regional Director to go to a meeting in Montreal to support Reid’s nomination, and to meet with Reid for a final Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, File #121-600/43-3. 6 80 July 66. T.B. Number-C.T. No. 658012. DIA Indian Art Centre Archives.  74 briefing, Manuel refused to go to either meeting. Instead he demanded that the commission be open to bids from First Nations communities. Through a position similar to the one taken by First Nations members of the B.C. Indian Advisory Board, Manuel shifted the power dynamic, which enabled many other First Nations carvers on the coast to bid for the commission. As a DIA Press Release noted, the project was finally awarded to “Henry Hunt and his son Tony, 23, [Kwakwaka’wakw] Indians of the Fort Rupert Band, on Vancouver Island. A third carver, Mr Simon Charlie, a Coast Salish Indian from Duncan, B.C. [would] assist the Hunts”. 81 The bid was secured at $5,500,00. This intersection between three of the artists from the Raven exhibit (Reid, Henry and Tony Hunt), and a First Nations leader underscores the fact that someone constructed in the art arena as representing Haida, Northwest Coast and Canadian Indians in a centennial exhibition, had little currency in Manuel’s world where First Nations individuals became representatives through democratic decision making, or through hereditary title. Reid’s commission reveals that he was obviously of federal importance by the 1960s. However, as discussed earlier, the federal government, specifically DIA, was and is only obligated to recognise one kind of Indian, the status Indian. In this case--Manuel, who was not only an Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act, but an elected representative of First Nations people in B.C., could not be ignored. DIA was obligated to represent the interests of registered Indians, not those of non-status persons such as Bill Reid. It is significant that the final selection of carvers focuses on status Indians who had worked on other government-sponsored projects (this will be discussed more fully in Chapter Four). Interestingly, the Hunts were described in DIA’s News Release as the fourth generation of carvers  ”British Columbia Indians to Carve Totem Pole and Welcome Figure for Indians 81 Expo Pavilion,” Indian of Canada Pavilion (DIA Press Release, 1-66108, n.d.).  75 who claimed a lineage to “the late Mungo Martin, one of Canada’s most famous carvers” (Ibid.), a lineage which was not mapped out in the Raven exhibit. To return briefly to the Arts of the Raven exhibit, Reid participated in a bid for equality in terms of the institutional practices he was most familiar with, and which were more reflective of his being a descendant of a non-status parent, than being a descendant of Charles Edenshaw. And to clarify, Reid did not selfconsciously “choose” equality the way many politicised organisations or individuals did (as in Smitheram and BCANSI, above). Manuel on the other hand, wanted to explode Canadian ideology and worked for political and social equality in relation to a concrete Native reality. For Manuel, equality for the Indian could only be achieved by organising regionally and nationally for federal and provincial recognition of aboriginal land title.  76 CHAPTER THREE Indian Institutions and Representation  The claim in the Arts of the Raven catalogue that “the old Indian cultures of the coast were dead” was the premise upon which the exhibit curators presumed to speak for Northwest Coast peoples. As discussed in Chapter One and Chapter Two, the proclaimed “experts” of Northwest Coast aboriginal culture and history based these assumptions on their position that only a few Northwest Coast aboriginal peoples were engaged in producing cultural objects or in practising “traditional” activities, and that no one knew the “original” meanings of most of the objects. I will argue that the meanings Northwest Coast First Peoples invested in those poles, masks, crests and rituals, in terms of aboriginal title, property rights, land use and other privileges, were never alienated, bought, sold, stolen or appropriated. Specifically, those meanings--as they pertained to the land question between the federal and provincial governments and First Nations peoples in a province where treaties were yet to be negotiated--were not dead. Thus while the experts and public “rediscovered” the so-called dead or “dying” Northwest Coast Indian material cultures as “modern art, fine art, Canadian art”, thereby creating a movement which would later be proclaimed by the media as a Renaissance, Native leaders in B.C. continued to address the issue of aboriginal title through newly formed mediums such as Indian organisations. Beginning in 1890 with the formation of the Nisga’a Land Committee, First Nations peoples in the place now called British Columbia remained committed to ensuring the continuation of their cultures through changing socio-political practices, and mediums 82 such as the Nisga’a Land Committee (1890), Allied Tribes (1916-27), the Native Brotherhood (1931) and other organizations. Similar arguments have been made in such articles as “Tsimshian of British 82 Columbia Since 1900,” by Gorden B. Inglis et al., in Northwest Coast., vol. 7, Wayne Suttles ed. (Smithsonian Institution 1990), in which he discusses contemporary change in the various Tsimshian villages, and the shift from traditional  77 The belief in dead or dying aboriginal cultures has co-existed with the equally persistent salvage paradigm throughout the west’s colonial history. While it is true that disease, and government and missionaries’ programs to dismantle traditional forms of community had a devastating effect on First Nations peoples, First Nations cultures have not been erased. 83 There has never been an uncontested solution to the so-called “Indian problem”. On the Northwest Coast, the church and state did have limited success in suppressing resistant impulses in Native communities. However, the church also engendered changing cultural practices that continued to signify, among other things, aboriginal ownership of traditional lands. In turn, the state contributed to a shift from a trade economy to a wage economy (primarily logging and commercial fishing) that facilitated Northwest Coast leaders’ commitment to establishing aboriginal title. When in 1870 the Colonial government seized all land in what is now called British Columbia without compensation to aboriginal people through an established treaty process, the political meanings of Northwest Coast cultural  ceremonial and esthetic expression to Euro-Canadian type-”clubs, organizations, musical bands, and choirs” (285). The authors produce strong evidence to argue that what has been interpreted as cultural loss and assimilation can more appropriately be viewed as a manifestation of “vitality and cultural growth” (286). In an article in the same text, Marjorie M. Halpin and Margaret Seguin also describe the Tsimshian people of Metlakatla as “active participants in their own missionization” (“Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan,” 281). Clearly, many Metis and First Nations people, anthropologists and historians 83 such as those discussed in the note above are concerned with exploding the institutionally established image of “Indians as a dying people” and its corollary,  the salvage paradigm (see note 8), which has been produced and managed within Western institutions to meet particular ends. However, it is equally important not  to forget that thousands of aboriginal peoples actually have died through the diseases introduced by contact, through acts of colonial imperialism and through the Canadian government’s relentless programs for assimilation. In other words, while we as First Nations and Metis peoples are concerned with exploding the institutional construction of Indians as a dying people, it is equally important to record the actual great losses experienced by aboriginal peoples at the hands of colonial governments--and that is a history that has only just begun to be written.  78 practices became publicly enmeshed with the politics of the federal and provincial governments in a profound way. The Canadian government and other institutions refused or, as Berger stated, “simply could not appreciate the fact that people without a written language may, nevertheless have welldeveloped legal concepts” (Berger, p. 56 above). Thus First Nations leaders became involved in a power struggle with federal and provincial governments, making claims, based on their own laws, aboriginal rights, and British and Canadian democratic process. These rights asserted in the public sphere, were different than the rights and privileges claimed through the display of traditional cultural material and ritual within and between Northwest Coast First Nations. From around the turn of the century contemporary Native organisations became the medium through which First Nations publicly engaged in their dispute with the Crown for the right to determine their cultural and political futures. Newly formed political organisations, the church and a wage economy form the premise upon which Paul Tennant tracks the contemporary political history of First Nations in British Columbia in his book, Aboriginal Peoples and Politics:  The Indian land Question in British Columbia, 1849-1989. (1990). In the chapter, “The politics of survival”, Tennant describes the way in which British Columbia was divided up between Protestant and Catholic missionaries, with the Protestants allocated the north and the west, and the Catholics, the east and the south. While there was suppression by the state and church of aboriginal cultural practice, the socio-political meanings invested in cultural practice and material culture shifted, but continued in the north and the west within the framework of Protestantism. This was facilitated by Protestant missionaries who “allowed” Northwest Coast symbols and ceremonies such as the potlatch to continue in the church--albeit in an altered state. Conversely, Catholic missionaries did not allow “indigenization” of their church practices and regalia. In the book, Without  Surrender without Consent: A History of the Nisiga ‘a] Land Claims, (1984)  79 Daniel Raunet discusses not only the impact of the Church on the Nisga’a, but how the Nisg&a’s refusal to give up cultural/political practices affected the consciousness of the missionaries and changed the practices of the church, to which he states: “In a way, the Nis[g&a] ‘Indianized’ the new religious institution and adapted it to their own needs. Unto this day, no other major institution in Canada.  .  .  espouses unflinchingly the cause of the Native land  claims” (1984, 73) Cultural historian Stuart Hall has commented regarding the function of “tradition”, that although institutions of the dominant culture do impact on the cultures of traditional communities, these institutions do not function on completely passive audiences as if they are “blank screens”. At the same time, Hall does not argue for enclaves of whole, intact alternative cultures. To do so, he states, “neglects the essential relationship of cultural power--of domination and subordination..  .  and it underestimates the power of cultural implantation”  (1981, 132-34). In reference to Hall’s argument then, one could say that within aboriginal Northwest Coast territories and communities, First Nations traditions and activities have come to “stand in a different relation to the way [Native people] live and the ways they define their relations to each other, to the others, and to their conditions of life” (Hall, 228). Few of the “others”--church, state, non-Native individuals, institutions, and communities--have acknowledged First Nations oral histories, rituals, crests, clans and other systems of signs used to define land use and ownership. Rather, “others” laid claim to First Nations aboriginal territories in direct contradiction to their own laws, thereby changing First Nations’ “conditions of life”. Cultural practice did continue within traditional territories, changed, but still inextricably bound up with land, rights and privileges. Out of that cultural shift in the north and the west in British Columbia, Native political leaders emerged who would play significant roles in the public negotiation for aboriginal rights, and whose activities in the public  80 sphere represented an integral aspect of living and changing Northwest Coast cultures. The relationship between the church and Native peoples is clearly demonstrated in a comment in a 1976 booklet produced by the Nishga Tribal Council entitled, Citizens Plus: the Nishga People of the Naas River in Northwestern British Columbia. Nishga land is not for sale: The early missionaries of the Anglican and Methodist churches had a profound effect on [the lives of the Nisga’a], but they never tried to tamper with that fierce love of the land. Many of the Nishga traditions and customs are incorporated into the church’s life and teachings today. Clergy wear the traditional button blankets during services and other high festivities. Totems and talking sticks are reappearing. The elders include the Anglican bishop of Caledonia (Northern B.C.) diocese who is an adopted Nishga(5, 6). As is pointed out by Tennant, the church clearly played a significant role in the rise to political power of First Nations political leaders, such as Frank Calder (Nisga’a), a graduate of Anglican theological college at UBC, a traditional chief and spokesperson for the Nisga’a Tribal Council, Atlin MP, active leader in the Native Brotherhood; Peter Kelly (Skidegate, Haida), Methodist minister, skipper of a church mission vessel, a Doctor of Divinity, and Chairman of the Allied Tribes and later of the Native Brotherhood; and Alfred Adams (Massett, Haida), Anglican minister and founder of Native Brotherhood. Institutionalising themselves to address economic, social and political concerns in the public arena, First Nations in the province formed such organisations as the Nisga’a Land Committee (1890), The Indian Rights Association (1909), The Interior Tribes, Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia (1916), The Native Brotherhood (1931), The Confederacy of the Interior Tribes of 84 It is B.C. (1942), the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council (1958) and others. Contemporary organizations were formed by aboriginal people themselves in 84 relation to issues of aboriginal title, their socio-economic rights and the Indian Act’s legal commitment to “protect” Indian lands. It was through this choice that Native peoples sought to widen, adapt, and integrate their traditions within the white political system (Tennant, 85). The following are but a few examples of  81 important to note, as Tennant points out, that “the formation of contemporary aboriginal institutions is not simply an adoption of British legal principles and white values, but the use of a particular framework which meets Indian views and demands” (1990, 26-29, 71). When the period of political prohibition of 1927-1951 was introduced by the Parliament of Canada, which included a provision in the Indian Act to make it an offense punishable by law to raise funds for the purpose of pursuing any Indian land claim (Berger 1991, 148), the Allied Tribes disbanded. No new organisations were formed until 1931 when the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia was formed. Although its members could not publicly pursue “land 85 the Brotherhood was still very much concerned with aboriginal title, claims” and maintaining First Nations cultural identities. Two of its initial organisers were hereditary chiefs and commercial fishermen, who owned their own boats. According to Tennant, the fishing industry facilitated wider mobility and a wider network of political contacts, and the dissemination of the Brotherhood’s concerns regarding the land dispute, education, medical, old age pension, as well as fish prices (73).  existing texts that discuss the formation of contemporary First Nations institutions, which in some cases are separate, but not mutually exclusive, from First Nations’ institutions within their own territories. Rolf Knight. Indians at Work: An Informal History of Native Indian Labour in British Columbia, 1858-1930 (Vancouver: Newstar Books, 1978), discusses the  formation of various labour unions, cottage industries by native people dating back to the turn of the century; Michael Asch. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution, (Toronto: Methuen Publications, 1984),  discusses the formation of national and regional First Nations organizations, including status, non-status, Metis, and Inuit; Paul Tennant, Aboriginal Peoples and Politics: The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1 849-1989, (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1990), describes the process of the institutionalization of Native politics in British Columbia as a process that reflects agency through the conscious choice of traditional practice over assimilation or what Tennant terms, pan-Indianism.  85 term more commonly used by First Nations leaders for the dispute is, the The “land question,” as First Nations do not “claim” their own territory. It is the government of Canada that has made the “land claim” on the territories of First Nation, who question that claim.  82 Also closely linked with the Brotherhood was the monthly newspaper,The Native Voice, which began publication in 1946. Although it was initially owned and managed by a non-Native person, Maisey Hurley, it was the “only paper in Canada published exclusively on behalf of the Indians” (The Native Voice, November 1946, 1), and had a circulation of over 3,000 in Canada, Alaska and England (Ibid.). In the first edition, President of the Native Brotherhood, Chief William D. Scow (Kwakwaka’wakw  ) wrote an urgent call to  all Native people to give their full support to the Native Voice Through our NATIVE VOICE we will continue to the best of our ability to bind closer together the many tribes whom we represent into that solid Native voice, a voice that will work for the advancement of our own common native welfare (Ibid.). Parallel to these historical developments, First Nations’ cultural practice and material culture became confiated with “white” interest in Indian curios and their attendant limited economic power. With the objectification, commodification and institutional reclassification of Northwest Coast cultural objects in the public sphere, the meanings and sometimes the forms of Northwest Coast material culture were transmuted into the hybrid objects produced in relation to a capital economy and academic disciplines. In other words, First Nations cultural materials, whose meanings were and are intricately tied to Native government and sovereignty, encompassing ritual, law, oral histories aboriginal languages, were reworked and re-categorised. Western institutions, “Friends of the Indians”, anthropologists, art historians and other Indian “experts”, introduced Northwest Coast material culture into the public sphere as relics, artifacts, or as dance, music, drama and legends--categories associated with science as well as the Arts--all of which represented to a western public particular levels of human development, or notions of civility and culture. In this context, and in a public arena dominated by the western institutions as the dominant means of communication, for First Nations’ leaders, Native  83 “cultur& as defined by non-Natives became subordinate to more pressing concerns. As stated in the Native Voice in 1948: before we have even the leisure to seek cultural things, we have to fight to gain equal status: equal opportunity. That is our fight, but our white brothers can help. Their thoughts form public opinion--we do not have an opinion in the government of Canada (3). However, noting the interest of “whites” in Native culture, in the first issue of the only Native Voice newspaper Guy Williams stated that “For the special benefit of our good white subscribers we will try to carry legends, customs and traditions of the Native Folk” (December 1946, 7). In fact, from 1946 to 1967, articles on art and culture were placed somewhat ironically in sections titled, “Women’s Pow Wow Corner”, “Art and Crafts”, “Little Bows and Arrows Club” and “Legends and Myths”. Obviously, the “Native folk’s” culture for “white” consumption was different for Williams’ than his cultural and political concerns as a Haisla political leader and skipper of a fishing vessel. The Native Voice had stated clearly in the first issue its commitment: to equality for the original inhabitants and owners of Canada.. to demand our rightful position with fellow Canadians... [to work] for the betterment of conditions, socially spiritually and economically for its people. to encourage and bring about a communication and cooperation between the white people and Native Canadians.. to join with the Government and its official. for the betterment of all conditions surrounding the lives and homes of the natives (The Native Voice 1946, 1). .  .  .  .  .  .  Although the Native Voice claimed in this same issue to be “undenominational and non-political”, the journal stated in bold uppercase letters, “LET’S BE CANADIANS and [be] recognized as human beings”, the journal was also committed to presenting its views “in Qiii own way” (emphasis mine). This entailed a strong voice on aboriginal title and rights based on the political position of various Indian organisations. In this context, Canada as a sign of modernity, technology, industrialisation, democracy and freedom, was the  84 platform and point of departure for First Nations to speak as the “original Canadians” and the “true owners of Canada, “who, unlike other Canadians, had special status in relation to aboriginal title and rights. (It should be noted that there are many articles in the Native Voice in which other First Nations individuals and groups did not identify themselves as Canadians.) In the 1983 catalogue for Vancouver Art and Artists: 1931-1983, a  retrospective exhibit of the Vancouver Art Gallery, Doris Shadbolt commented on the 1967 Arts of the Raven exhibit, and compared that period in the 1960s to the present when one could tune into the Saturday-night radio show, “Native Voice”in the 1980s ,and listen to the incredible changes that had taken place for Native people: Now [there are] sophisticated voices, legal minds and sharp intelligences that also from time to time reflect a truly passionate concern for the more spiritual meaning of their culture. The will to a new place for the Indian comes through very strongly. The new art has contributed to that spirit but not too much of it speaks with fresh authority (1983, 268). Certainly, the Arts of the Raven exhibit has been identified as a “turning point” (Duffek 1993, 221) in the appreciation of Northwest Coast Indian art. 86 The “new art” as it is referred to by Shadbolt--which has gained visibility through the efforts of many individuals, organizations and institutions committed to creating an audience and appreciation for Northwest Coast Indian “Art”--has since become a platform from which some First Nations peoples have spoken to their social and political concerns (See footnote 126). The “fresh authority” with which Northwest Coast traditional images now speak is a different historical context than the 1960s; it is one in which First Nations peoples are asserting their sovereignty through more traditional modes of governance. However, it seems that Shadbolt, like the curators of the Arts of the Raven exhibit, believed that because a profusion of cultural or art objects were not being produced up to the See also Ames 1981, 5; Halpin 1978, 51; Blackman 1981, 55. 86  85 time of the exhibit, that Northwest Coast “culture” was dying or dead. Thus she infers that there were not “sophisticated voices, legal minds and sharp intelligences” in 1967. Yet, the situation was such that in the post-war period and in the years leading up to the 1960s, asserting authority over heritage resources, cultural practices and languages by First Nations leaders in the place now called British Columbia was subordinated to the more pressing concerns of equality, human rights, the land question and control over resources. Consider the historical circumstances leading up to 1967 in which Northwest Coast material culture was being produced. For example, anthropologist Marius Barbeau who was committed to bringing Haida “artists” out of “obscurity and anonymity” set out in Haida Carvers in Argillite (1957) to describe the Haida artisans in “their own setting”. In one case, Barbeau related a conversation he had in 1939 with Haida, Jim Mackay, Dowekye-kyihlas, who is described as both the captain of a fishing boat and one of “the best” argillite carvers. In response to Barbeau’s question about why he had stopped carving, “especially when the demand for totems and curios [was] heavier and more remunerative than ever before”, Mackay’s response was, “You have urged us to shed our grandfather’s Indian blanket. And now you are telling me to put it back. Too late, my friend” (141). The fact is that Mackay made his living in the commercial fishing industry, and making poles for curio hunters, collectors and anthropologists could not compete with a wage economy. (See Chapter Four on the Indian Arts and Crafts Society which discusses the concern that Indian arts and crafts were unable to sustain a healthy local economy.) Barbeau’s response to Mackay’s statement was that “not a few” Haidas such as Jim Mackay have wanted to turn their back on “what is considered a lurid past”, and further referred to the Haida’s “last six generations [as a history of]  .  .  .  abuse, depravity  and disease” (Ibid.). Barbeau described another Haida carver, Luke Watson, as a “foundling born to white parents [who]  ..  .  like one who belongs to a superior  86 race, was apt to be self-assertive.. but [whose] house was sloppily kept, as that of .  other Natives” (147). Through these differing views of Mackay and Watson, Barbeau implied that the conditions the Haidas had endured were due to both the inhrent make-up of those not of “a superior race”, and the socialised habits of “sloppy Natives”, which naturally led to their abject history or “lurid past”. Barbeau’s position then was that Mackay gave up producing “Indian art” because of his “lurid” Haida past. Yet by the time Barbeau published this document in 1957, the findings of the 1946 Joint Committee had demonstrated that it was Canada that had a lurid colonial imperialist past. In fact, all of Jim Mackay’s 87 as had thousands of other Native children had died of tuberculosis needlessly, peoples. The federal and provincial governments and the Department of Indian Affair’s petty administrative policies regarding proper medical care for Native 88 This peoples accounted for the death of thousands of First Nations people.  The death of MacKay’s children was recounted by Willis and Mary White of Old 87  Massett Village, Haida Gwaii. Mary White spoke of her childhood when she would see families in Skidegate who would make tents of sheets on their front lawns where their family members would go to die. Ethel and Maude Moody also remembered McKay’s children and stated that it was mostly the children who who died of tuberculosis (private conversations, Aug. 7, went to residential school 1993 and May, 1993 respectively). 88 1948 tuberculosis mortality for First Nations was 5,792 per 100,000 vs. 42.2 per 1n Canadians. See, The Native Voice, (Mar. 1948: 5). In The Native Voice a noted leader and fighter for human rights Dr. Norman Black, discussed the lack of medical care for First Nations and the Indian Agents who refused Native peoples hospitalization or medical attention because going over the reserve fiscal budget could cost the agent his job. However, the lack of accountability by the federal government is underlined in a 1948 article in the same newspaper, “Court turns case upside down: Judge Indicts Gov’t Neglect of Indian”. Charles Nah Bexi from White Bear was charged with manslaughter for the death of Indian Reserve, Saskatchewan one of his children to tuberculosis. In fact nine of Bexi’s twelve children had died because he was unable to get medical help. The judge acquitted Bexi and closed by stating that “the condition which resulted in the charge of manslaughter is something happening every day on our reserves. When will it end?” (Mar. 1948: 15) That same year another article in the same newspaper discussed conditions on a James Bay reserve in which 50% of First Nations there had tuberculosis. A doctor went to the outpost once a year to give cursory checkups when the Indian agent passes out the treaty money of $5.00. The chief explained to the Indian agent that, a one hour airplane trip to a doctor would have saved the many people who died every year (paraphrased). (See: Don Delaplante, “Indians suffer in Northland: Hunger, Poverty, Disease Exact Toll of Redman” The Daily Press, (Fort Albany James Bay, 1948), n.d., n.p., qtd. in The Native Voice, (June 1948), 7).  87 lack of accountability at both structural and ideological levels is what made being a legal entity defined by law as “Indian”--not being Haida, or Tsimshian, or Kwakwaka’wakw or Metis, or any other nation--something any aboriginal person ‘would want to turn their back on. However, “the will to a new place” was being implemented in the twentieth century through First Nations organisations, such as the Native Brotherhood, led by such Haida leaders as Peter Kelly and Albert Adams and many other representatives of other First Nations. A 1966 Native Voice newspaper editorial, “More than art to life”, underlines where the emphasis for Native leadership lay: One of our readers has written complaining that we do not deal sufficiently with Indian legends and art and too much with what he describes as ‘politics’. As a non-Indian, he betrays, we believe one of the concepts many friends’ of the Indians hold--that the cultural and artistic contributions is paramount and Indians should sit around the campfire swapping legends and carving totems. We regard these aspects of Indian life as cultural matters of great importance and have constantly urged that they be cherished and nurtured and developed. .The Indian is awakening and rapidly becoming increasingly aware of his rights and how they have so often been ignored and even worse, denied. It is this new look that we reflect in The Native Voice. We think a god [sic] newspaper combines cultural, economic and political activities and we can only say we have tried to do our best along those lines (The Native Voice, June, 2 1966, 2). .  .  The Native Voice did express its concern for the preservation of Indian culture, evident in articles featuring First Nations artisans such as, Mungo Martin, Ellen Neel and her son David Neel, George Clutesi, Dan Cranmer, Judith P. Morgan and others. In each of the articles, the various First Nations artisans took a strong position regarding their commitment to preserve their own cultures and languages, and to speak their own histories. More than that, some of the artists addressed the validity of their own customs and laws. For example, when a pole of the “Qui-qwa-sutinuk tribe” was presented to the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia in 1948 by Chief William Scow on  88 Ted and Ellen Neel’s behalf, it was presented with the “full consent and approval of [their] tribal council and [their] people” (December, 11). However, for the most part, the public display of First Nations’ art and culture to a Canadian public were separate, and subordinate to more pressing concerns for equality and human rights. These rights and aboriginal title were not to be secured through the public display of poles, crests, ritual and other traditional means. This is well-illustrated in the February 1959 edition of the Native Voice (Fig. 27) in a photograph of totem poles being removed from their original sites to storage in a museum, which is placed above an article below summarising the positions of Ottawa and the Allied Tribes on the Land Question. While few First Nations people were producing poles and other cultural objects at the time as discussed by Holm, Reid and Duff, it did not mean that Northwest Coast culture was dead. The meanings invested in those poles in regards to aboriginal title, property rights, land use and other privileges, were not put into storage. They were, and had remained, of on going concern. Yet First Nations leaders were certainly aware of the significance of the way in which popular images of Native culture circulated in the public sphere. In an article, “Ojibways ‘Steal’ Totem, B.C. Natives Don’t Object” (Native Voice: September 1961, 1) a leader of the B.C. Native Brotherhood explained: ‘The totem may soon be accepted as the national symbol of Indians in Canada. Mr Williams said Indians are trying to form a national organization and are still undecided between the totem and the feather headdress.” 89 However, the public display of popular images by Native political leaders was not a bid to reproduce an authentic or original meaning for them, but a process of negotiating meaning and power in the public sphere. It was a strategy that underlines that the  Ojibwa carver, Cliff Whetung discusses totem poles as a west coast invention, but 89 he carved them because, “White people associate totem poles with Indians and seem to expect us to make them, so our people have obliged. We’ve grafted our traditions onto them and made them Ojibwa totems” in “Indian craftsmen are skilled carvers,” Telegram. (Nov. 23, 1966), n.p.  89 transformation of objects by the culture industry does not signal closure (or death), but constitutes an open-ended continual struggle for determining meaning. The fact is that Native imagery and material culture had already been deeply entrenched in the public arena as symbols of a national heritage, as a signifier for Canadian roots, as a container for the Canadian imagination and as a metaphor for the abstract ideals of western ideology. Quite ironically, it was these kinds of popular images that did not meet the Raven exhibit organisers’ t for Northwest Coast masterworks. ‘standard’ Through these political, religious and economic structures, Native leadership not only changed and survived, but remained dedicated to ensuring a distinct First Nations existence through continued changing, socio-political practices.  90  CHAPTER FOUR “Progress” and “Master Artists”  This chapter briefly surveys the earlier establishment in British Columbia of an Indian “master artist”, a history that overlapped with some of the Arts of the Raven exhibit organisers’ conceptions and artists’ practices. However, the recognition for this earlier lineage of “Indian artisans and carvers” was not established in the context of the disinterestedness claimed by the producers of the 1967 Arts of the Raven exhibit. In the Raven exhibit, “masterworks” by the Northwest Coast Indian were established as rare objects that had been reduced to a “few saved treasures”, produced in the present by the remaining “few” who had the “genius” to create such treasures. In contrast, the development of Indian artistic resources in the late 1940s and 1950s was linked to the establishment of economic development projects in B.C. for “Indian arts and crafts”, which would provide jobs for “Indians”. However, the use-value of Northwest Coast material culture would ultimately depend on public interest and understanding--thus public recognition of Indian master artists. At the same time, creating interest in Indian art had the potential to make the province of British Columbia a cultural 90 centre. The proposed project for ‘indian artistic resources” in British Columbia was to be dependent on the support of Indian Affairs and western institutions-museums, the Canada Council, and the professional expertise of anthropologists-to promote, interpret and perpetuate Northwest Coast material culture as art. Thus “Indian Art” emerged in British Columbia at the British Columbia Provincial Museum (BCPM) and at the University of British Columbia’s  As discussed in Chapter Two in relation to the Vancouver Art Gallery’s 1958, 100 90 years of B.C. Art exhibit; see also Morris 1958.  91 Department of Anthropology and Museum of Anthropology (MOA) under the authority of those named by those same institutions as the experts--the official holders and disseminators of Indian culture and knowledge--some of whom would reconstruct a different kind of lineage for Indian master works and master artists. Anthropology and the Modern Indian  In 1947, when most First Nations leaders in British Columbia were fighting for the right to vote in order to address their political and socio-economic concerns (some did not want the vote, believing it would compromise their ‘special rights’ as “Indians”), Dr Harry B. Hawthorn became the first anthropologist appointed to a university post in western Canada (Borden 1981, 89), “with the understanding that the progress of the Native people would be one of his concerns and that a department of anthropology would eventually be established” (A. Hawthorn 1993, 1). Dr Hawthorn’s position was that the new role of the anthropologist should be that of a person who understood the Indian and their difficulties, who would assist and help guide their education and their adjustment to the social, economic and political aspect of Canadian life (H. Hawthorn 1948, 13). His goal was seemingly different than the primary goal of anthropological and ethnological research during the nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century, which had been the so-called “salvaging”, collecting and documenting of supposedly dying (rather than changing) ways of Indian life (Dyck and Waidram 1993, 8). Although Hawthorn was quoted in a 1948 Native Voice newspaper article as believing that the Indians’ customs and material culture, which had been the subject of the anthropological studies, no longer existed (March 1948, 4), he acknowledged the continued value of Indian art and philosophy: If the Indians of B.C. are given better health and education.. then some of their successes--in thinking, in bringing up their children, in working at one of the worlds most original arts, could make B.C. a cultural centre.. .  92  Fortunately there are some who knew what (the art and philosophy] was, and there were those who wrote of it when it was the established life of the land, and we must recognize that in part it still informs the lives of many of our own contemporaries and fellow British Columbians, the modern Indian (1948; emphasis mine). As the first anthropologist appointed in western Canada, and head of a newly created Department of Anthropology at UBC, Hawthorn signaled a clear shift from simply salvaging and recording the cultures of dying peoples, to assisting in their “progress” as “modern Indians”. This assistance included facilitating and encouraging Native cultural practices as “Art”, which would create a limited economy for First Nations peoples. At the same time, those “who wrote” about Indian art and philosophy as the art and philosophy of “our fellow British Columbians”, would contribute to the establishment of B.C. as a cultural centre. In other words, if the art was made by a “fellow British Columbian,” then it was B.C.’s heritage. Interest in the transcendent timelessness of Indian art and the Indian’s adjustment to modern Canadian life, then, also served the agenda of the newly established anthropology posting at UBC, and the Department of Indian Affairs--not those of First Nations organisations such as the Allied Tribes and the Native Brotherhood. As part of the bid to generate public interest and understanding of the art of their fellow British Columbians, Hawthorn drew comparisons between Northwest Coast masks as a “world art” and the work of western artists, such as Daumier and Goya (H. Hawthorn 1948, 4). Similarly, anthropologist Marius Barbeau, in his book, Haida Carvers in Argillite (1957), also identified more than forty Haida artisans from the villages of Skidegate and Massett, Haida Gwaii (AKA: the Queen Charlotte Islands) as “the contemporaries” of Western artists, such as Constable, Turner, Courbet, Millet, Gauguin and Cezanne (141). Barbeau was committed to bringing these individuals out of “obscurity and anonymity” since few of them “except for perhaps Edenshaw were ever portrayed or mentioned by name in their own setting” (ix). Although the limitations of this  93 paper and this chapter do not allow me to consider where Hawthorn and Barbeau’s interests in Northwest Coast Indian Art intersected and diverged, Barbeau’s projects begs the following questions: who was it that was being brought out of obscurity and anonymity? in relation to whom did this alleged obscurity exist? and why was this project undertaken? Hawthorn’s appointment, and his new role as an anthropologist committed to the “progress” of the Indian people, to creating jobs through a master craftsman and apprenticeship program, to elevating the status of Northwest Coast Indian art, and to making B.C. a cultural centre, begs the same kinds of questions given the fact that such individuals were not anonymous within their own territories and cultures. As British Columbia’s “Indian cultural heritage”, the public role of Northwest Coast Indian art and artists were to serve the interests of the province and the state. In fact, totem poles had become common regional emblems by the 1950s. In a 1954 progress report on the Totem Pole project, Wilson Duff wrote an article entitled, “A Heritage in Decay--The Totem Art of the Haidas”, in which he argued for the importance of the poles not only as “art ’ but as a regional emblem t (Fig. 28): Furthermore, it is not only as objects d’art in museums that the art of the totem is appreciated; the totem pole as a distinctive emblem has come to be used liberally to flavor the developing regionalism of Canada’s West Coast. Totem trademarks are now used on theatres, on buses, on license plates. British Columbia is fast becoming ‘Totemland’ (Duff 1954, 158-61). In 1954, H. B. Hawthorn, Cyril S. Beishaw and Stuart Jamieson were commissioned by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (Department of Indian Affairs) to conduct the first comprehensive study to focus on the adjustments of the Indians to Canadian life, and to obtain data and specific recommendations for future policy. Hawthorn et. al proposed in the chapter, “The Economic Role of Art and Craft”, in the completed document, The Indians of British Columbia: A Study of Contemporary Social Adjustment, that programs to foster a revival of artistic skills among the Indians to create employment  94 would also require shifting the image of an Indian who made curios into that of a “fellow British Columbian” who made Canadian art. Drawing on paradigms from the United States on generating an audience and patrons for Indian arts and crafts, it was suggested that different kinds of informative books on Indian life should be produced by the University of British Columbia, private publishers and the federal government. These books, according to the authors of the document, would attract the interest of potential consumers ranging from art connoisseurs and interior decorators, to tourists and curio-seekers. Demonstrating the changing responsibility of anthropologists to assist in “the progress of the Native people”, the report also suggested that museums should assist in fostering interest in Indian artistic resources by actively seeking out local craftsmen and offering them the opportunity to exhibit contemporary work (Hawthorn et al 1958, 265). In the same chapter, Mungo Martin, a Kwakwak&wakw carver from Fort Rupert was identified as one of the “one or  two master carvers” still living who would benefit from the “assistance” of museums (Hawthorn et al 1958, 258). It was suggested in the text of The Indians of British Columbia that the collection, repair and copying of old totem poles, a project that began in 1925, 1 and which already had representation from the BCPM, UBC and the Department of Indian Affairs, “could grow into a major school of carving and perhaps foster a revival of the skills among the Indians”. Such a project, it was suggested, could provide part-time “jobs” for Native fishermen or loggers in the winter time, with the educational aspects of this See, “Totem Pole Restoration on the Skeena River, 1925-30: An Early Exercise in 91 Heritage Conservation,” by Douglas Cole and David Darling in BC Studies. No. 47, (Autumn 1980), 29-48. Cole discusses the totem pole preservation project, funded by DIA and CNR, which focused on poles along the CNR’s route between Hazelton and Prince Rupert. Interest in the poles arose according to Cole, due to the  “heightened perception of endangered [Canadianj heritage and the possibility of commercial tourism” (31). A Totem Pole Preservation Committee,” was formed with representatives from the B.C. Provincial Museum, Department of Indian Affairs,  and Parks Canada. Both DIA’s interest in the poles as “art” and the Museum’s  interest in them as ethnological specimen were compatible with CNR’s interest in the poles as tourist attractions.  95 work assumed as a federal responsibility (Hawthorn et al. 1958, 258, 59, 63). Recognition of Martin as master carver would then take place within the context of a “school” sponsored by the Indian Affairs branch of the federal government, as a provincial program, and under the direction of western expertise of anthropologists such as Wilson Duff. Thus the project would fulfill, in part, the federal government’s fiduciary responsibility related to the social welfare, economic conditions and increased educational opportunities for First Nations. Kwakwaka’wakw carver Mungo Martin, began working “under the direction  “  of the British Columbia Provincial Museum’s Curator of  Anthropology, Wilson Duff, in a provincially sponsored government program for “The Preservation of Totem Poles”. The Project began with the “salvaging” and preservation of “totem poles” by anthropologist, Marius Barbeau (A. Hawthorn 1993, 8, 9). It was followed by the commissioning of new poles, which provided a potential model for a community development project that could address economic and education concerns regarding “the Indian”. The three contemporary Kwakwaka’wakw artists who later exhibited their work in the Arts of the Raven exhibit “learned” from Mungo Martin: Martin taught his son-inlaw, Henry Hunt (grandson of George Hunt who worked with anthropologist, Franz Boas (Cannizzo 1983, 44), his grandson, Tony Hunt (Henry Hunt’s son) and Doug Cranmer, the nephew of Mungo Martin’s niece, Ellen Neel (Danzker and Hunt 1983, 266).92 Curator and contributing Haida artist, Bill Reid, also worked on his first pole with Martin in 1957, although Doris Shadbolt maintained in her biography of Reid that “it could hardly be said that he received instruction from Martin”, and quotes Reid as relating that when he worked with Mungo Martin, Martin simply told Reid, “carve there” (Shadbolt 1986, 30). Reid, For a further discussion of the family relationships of these Kwakwaka’wakw 92 carvers, see also Gloria Cranmer Webster “Serious Flaws Mar Totem-Pole Guide Aimed at Mass Market,” Times Colonist (November 10, 1990), A-12, and Phil Nuytten, The Totem Carvers: Charlie James, Ellen Neel, Mungo Martin, (Vancouver: Panorama Publications, 1982).  96 however, does acknowledge Duff as giving him his “first opportunity to carve on a large scale” (Reid 1981, 14). One year after Reid’s introduction to carving poles with Mungo Martin, Harry Hawthorn invited Reid to create a section of a Haida village with Doug Cranmer as his “assistant”. 93 This was to be the second stage of the Totem Pole Restoration project under the direction of Hawthorn and the Department of Anthropology at UBC (A. Hawthorn 1993, 19). The concept of building a restored village had been one of the recommendations put forward to the Indian Affairs Branch in The Indians of British Columbia report published just the year before the Haida longhouse project began. Hawthorn et. al argued that: three or four houses with carved poles before them decorated with distinctive clan crests [could be] a contribution to public education, a museum for study and a point of interest and pride for the Indians who saw it (emphasis added) (1958, 259). These projects, as they were connected to public education and Indian employment, were supposed to provide Indians with jobs and “a point of interest and pride”. In fact, few First Nations had access to Mungo Martin’s work. In the fifties, Mungo Martin spoke of the loneliness of working in the Provincial Museum far away from his people (qtd. in Duff 1959, 7). Native leader, George Manuel, addressed the fact that Reid’s work at UBC in the sixties may have “provided university students the opportunity to study his techniques”, but there were very few Native people attending UBC at the time for whom Reid’s work could have provided a point of interest and pride (Manuel and Posluns 1974, 174). Given the fact that registered Indians did not even have access to public schools until 1960, when they were granted the federal vote, the “Indian art projects”, created outside the authority and geographical boundaries of First Nations’ communities could hardly be said to be produced for the benefit of Native peoples. Canadian Weekly. September, 1962, n.p. 93  97 I am not arguing that the re-categorisation of cultural objects within western institutional practice signaled closure. The erasure and construction of meanings of Northwest Coast aboriginal [material] culture that took place within museums and the discipline of anthropology and archaeology coincided with profound changes within Native communities. The shift in patronage for, and production of, Northwest Coast cultural objects from First Nations territories to western universities, museums and galleries also accommodated--although in a much more limited way--some First Nations concerns regarding the continuation and documentation of their histories, their traditions, “Indian ways” and languages (as disccussed in Chapter Three, p. 87)--all of which constituted an open-ended continual struggle for meaning of Northwest Coast cultural objects in the public sphere must also be acknowledged. Through the Totem Pole Restoration Projec t, individuals such as Mungo Martin were able to address some of their concerns about their respective cultures. Martin’s own people would eventually produce and curate a retrospective exhibit about the importance of his work within his own Nation and the Native and non-Native communities within which he worked. The exhibit, entitled A Slender Thread, was produced in 1991 by the Umista Cultural Centre in Alert Bay, B.C. as a “group effort”. The exhibit organisers describe Chief Nakap’ankam (one of Mungo Martin’s hereditary names) as someone who “helped to save the culture of our people, the Kwakwaka’wakw of British 94 Columbia”. A review of the exhibit at the Vancouver Museum in February and March (1991) described the title as referring to “the fragility of the bonds that tie together the past and present in any culture”. It also referred to a lineage that linked nineteenth century chiefs and carvers, and the men of Martin’s own generation in the twentieth century, with Martin’s successors in the Hunt and Cranmer familie s Text from Copy Panel 1 of exhibition. Vancouver Museum Archives. 94 See also Mungo Martin: A Slender Thread/The Legacy, produced by Barb Cranmer. [Video ] (Canadian Filmmakers Distribution West, 1990).  98 who are the Kwakwaka’wakw leaders and artists today (paraphrased 95 ). While I acknowledge and honour the importance the social history provided by Chief Nakap’ankam’s own people regarding his importance to them, much could also be said of Martin’s significant role in western institutions as it was linked to the development of the concept of artistic lineages, curatorial histories for individual Indian master artists. Although a discussion in further detail is beyond the scope of this thesis, the lack of attention paid to Mungo Martin’s work in the Arts of the Raven exhibit raises a number of questions: What were the historical processes in which institutional support for the collection, repair and reproduction of traditional totem poles shifted to a focus on Indian art as works of genius created by individual artists? Why was the Haida lineage of Edenshaw privileged over that of Kwakwaka’wakw “master artist”, Mungo Martin and his heirs, who actually learned from directly from Martin?--in contrast to Reid who stated that he had learned from western texts and institutions and from his fellow non-Native curators. In turn, would Henry Hunt and Tony Hunt have insisted on having authority over representation of the traditional meanings and display of their work as it pertained to Kwakwaka’wakw cultural practice and their oral histories, had Mungo Martin been selected as “the best” Northwest Coast carver? The following discussion surveys the early development of Indian art in British Columbia, the time when Mungo Martin’s work gained prominence in western institutions. It also provides an overview of the historical circumstances that informed the Arts of the Raven curators’ understanding of Northwest Coast material culture as fine art.  saturday Review, (March 2, 1991), n.p. 95  99 Indian Arts and Social Welfare Previous to the work of Hawthorn and Duff, Alice Ravenhill, the founder of the B.C. Indian Arts and Welfare Society (1940),96 also worked to stimulate interest in the “cultural folk life and the traditions of the Indians”, a tradition, which, according to Ravenhill, formed “the background of Canadian history 97 ”. In relation to the use of the term “welfare” in the society’s name, Ravenhill explained: It means a conduct of society by which every member strives to add to the foundation of the state so that the superstructure of our national life may be solid; so that the merits and genius of each individual of each section of peoples shall be unified in the general welfare of the nation (emphasis  98. added) The goals of the Society, which initially operated under the auspices of the British Columbia Provincial Museu 99 m (Abbott and Inglis, 1991),lOO intersected with the goals of the State--the Department of Indian Affairs. The state was also concerned with the unification of the individual in relation to the welfare of the nation. The Indians of B.C., who had already been “individualised” through the Originally founded as the “Society for the Furtherance of B.C. Indian Arts and 96 crafts”. Ravenhill began studying the background and history of First Nations peoples under Mr. William Newcombe, whose father was Dr. Newcombe, founder of the Anthropology Department of the Provincial Museum. See, Mildred Valley Thornton, “Alice Ravenhill’s Great Contribution Fostered Advance,” The Native Voice. Special Supplement, (March 1948), 2. Albert Miller (President of the B.C. Indian Art and Welfare Society). “Letter of 97 Appreciation,” The Native Voice, (August 1947), 2. 98 Group Fosters Best In Art, Helps Unity Grow,” The Native Voice, (Feb. 1948), ”B.C. 2. 99 name of the British Columbia Provincial Museum was changed in 1986 to me the Royal British Columbia Museum. According to Abbot and Inglis in “A Tradition of Partnership: The Royal t00 British Columbia Museum and First Peoples,” in Alberta Museums Review vol. 2, No. 17 (1991), the Provincial Museum’s involvement with the Society was to promote the welfare of First Nations peoples by increasing public awareness of their arts and crafts, and marketing their work. This article also provides an historical overview of the development of the Provincial Museum.  100 federal Indian Act’s registration system, and “homogenised” through its imposed classification based on race, blood quantum and male lineage in order to meet the state’s interests of governance, would now “contribute” their culture to the prosperity of the Dominion. While they contributed “culture”, the state would then recognise them as individuals through their contributions to the western categories of “Art” and “Philosophy”. In the foreword to Ravenhill’s book, A Corner Stone of Canadian Culture: An Outline of the Arts and Crafts of the Indian Tribes of British Columbia,  Ravenhill acknowledged support for the Society by the Indian Affairs Branch, Department of Mines and Resources in the preparation of her work. The Indian Affairs Branch commissioned Ravenhill in 1940 to prepare wall charts of “the arts and crafts formerly practised by [B.C.] Indian tribes for use in Indian schools”, in the hopes that Indian arts and crafts would be seen as a contribution “to the prosperity of the Dominion [and to]  .  .  .  the artistic, cultural, economic and  commercial development of [Canada]” (ii). In recognition of Ravenhill’s support of Indian Affairs, a 1947 newspaper report on the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons appointed to examine the Indian Act, acknowledged her for greatly facilitating the meetin 101 gs. In fact, the deliberations of the 1948, “Conference on Native Indian Affairs” at UBC, organised by H. Hawthorn and sponsored by the B.C. Indian Arts and Welfare Society, were reported to the Joint Committee. At the 1948 conference some First Nations artisans voiced their concerns regarding the low economic return for Indian art and handicrafts, while also expressing a concern for the lack of public knowledge about First Nations culture. Kwakwaka’wakw artisan Ellen Neel stated, “our art must continue to live, for not only is it part and parcel of us, but it can be a powerful factor in combining the best part of the Indian culture into the fabric of a truly Canadian Art ”Letter of appreciation,” The Native Voice. 101  (Aug. 1947),  2.  101 102 The politics of Neel’s suggestion to combine Indian and Canadian form”. cultures to create a “truly” Canadian art form revolved around the power relations that emerge from the recognition for the “true worth” of any culture. In fact, it was the western institutions (through which the Indian art category was created) that had the power to create worth and value in the public sphere, and by extention, patrons for the production of “authentic” Indian Art. Neel’s position underlines the struggle over what constitutes, in Stuart Hall’s words, the “forces and relations which sustain the distinction, the difference: roughly between what at any time counts as a distinct cultural activity or form and what does not” (Hall 1987, 234). While Neel was concerned with the recognition of Kwakwaka’wakw and Northwest Coast aboriginal cultures, as well as the need for a patron to sustain the production of cultural objects, her position must also be seen in the context of post-war Canada. As discussed in Chapter Three, First Nations peoples publicly identified themselves as “Native Canadians” or “the First Canadians” to draw attention to their economic and social inequality with the Canadian populace. It was from this platform that they spoke to the issue of securing their aboriginal, territorial, legal and human rights. Some members of parliament, on the other hand, saw granting the Indian the vote as a Canadian as:  a great step toward assimilation... [which would] make the Indian Canadian realize that we are all united. [and that the] Indian would [not] lose his rich background of cultural achievements, or any of the rights he enjoy[ed] under treaties, or any of his rights, statutory or at common law. 103 .  .  ‘° ” 2 The Conference on Native Indian Affairs Successful,”  (April 1948), 2.  103 ”Indian s and the Vote,” The Native Voice. (July, 1948), 2.  The Native Voice,  102 Federal support for the Arts and Welfare Society in the forties, and the UBC and BCPM projects in the fifties and early sixties, only partially addressed the federal government’s fiduciary responsibilities. More importantly, they reinforced their broader, relentless agenda of assimilation. While there was a Native political voice in relation to the land question and social conditions, clearly, there was also slippage between gaining “equality” and the assimilation of the Indian into a Canadian body politic, and First Nations cultures into Canada’s history and heritage. As “the First Canadians”, First Nations peoples such as Ellen Neel were encouraged to preserve their “culture”, their art and philosophy, but, significantly, only in ways that First Nations sovereignty or self-determination were not represented. As an important aspect of the background of Canadian history, Indian cultural and “folk” life were advanced for the artistic, cultural, economic and commercial development of Canada. For example, Judy Morgan, identified as a Tsimshian from Kitwanga, won many scholarships for her painting on canvas of Native mythology, work that was compared to the work of Emily Carr. To commemorate the enfranchisement of the Native people of B.C. in 1949, the Provincial Government purchased five of her paintings as a record of the phases “of Indian life fast disappearing from our Northwest Coast”. That same year, her work was exhibited at the National Museum of Ottawa, with the financial support of the Department of Indian Affairs 104. George Clutesi of the Seshaht (Nuu-chah-nulth), who had shown his work in a one-man-show at the VAG in 1944105, was also recognised for his work of preserving the legends and dances of  ”Indian Girl’s Paintings have been purchased by the British Columbia 104 Government,” The Native Voice, (August 10, 1949), 1. For other articles on Judy Morgan in The Native Voice, see also, July 1947; Nov. 1947; June 1948; Sept. 1948; and August 1949.  Clutesie exhibited 16 drawings, June 13-25, 1944. None of the drawings were t05 acquired by the VAG. (Vancouver Art Gallery Bulletin 1944-45. No. 564, vol. 12, No. 10, June 1944-45.  103 his people on canvas. Clutesi’s work on canvas was encouraged and given practical assistance by Lawren Harris, Emily Carr, Ira Dilworth and Anthony Wals6 10 h. It was Harris who urged Clutesi to work in progressively larger canvasses, to keep his own style and to not be influenced too much by traditional technique 10 7. However, Clutesi’s work like that of Judy P. Morgan was recognised, “as a concrete example of what proper supervision can do for the Indians if they set their minds to advance (italics mine)”--that is, throug h the use of adapting Indian art to western materials, forms, content and 10 meth odologie 8 s. This is different than the way in which Northwest Coast masterworks in the Arts of the Raven exhibit were represented as fine art, the work of Indian master artists, who used traditional Northwest Coast design and mediums. Another individual who influenced the development of Northwest Coast material culture as “fine art” was Erna Gunther. In Women Anthro pologists: A Biographical Dictionary, Gunther is described as a student of Boas, who was “dedicated to establishing the cultural context for [Native] arts and custom s,”.. and [who] from the late 1950s to the late 1970s.  .  .  campaign[ed] to arouse public  support for anthropology and for the arts and crafts of Northwest Native The Native Voice. (November 1947), 10. 106  For other articles on Clutesie, see The Native Voice, (Nov. 1947), 10; 107 1948), 1; (Sept. 1948), 10. Ira Dilworth chief executive of the C.B.C. Radio,(March  and Anthony Walsh also encouraged him in his work to set his “Indian Folk Tales” down as a collection, which were later broadcast on C.B.C. by Clutesie. The caption beneath the photograph of Clutesie with his work and paintbrush in hand (Sept., 1948) states, “So long as paint exists on canvas, these legends and dances will not be lost”. The support for Clutesie’s work had much to do with preserv ing the heritage of B.C.. A E. Pickford. (Member of Executive Council. B.C. Indian Arts 108 and Welfare Society) Arts and Crafts Canadian Pacific Exhibition, The Native Voice, (Sept. 1947), 11. The goals of the Indian Arts and Welfare society were among other things, “To bring to the notice of the public, the innate merits and deep-rooted artistic talents of the Indian people by means of exhibitions of their Arts and Crafts, Folklore, Music, Drama and Dance.. .To arouse the Indian s themselves to a realization of their true place in the organization of this country...” (qtd. in the  Indian Advisory Committee Newsletter, Feb. 1966,3).  104 peoples” (1988, 133-39). Gunther, like A. Ravenhill, H. Hawthorn and others, was also known as a person who was committed to applying First Nations cultures to Indian education (under the category of the “Arts”) and to the “Indian’s” adjustment to modern Canadian life. At the 1948 “Conference on Native Indian Affairs” at UBC (above), she drew attention to the importance of developing Indian art, not only as an economic investment, but as an “education thing... [that would benefit] not only the artist but the society in which he lives. Two of the curator/consultants for the Arts of the Raven exhibit--Holm and Duff--had been students of Gunther’s at the University of Western Washington. After moving to Seattle in 1937, Holm studied anthropology and Fine Art there, and as a student of Gunther’s attended Native spirit dances with her. ° Wilson 11 Duff completed his Master of Arts degree in Anthropology under the direction of Gunther in 1951 (Ames 1981, 17). In the Preface to Hoim’s 1965 text on Northwest  Coast Indian Art, Holm credits both Gunther and Duff for their assistance in the compilation of his text. (Interestingly, Gunther does not refer to Hoim’s 1965 formalist analysis of Northwest Coast art in her 1966 catalogue, Art in the Lfe of the Northwest Coast Indian 111 s.  )  Gunther’s commitment to the recognition of  Northwest Coast material culture as fine art was well established before 1967. In 1939, Gunther curated what has been described as the first exhibit of Northwest Coast material culture as “works of art” at the Golden Gate International Exposition in San Francisco (Altman 1966, viii). Also shown at the Fair, and parallel to Gunther’s exhibit, was a government-sponsored exhibit of Indian Art that was curated by Rene’ d’Harnancourt, General Manager of the Indian Arts The Native Voice. (April, 1948), 2. 109  1 10 The Vancouver Sun “The Man Who Knows Form,” November 5, 1983. 1 1 She refers to what Hoim describes as ovoids, U-shapes and formline as “the nucleated circle, the ubiquitous eye design, and the squared off oval. Curves often create the effect of being contained with an imaginary rectangle, the contours of which they are forced to fill” (1966, 6).  105 and Crafts Board, and future director of the Museum of Modern Art, New York, who had the help of Erna Gunther’s (Ibid.). In 1962, Gunther curated another exhibit at the Seattle World’s Fair, which she described as “masterpieces of Northwest Coast Indian art.  .  .  [surrounded by] the world’s finest art. The  ‘Masterpieces of Art’ from El Greco to Klee  .  .  .“  (Gunther 1962, 8 ,9). The Seattle  Fair’s Fine Art’s pavilion was divided into five exhibits: International, Modern, American Art, Old Masters and Northwest Coast Indian Art. It was Gunther’s intention that Northwest Coast Indian Art should “stand together with the great arts of the world, both historic and contemporary” (qtd. in M. Hoim, n.p.). However, she also asserted that the production of great Northwest Coast “masterpieces” had ceased with the “destruction” of the social systems through white settlement, and that Northwest Coast Indian Art was “as much a matter of the past as  .  .  .  the art of the Renaissance” (Gunther 1962, 8).  Although the authors of the Arts of the Raven catalogue contended that the old Indian cultures were dead, unlike Gunther, they asserted that the art styles survived as evidenced by Haida artist Charles Edenshaw’s lineage of artistic genius, leading to his living heirs, Bill Reid and Robert Davidson. These individuals, among others, would later be constructed as establishing a contemporary Renaissance of Northwest Coast art.  106 CHAPTER FIVE Conclusion Authorities of Northwest Coast First Nations cultures. Who are they?  Origins and Contamination by Modernity According to the Arts of the Raven catalogue, Kwakwaka’wakw art “never did suffer a full eclipse , but evolved--albeit “contaminated” by modernity. In t1 Wilson Duff’s 1959 article, “Mungo Martin, Carver of the Century”, he described the Kwakwaka’wakw world into which Mungo Martin was born as still functioning, but “no longer functioning normally” (5). In contrast, the Haida style is described as having been kept barely alive by slate carvers 12 .’ This was a world in which, according to the catalogue, the Kwakwaka’wakw felt free to “[make] the rules as they went along” (N. pag.). While “the slender thread” of Kwakwaka’wakw art evolved and changed, perpetuated in part through the patronage of provincial institutions, Reid described Haida art as a reconstruction of (uncontaminated) origins that existed only in museums and text : 113 Everything else that was going on was a result of people imitating people  who were imitating other people who were imitating the great people of the past. It was sort of the diminishing stream. So we skipped all that and went back to the origins--in museums and books--and discovered what we  thought were the basic rules governing at least the northern style of the art  (Reid qtd in Duffek 1983, 40; emphasis mine).  1 Reid acknowledged that, “[t]here was some adequate slate carving and a few old men. John Cross, Tom Moody, John Marks, and my grandfather, Charles Gladstone, were making some quite nice bracelets.” (Reid qtd. in Duffek 1981, 16). me survival of NWC First Nations ‘arts and crafts’ was an on-going dialogue in 13 Anthropology. “Very little would be left now bearing the name of the Haidas, should we discard the splendid work of their craftsmen of 1860-1920 at Skidegate and Masett; these were the two Edensaws, Skaoskay or David Shakespeare, William Dixon, Tom Price, John Cross, the cripple Chapman, and a number of others, not a few of whom survived into our century. In another sphere, the secret societies of the Kwakiutls and the Tsimsyans have continued in operation in some quarters almost to the present day” (Barbeau 1950, 763; emphasis mine).  107 In fact, Reid has so little confidence in the legitimacy of the knowledge held by contemporary Haidas, that he would later memorialise Duff s romantic notions about the Haida in contrast to his own perception of Haida’s contemporary reality: I think [Duff] wanted his Charlottes to be the home of the old Haidas,... not a largely deserted land with a few crumbling relics of rotten wood, and  a handful of fishermen and loggers and their families occasionally remembering memories as they became more and more like the world that surrounds them. (1981, 13; emphasis mine).  This position is reminiscent of Barbeau’s reaction to Jim Mackay (discussed in Chapter Two). Barbeau clearly believed that if “material culture” was not evident, then neither was the dynamic of changing First Nations cultures. Yet, the economic stability provided by logging and fishing, which signaled a “lack” to Reid and others such as museum director, Audrey Hawthorn as late as 1993,114 provided, for example, Haida leader Peter Kelly, with political power and limited economic autonomy (as discussed in Chapter Three).  Hoim Bill Hoim was described in the catalogue as being “steeped in [Kwakwaka’wakw] culture”. He held pseudo-potlatches in which he danced and sang Kwakwaka’wakw songs with “his Indian dancers” (Fig. 1 & 2). Through a close friendship with Mungo Martin, “Holm acquired a number of privileges and hereditary names. He was an initiate of the Hamatsa (Cannibal Bird) society and has potlatched to validate the names given to himself and his children”. 115 Like other western “primitivist artists”, Bill Hoim’s position in the exhibit may be described as an intellectual who had “gone Native”. At the same time, Hoim’s 1 14 Aucirey Hawthorn referred to Percy Gladstone, a Haida, as a young man in Skidegate, who “without opportunity to become anything other than a fisherman [tried] to force his community to lift itself up through the impromtu adult education he devised” (1993, 6, 7). 1 15 ”The Man who knows form,”  The Vancouver Sun, (November 5, 1983), n.p.  108 intellectual analysis of Northwest Coast Indian arts, created a space for it as an international art form--a form he described in the catalogue as “steeped in the [Kwakwaka’wakw] tradition”. 116 This oppositional image of the work contrasts Holm’s view of Northwest Coast design with the work of contributing Native artists in both the context of the specificity of a Northwest Coast Indian art tradition, and universal aesthetic. As Holm’s co-curator, Bill Reid reinforced the authority of Hoim in the exhibition catalogue, stating that his own (Reid’s) knowledge of Kwakwaka’wakw art began and ended with enthusiastic appreciation enhanced ‘by having been privileged to see on two occasions superb examples of masks and costumes displayed as they should be.  .  .  sensitively  conceived and re-enacted by Bill Hoim and his dancers” (Reid 1967, N. pag.; emphasis mine; See: Fig. 1). Today Hoim’s position as an academic expert on Northwest Coast material culture and its development within western historicizing extends to such diverse topics as the maritime fur trade, weaving and textiles, issues of provenance, attribution and curatorial lineages for Northwest Coast objects and makers, photography of First Nations peoples, and canoe 7 building.” While he is generally well-respected for his work, he has also been severely critiqued by Tony Hunt, Hereditary Chief of the Kwakwaka’wakw people, for not responding to a series of articles in April 1989, entitled “Indian Art: A Renaissance,” in the Seattle Times. 118 In particularly, Hunt felt that Hoim should have responded to the articles that identified Hoim and two other non-Native artists who made Northwest Coast art as being primarily responsible 1 16 ”The Arts: The Play’s Not the Thing,” Time, (June 16, 1967), 13. See Hoim 1965, 1967a, 1967b, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1982a, 1982b, 1983a, 1983b, 1987a, 117 1987b, 1989, 1991. 11 8 Sunday April 2, 3, to the great Kwakiutl District Council, Bill Hardy; and “A very  4, 1989. See also: Letters to the Editor: “Articles are an insult chiefs and artists” by David J. Hunt, chairman; Kwakiutl Wilson, political spokesman, Musganiagw Tribal Council, Port disturbing message” by Alan L. Hoover, Royal British Columbia Musuem, Victoria, B.C. in Seattle Times Editorial, (May 3, 1989) n.p.  109 for reviving Northwest Coast Indian art. Hunt referred to the work of his grandfather, Mungo Martin, who not only generously provided Holm with vital cultural information, but who, more importantly, had passed on his cultural knowledge first to his family, such as Henry and Tony Hunt and Doug Cranmer. While Holm did respond to the Kwakwak&wakw chiefs in a respectful and honourable manner, this situation once again underlines the problem of using western expertise to authorise cultural knowledge, which can have the effect of undermining First Nations access to representing their own interests in the 9 ’ 1 public sphere.. Reid In many ways Reid could be described as the perfect model for the successful integration of the Indian. The western values for which he was praised--his education, articulate speech, and successful career--signal the possibility of the successful assimilation of other Canadian Indians into the progressive space of modernity. At the same time, his work represents the democratic inclusion of the art and philosophy of Canada’s Indian into Canadian history. Yet, it is the contradictory nature of these hybrid cultural forms of High Art that, to quote post-colonialist theorist, Homi Bhaba, “opens colonial discourse to the possibility of fracture from within.  .  .  their very presence disrupts the apparently axiomatic  significatory system which has invested itself with absolute authority over those it has constructed as Other” (Bhabha qtd. in Ashcroft 1989, 103).120 In fact, the Raven exhibition afforded Dorothy Francis, one of the “storytellers” for the exhibit programming, the opportunity to speak about 1 19 Holm responded to the April 1989 article in October 1989. The important issues that this dispute raised had to do with representation, cultural appropriation, how western authority and expertise is translated in the public sphere, and the question’ of how “universal” NWC art is. See also: Homi K. Bhabha, “Of mimicry and man: the ambivalence of colonial 120 discourse”, October, 28 (Spring) 1984. The creation of the Northwest coast Indian master is also linked to the colonial subject, which could be explored more fully.  110 contemporary social and political issues. In an article in the Vancouver Sun, entitled “Ignorance is Worst Enemy: Educators, Parents Could Help Indian,” she spoke of the responsibility that non-Native communities and educators would have to take, for the racial prejudice, residential schools, enfranchisement and education about “the culture and heritage that was here before Columbus came”. Refusing her assigned position as a storyteller in the Children’s Gallery, she suggested that “maybe some adults [would] have an opportunity to hear her” at the VAG. Francis explained that she left the reserve because, “[hiaving lived on reservations where the Indian has no voice I thought I could do more for them now that we’re enfranchised”. 121 There is a distinctive difference in her attitude as a participant in the exhibit and Bill Reid’s. Francis made a conscious choice to be enfranchised in order to affect change for Native peoples living on or off a reserve. She expressed the need for equal opportunity for First Nations peoples to education--but parallel to recognition of First Nations’ histories and their cultural differences. On the other hand, for Reid, equality meant integration. While the Native Brotherhood and other First Nations institutions were fighting for the recognition of Native rights, Reid learned about Northwest Coast material culture and its attendant anthropological history from western academic institutions. It was through his relationships in these institutions that he began his work as a Haida carver of Haida monumental art, a position that also gave him a privileged voice in the public sphere--something few First Nations individuals had access to. In 1962, Bill Reid was quoted in the Vancouver Sun and the Native Voice newspapers as saying that:  villages on reserve will never be much better than ghettos unless they are set up as self-sufficient communities where Indian and white men can live and work together Indians will continue to be second class citizens .  .  ..  The Vancouver Sun, (Aug. 4, 1967), n.p. 121  111 as long as they live on reserves without any efforts made to integrate them into the white population (emphasis mine). 122 In contrast to Reid’s position, in 1974 The Aboriginal Rights Committee would make this statement to the Special Committee of the Senate and House of Commons: Poor as [some reserves] may appear to others, they are rich in memories and traditions for us. We wish to leave them to our children as we received them from our parents. We will not willingly surrender them. We should not be required to surrender them or the privileges attached to them. 123 Reid’s statement regarding the need for Indians to “integrate” reveals his lack of understanding at the time of the interface between First Nations and the provincial and federal governments. In the first place, villages on reserves in British Columbia were and are usually located within the residents’ traditional territories (Hawthorn 1966, 248, 9). Because aboriginal title would not be established in Canada until 1982 when the Constitution of Canada recognised Aboriginal rights, few First Nations peoples in B.C. would be prepared to live together with white men in their territories when issues of aboriginal sovereignty had not yet been recognised. Indeed, their primary concern was to be recognised as nations of peoples--not as 124 individuals. Thus, the concern of First Nations leaders was not focused on their “choice” as individuals within Canadian society. For Reid, who was not registered as an “Indian”, and therefore was not even legally entitled to live on reserve in his mother’s village of Skidegáte, and who had not learned of his Haida ancestry until his teens, living ”Ghettos’ Used to Describe British Columbia Villages” The Native Voice, (Mar. 122 1962), 5. 123 Special Committee of the senate and the House of Commons, 1960, Proceedings.  Queens Printer, Submission of the Aboriginal Native Rights Committee of the Interior Tribes of British Columbia. qtd. in Manuel and Posluns 1974, 123.  1 24 The Minister of Indian Affairs referred to the Indian Act in 1965 as inhibiting “choice and individuality” in “Laing Speaks to B.C. Brotherhood,” The Native Voice. (December 1, 1965), 12.  112 on reserve did not signify living in his traditional territory or being connected to his Haida history and family. Rather, Reid, like most of the public in the sixties, not only associated reserve life with poverty, ghettos and a second-class way of life, but failed to see them as territories belonging to nations of peoples with histories and laws of their own. However, the perspective of a de-politicised Indian subject was common to the institutions, disciplines and individuals who practiced Native history at the time. The evidence of this view as presented in the catalogues of earlier exhibits at the Vancouver Art Gallery was briefly discussed in Chapter Two. For example, in the People of the Potlatch catalogue, Audrey Hawthorn asserted that there were “gradations and differences of habit, idea and custom amongst Northwest Coast aboriginal peoples”, but it was their “mutually unintelligible languages” which “set apart each group as a tribe--although such a tribe had no political bonds (A. Hawthorn 1956, 8; emphasis added). Also expressing this view, Bill Reid stated in the foreword to the 1958 One Hundred Years of B.C. Art catalogue, that there were “no formal tribal or political units and no recognised association larger than the family. But there were large linguistic groups with distinctive cultural traits, which were reflected in the style of their art” (N. pag.; emphasis mine). In the One Hundred Years of B.C. Art catalogue’s preceding paragraph, Reid described the Salish art style as primitive, unsophisticated and childlike, in relation to the “theatrical Kwagiutl”, the “expressive Tsimshian” and the “classical Haida”--the same descriptions, distinctions and categories used in the 1967 Arts of the Raven catalogue. At least three issues intersect in the statements quoted above: 1) the explicit denial of traditional First Nations political bodies, through which contemporary First Nations political institutions were legitimised; 2) the construction of a cultural hierarchy in relation to progress and development and 3) the reduction of tribal difference to “cultural traits”, which were reflected in the stylistic  113 differences of fine art. All of these factors conspired to locate Northwest Coast Native peoples, their histories and their culture in a timeless, apolitical space. Reid’s lack of understanding of Northwest Coast culture could be attributed to the paucity of literature on First Nations peoples in the fifties and the de politicization of Native politics in western institutions that emerged from anthropological literature. Yet, Reid would voice this perspective again in 1971. In Out of the Silence (1971), a book of photographs of Haida Gwaii, Reid insisted in poetic prose on the lack of Native politics:  And yet/one of these clusters was Tanu./It wasn’t even a single political entity/but two villages separated by only a few yards./It knew no law/beyond custom, / no history/beyond legend/no political unit/larger than the family,/no government/beyond an informal meeting of family heads,/plus the tacit acceptance/of the superiority of the ranking chief (1971, N. pag.; emphasis mine). Audrey Hawthorn and Reid (as the foremost authority of Haida culture) must be considered in relation to the kind of authority the Canadian government invested in anthropologists, archaeologists, ethnographers, linguists and other institutionally constituted specialists of First Nations histories, heritage, culture and languages at this time--a time when there was little material circulating on First Nations peoples. This is a key issue. The position of anthropologists, art historians, curators, and the like was not simply one of supplying an academic analysis, but was linked to the authority of western expertise that continues to be used in the courts of Canada both to establish and extinguish aboriginal land title. The academic analyses of both Reid and Audrey Hawthorn reveal, as did Duff’s (discussed in Chapter Three), a lack of understanding of what constituted aboriginal title--that is the authority of oral histories--not legends or myths--and traditional laws for which Native leaders of territories had fought, for over a hundred years. Further, their analysis of Northwest Coast culture reveals a lack of recognition of even the contemporary Native political institutions within Canadian society from the turn of the century, which were separate, but not  114 mutually exclusive, from traditional First Nations institutions and governments that operated within First Nations territories. Yet, despite the way in which Reid privileged western values, form and aesthetics in relation to Northwest Coast cultures, his presence as a contemporary Haida artist of masterworks did open up some discourse on contemporary socio-political concerns--albeit in a limited way. At the same time, the experience of Reid’s historical displacement and his position as an “urban” Haida artist and curator point to the multiplicity of aboriginal communities that were formed not only through acts of colonialism, but through the invisibility of Canadian ideology. Today, Reid’s position of cultural authority is not only 1ocatedin western institutions and knowledge, but has been supported by representatives of the Haida --especially 25 nation ’ since his involvement in the land question in Haida Gwaii. The public image of him as an aboriginal artist of Haida descent has taken on new meanings according to the circumstances and contexts of various historical moments, blurring the boundaries of what constitutes Haida culture and politics.  There are many publications in which Reid is publicly supported by 125  traditional Haida chiefs and contemporary Haida politicians. See for example, “Carving Their Claim: Haida Nationalism on the Rise,” British Columbia Report. Nov. 13, 1989, 8-11. The image of Haida artist, Jim Hart carving introduces the question “Who owns Haida Gwaii (called the Queen Charlotte Islands in the article) anyway? It is a question made more pointed, according to the author, by the Haida’s growing artistic accomplishments (8). In reviewing the land question in  Haida Gwaii, the author draws attention to symbols of nationalism such as the Haida flag (a depiction of an eagle and raven), and refers to the “first signs of Haida resurgence in the 1970s” in relation to the flowering of the art of Bill Reid parallel to Haida’s political intentions of sovereignty (90). The article concludes, citing Jim Hart’s position on the importance of tradition and art as politics (11);  In “Salvation of a Homeland: Miles Richardson,” (McLeans, Dec. 28, 1987, 32, 33) Bill Reid’s “First Men and the Clamshell” at the Museum of Anthropology UBC provides the background for the President of the Council of Haida Nation, Richardson who is photographed in Haida regalia. Although the article does not discuss Reid’s work, it does draw attention to what a powerful sign “Haida art” has become. The articles discusses logging in South Moresby in relation to the land question; See also: Crosby, 1991 for a discussion of Reid’s direct involvement in the Haida’s dispute with the federal and provincial government over Athlii Gwaii.  115 Duff  The editor of The world is as sharp as a knife,: an anthology in honour of Wilson Duff Donald N. Abbott, made a comparison of Duff’s 1956 publication on stone artifacts with the use of the same material as stone sculptures twenty years later in Images Stone B.C. Abbott describes the shift from Duff’s “painstaking scholarly documentation in 1956... [of the stones, which led him] confidently far beyond considerations of distribution and style to reach into the very thought processes of the artists themselves, the cultures of which they had been a part, and  .  .  .  how  it is to be human” (Duff 1975, 12). Clearly, it was Duff’s confidence in the scholarly disciplines of legitimised western forms of knowledge that facilitated the “risk” he states he took in “employing a great deal of artistic license” (Duff 1975, jacket cover) in examining the stone works, and his presumption, based on the structuralist theories of Claude Levi-Strauss, that he could get into the minds of the artists. It was with this same confidence that Duff assumed to know what was in the minds of the Northwest Coast craftsmen. Regarding the “aesthetic standards” of the Arts of the Raven exhibit, “Gallery 6: Masterpieces of Northwest Coast Indian Art”, Duff asserted: We all have a strong temptation to apply the criteria which we have learned, although these may not have been shared by the artists themselves. We have tried to use the judgment which they would have used. These we think are the works which they would have chosen as their best (N. pag.). However, Duff’s co-consultant, Bill Hoim, would argue that Duff made most of the decisions regarding the work of Edenshaw, whose role as a model for Indian mastery was central to the exhibit’s curatorial thesis: One of Wilson Duff’s responsibilities in the planning of [the Raven] exhibition was an Edensaw 126 gallery. He tentatively identified a large number of pieces as Edensaw’s work. Wilson, Bill Reid and I did not agree on all the attributions at the time, but our understanding of the .  ..  Edenshaw’s name has been spelled differently in various texts according to the 126 writer’s understanding of the Haida language. However, no “correct” spelling can be exist without a commonly accepted orthography, which doesn’t exist.  116 characteristics of Edensaw’s work was very rudimentary. and most of the choices were left to stand (Hoim 1991, 175; emphasis mine). These three “experts” who “had the responsibility for the exhibition itself: its conception, the search for and selection of the works comprising the show, their thematic organization within the exhibition and the catalogue” (Shadbolt 1967, N. pag.), in fact, did not know what was in the minds of those who made the works, any more than they could positively identify who the artists were. They could only hypothesise. While Reid and Holm also asserted, as did Duff, that there were no living Northwest Coast Indians who “knew” how to make “traditional” Northwest Coast art (see: Holm 1965, vii), much less understand their meanings, the knowledge held by these same individuals about Edenshaw was “rudimentary”. My point is that the authority of western text and professional expertise regarding the Northwest Coast Indian was/is based on partial knowledge and shifting theories. Yet it is through this kind of authority that “experts” such as these question the knowledge held within First Nations oral histories.  Postscript Setting .up cultural institutions in the heroic position of saviours of First Nations cultures bypasses the more important issue of addressing how that “need” was created in the first place. Certainly, it can be stated that many First Nations individuals and communities today recognise that accessing the information recorded by ethnographers, anthropologists, archaeologists, political scientists, art historians and curators is very important to filling in the historical gaps in local knowledge--which exist because of the many colonialist projects for assimilation and cultural genocide. Yet, there is no evidence that contemporary, Northwest Coast First Nations’ cultures are any more “stable” or meaningful today than any other First Nations whose material cultures did not garner the outside interest  117 that the Coastal peoples did, or who simply were not as geographically accessible. Who benefits from whom is a historically specific and complex question. In 1993, it is no accident that the British Columbia Museums Association and the institutions it represented centred their discussions around “partnerships” with First Peoples at the same time that First Nations in British Columbia and the Governments of Canada and British Columbia formally entered into a “government to government” relationship to resolve the land issue. The position of authority over territories, histories and laws that First Nations leaders assumed in the public sphere in relation to the federal and provincial governments over one hundred years ago has extended to many arenas today. Many aboriginal groups, communities, nations and individuals have assumed ownership over they way in which they are represented in the public school system, museums, art galleries; Native leaders, knowledgeable and respected individuals in First Nations communities, and Native professionals are publicly questioning and evaluating non-Native “expertise”, adding to the discourse the possibility of different systems of signs, the actuality of referents outside of western historicizing, and histories and narratives--previously unspoken or recorded in the public sphere. Yet it must also be said that the exhibit’s producers were informed by a historical moment that equated oral traditions with ignorance, text with knowledge, and modernity with progress and science. Paradoxically, modernity also constituted “the diminishing stream” referred to by Reid that contaminated the “authenticity of objects’ origins”. In order to facilitate the “escape” of Haida culture from the same fate as the Kwakwaka’wakw, the primacy of a textual history brought its audience and authors to the “origins” of Haida culture. Thus, from a so-called “dying” culture, the golden age of “classical” Indian art was reborn as “Canadian art, fine art, modern art”, dependent upon western text, academic expertise and patronage to support and articulate its greatness. Through  118 this position of authority, Wilson Duff, Bill Reid and Bill Holm would determine what was quality and what was “junk”, what Nation made what category of art, and who was “the best” Northwest Coast Indian artist as a means to establish public appreciation for Northwest Coast “Masterworks” and “Indianmasters”. In the process, the distinct, cultural histories of Northwest Coast peoples, and their contemporary realities were discounted. In respect to such contradiction, I am compelled to ask, since First Nations people were not dying, what were their socio-political conditions of life at this period of time? If they were not making a profusion of cultural objects, certainly there must have been more going on than the terminal apathy implied in the curators’ comments regarding Northwest Coast First Nations’ social conditions at the time. If it is true that First Nations people “had little desire to replenish the loss  “  127 I must ask, Why? of material culture, as some historians have asserted,  If there was little skill for producing cultural objects at this time, as the producers of the Arts of the Raven: Masterworks by the Northwest coast Indian exhibit asserted, I must also ask, What constituted the skills First Nations peoples were using during the period when there were few cultural objects being made? What tools did they have access to in order to realize their social and political concerns? That is a history that must be and will be written by First Nations peoples themselves; this thesis attempts to contribute in a small measure to this history.  Author, Ronald L. Weber, in a book review of historian, Douglas Cole’s Captured t27 the Scramble for Northwest Coast Artifacts (1985), rightly identifies the Heritage: erroneous notion that Indians were a dying people as the basic premise for collecting during the period (1850-1920) as discussed by Cole. Yet he ends his summary of Cole’s text with a revealing comment, “[B]y 1930 most traditional artifacts were already in museums, and little desire or skill remained to replenish the loss” (Weber 1987, 71; emphasis mine).  I1.  I—  rJQ  I’  I  N C  —Iz  0  z  0  rn  120  SEPT.  OAR  MRS  HAWTHOH  ,  5, 1963  •.  c  M 1  t.  rHAT I DIDN’T WRITE IMMEDIATrLY U) YOUR LASTLEtTERwITHTI4EQ,EcK.App OURLETTCRSCRDSSEDn4 TE EXPEC EXPEJSE 1IDNEY FROM Y0U IN ADDITION TO T’ HONORAflIUM I DID THINK OF 4rTINc AND MENTI THIS RIGN’ AWAY, BUT I WFR .0N YOUR HOLIDAYS RIGI4T THEN AND J’DEGIDEd THAT YOU ‘WOULD SEE THAT OUR LETT, EfS HAO’dROSSED THE CI4ECiC YOU SENT ALREADY WAS ZIORE T)4A ADEOUAT;.SPECIALLY SINCE ‘‘I ONLY WORKED ONE DAY -  •E  :::;‘c  HAD A GOOD ‘POTLATCH’ATCA M-.I-THERE WERE ,INDIANS PRESE4T, 7 QUITE . ..D FEWQ FrTHC A M”GH EN ’ SliT ALSO’’ , WHO ARE ANDI1AV BEEN DN LE.D IN THE POATCK AND TS RAMIFICATIONS T,wAS-QOITAt EXCITING -rIME.  ..,  çk:—  —-  . - r NFVFR DID CONNECT WiTH 9IL.. REID, 8U1 DID GT TQH1S PLACE AND TALKED TO HIS PARTNER AT LENGTH rALSO TALKED TO BILL. ON TI ‘HONC HE MENTIONED TrIAT HE HAD TAIEN QUITE AFEW PICTURES IN OTTwA6oF PIECES IN THE NATIONAL MUSEUM) ND I AM QUITE ANXIOUS O SEE  ‘.—  -  r  ‘1  -.  -  INCEY  1  YOURS,_r_____  Figure 2  1T’1f ;141(1  4  ci’v  :1 •  I4  CD  I-J.  123  Figure 5  CD  p1:1  CD  I.J.  L1  L’)  00  (U  cJQ  t’3  CD  L’J  —a  01  811  (D  I-’  130  Figure 12  El aaflTa  TET  I—  (U  c)  ‘1 CD  I-rj  rJ  fra  C ‘1 CD  fri.  L  U--li  4J(  Chief Edinsa (E) (died 1793)  Gwai-gwun-thlin’s 2 older brothers (E), Yatza’ sheirs,  killed in raids  (E) = Eagle Phratry R) Raven Phratry  Yatza’s brother (E) (R) chieftainess, Koyah’s line =  I  Skoual (R  Charles Gladstone (E) (renounced claim to chieftainship)  Tahayghen’s sister (E)  I___________________________  Gwai-gwun-thlin’s sister (E)  Yatza’s sister (E)  The last of the great HA1DA EAGLE CHiEFS of the STASTAS SHONGALTH LINEAGE showing the matrilineal succession  Gwai-gwun-thlin’s brother (E)  Yaiza’s heir (E) (died young)  Yatza’s sister Maada (E) = Koyah (R)  Chief Edinsa’s sister (E)  Yatza (E) (born 1761 Chief Edinsa 1794 died 1840)  Gwai-gwun-thlin (E) (born 1812 Chief Edinsa 1841 baptized Albert Edward Edenshaw 1884 died 1894)  Tahayghen (E) (born 1835, baptized Charles Edenshaw 1884 Chief Edinsa 1895 died 1920)  Charles Gladstone’s daughter (R)  William R. Reid (R) (illustrator of Raven’s Cry)  F .  V  :4  ‘I  --  I  U  I —  Corlynn Hcinney joins in a toast with Douglas Eliuk of the National Film Board at the openin night g party of Arts of the Raven , Vanco Gallerys exhibition, which opened with champagne and black uver Art tie attire.  )1  Marie Baker, who is co-ordinoting an Indian worksh op at UBC this sum mer, discuss es her native costum e with Mrs. Doris Shadb olt, then acting curator of the Vancouver Art Gallery, ot the opening of Arts of the Raven.  I  Mr. and Mrs. Terry Learm outh inspec t a huge potlotc h bowl with Mr. and Mrs. Vern Housez at opening fete of Arts of the Raven . The show, which runs until late September, fills the gallery with Indian art master pieces.  co  a)  137  Last night’s gala opeflng  Bill Held of Vaitcoiner, Ii James Slwld of Alert £  ,  look over one of the displays of InØian art that opened at the Art Gallery Wednesday night.  Figure 19  138  Figure 20  0  I  $1  I.  I:  6T  140  .  lie’: cc.  Provincial  —F-  I-.  ‘.-.....  I  For Native Canadians he 19thAnñuäl Native. Btotherhood of B.C. Conven  iill be held at Bella Coálo commencing April 5. Welfare Conference The Regional Conference.. en Wlfare. will be held at the Empress Hotel on May ‘on  —  2, 3, 4. Indian Welfare will cppear on t’ha agenda for the first time In Canadian history. Mr. George Clutesi and Commissioner W. S. Arneil will speak in connection with Social Welfare.  Figure 22  __  _ _  141  4  I—  —  1 z z* I  I :— _ter John Die fenbaker is the first to fulfil the p Indian people by the Great White Mother, nIisters would respect an d uphold theiirights ,thógrass’growà.an4th e waters flow.” I  —  Figure 23  I  t’.z  (D  rj I-J.  (0 0)  cO  rCb  oCb  (i)  —  March 3-5 May 22 June 3-4 June 10-11 June 17-18  -  ‘1967  All Indian Basketball Tournament, Prince Rupert All Indian Soccer Tournament, Victoria Cultus Lake Indian Festival, Chilliwack Kamloops Indian Days Albert Bay War Canoe Races and Salmon Bar becue  SCHEDULE OF INDIAN EVENTS  BRITISH COLUMBIA  —  Thus, the Indian people have developed for 1967 an outstanding program of pow-wows, sports meets, pageants, exhibitions and cere monials in all parts of Canada. The most important events are listed on the following pages. A visit to any of them should be most rewarding for white men and Indians alike.  Indian leaders and the Centennial Commission agreed that there should be a special Indian Program for 1967, one that would focus on the rich heritage of Indian customs, legends, stories, songs and dances. And one that would emphasize the indispensable contribution that Canada’s Indians made in helping build the nation.  Teenage Indians have been included in the Commission’s overall Youth Travel Program, visiting other parts of Canada to learn more about their own country and its multi-racial population.  On sixty-one Indian reserves across Canada the Indian people have co-operated with the Centennial Commission and the provincial governmerits to build community halls, skating and curling rinks, sports fields, rodeo arenas, art galleries, museums and monuments, One tribe, the Soowablie Indian Band of British Columbia, decided to use its grant to restore the early pit dwellings of their ancestors.  —  the Indian people are playing a prominent Canada’s first citizens and enthusastic role in the nation’s Centennial celebrations. Since 1965 Indian leaders have worked with the Centennial Commission to develop projects that range from books on lndtan lore to the construction of new sports and meeting facilities.  March 10-13 June 8-11 July 7-8 July 20-23 August 4-6 August 18-20 Date t.b.a. Date t,b.a.  MANITOBA  Date t.b.a.  Mid-July July 21-23 July 28-30 August 17-20 August 19-20  July 12-16  June 30-July 2 July 7-9  SASKATCHEWAN  July 5-8 July 21-23 August 3-6 August, 4, 5, 6 August 11-13 Date t.b.a.  ALBERTA  August 18-19 September  June, July and August August 5-6  -  National tndian-Metis Conference. Winnipeg Fort Alexander Indian Celebration Norway House Oak River Pow-wow. Griswold Pipestone Sioux Indian Celebration, Pipestone Portage Ia Prairie Indian Celebration Indian Celebration, Melis of Manitoba Canadian Indian Youth Council Workshop, Win nipeg  File Hilts Pow-wow, Lorlie Prince Albert Area Centennial Pow-wow, Sturgeon Lake Sioux Indian Celebration and Pow-wow. Fort Qu’Appelle Kamsack Pow-wow, Kamsack Moose Mountain Indian Celebration. Carlyle Battleford Agency Pow-wow, Battleford Thunderchild Celebrations, Thunderchild Metis Sociely of Saskatchewan Centennial Cele brations, Qu’Appelle Indian Celebration, Flroadview  -  ---  Hobboma Indian Days, Hobberna Blackloot Indian Days. Cluny Banff Indian Days 10 rn. wost of Calgary Sarcee Indian Days Poigan Indian Days Indian Celebration Longview  AIh-’rt Bay Indian Art and Craft Display Northwest Indian Cultural Society, Ceiitennil Indian Days, Humiltchsen Park, North Vancouver Capilano Celebrations, Vancouver War Canoe Races. Victoria inner Harbour  I-i  ci)  C’4  Lfl  ‘ci. ‘ci.  ORGAN  OF  NATIVE  BROTHERHOOD  VANCOUVEE,, B.C, MARCH, 1962  THE OF BITISH INC.  PRICE 10 CENTS  COLUMBIA,’  céntüNeswe haveb&n on  as “one of the easy solu  rves  flfl  th,,i  h,-.,,.  b.n “  his continent, but archaeological ings —at—-Yale—trace--our—begin-—— ngs back 10,000 ye a r s In this rovence.” qpposing itiOflQLthe re  any  dip course for 35 chiefs and band nuncillors conducted by UBC cx tension department. Introduced by George Manuel, president-of—the -Noith —American indian Brotherhood, Scow ranged through prehlstory and the re rves, modern Industry and edu ation In his review of problems acing the Native people. Emphasizing the antiquity of Na re culture, he pointed out: “No ne can say with certainty how  hood in appreciation of the leader  ortlo American Indian Brother  It is up to the Native people hemselves to determine what they ant and to produce their own eadership in their struggle to chieve it. This in spite of the act that many people have their wn ideas of what they think Na re people want. This, in essence, Is what Alfred cow, son of Chief William Scow p1 Alert Bay, told a largely Native bodience at a banquet held in Van bouver’s Grosvenor flotel March 8. The banquet was given by the  LFRED SCOW IVES VIEWS TBANQUET  AT THE BANQUET were this quartet of Native leaders, whichinçluded George Manuel, left, president of the North American Indian Brotherhood, and Alfred Scow, guest speaker. The other men are William (Bill) McKay, from the Nass River village of Greenville, and George Housty from Bella Bella on Campbell Island. Mr. Manuel lives at Chase, and Mr. Scow was originally from Alert Bay. He is articled as a lawyer.  Pho7o7Ctiiy’7bë FbbThi  Natives Must Develop Own Leaders  No. 3  AL  a)  145  TOTEMS TAKE TRIP TO STORAGE  -  .1•• i-  ii  fl’S A SAD SIGHT-to see Indian totems re moved in pieces from their tittóric sites to new locations. In many cases, of tourse, it appears to be necessary if the totems are to he preserved.. hut it is nonetheless a tragic sight, symbolic of the passing of an era. The Vancouver Province  ‘  /  picture shows totem.s heing rensoveel from Uti. versity Boulevard at UBC to temporary storage on the campus.Tlte -totems. will he copied by Indian experts while they are in storage. Most of the totems nt-c from old villages on the Queen Charlottes and northern Vancouver Island.  JGS, ANSWERS  GIVEN IN 1927  -  mmilteeRéports_on-Petition-of AIIiedTribes ‘rnmary of idings afli Answers 4n,1927 hit Allied  Aniwar_1. No evidence what.  ever has been produced or can 15Cothtt proving that Great. Britain conquered any Indian Tribe In British Columbia. 2. in the Southern. Nigeria cane their Lorduhips of the JudicIal Committee decided  Special Report S On IndiGn La Thi.r lime of Tb Millie II M Loge j Vr’iir tvu clv, is  In  by documentary evidence ihnv the claims made by the interior Tribes arc precisely those made by alt other allied Tribes. Statement that Interior Indians svh.,m I a d Ian Departments brought to Ottawa represented alt interior Tribes is wholly on. founded. Nat eves, did they ..  t’.lk.  Oh.  three niember,t n Government of Pros’Incr. Their lerrilurint were elainted as 11w 1’t-oiwrty” ci the Tribe. On both video the subteet of disrussion wow the Indian land rotIns’ey. risely she. saute that ,forsneit subject of l’etftinn p1 -allied Tribes presented in Partlament. A  ourhstj,n r000fl at  Figure 27  that die-  146  B. C. GOVERNMENT TRAVEL BUREAU 0 B.C. Vito,1a  Figure 28  147 REFERENCES Abbott,. Don and Richard Inglis. 1991. “A Tradition of Partnership: The Royal British Columbia Museums and First Peoples,” Alberta Museums Review 2.17.  Ed. The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum. Adams. Howard. 1975. Preface, Prison of Grass: Canada From a Native Point of View. Saskatoon: Fifth House Publisher. Ames, Michael. 1981a. “A Note on the Contributions of Wilson Duff to Northwest Coast Ethnology and Art,” The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff Ed. Donald Abbott. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum. 1981b. “Museum Anthropologists and the Arts of Acculturation on the Northwest Coast,” BC Studies. No. 49, Spring: 3-13. Altman, Ralph C. 1966. Introduction. Art in the Life of the Northwest Coast Indians. By Erna Gunther. Catalogue. The Rasmussen Collection of Northwest Indian Art at the Portland Art Museum. Portland: Portland Art Museum. Anonymous. 1967. “The Arts: The Play’s Not the Thing,” Time. June 16. 1993. Report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force. 1989. “Carving Their Claim: Haida Nationalism on the Rise,” British Columbia Report. Nov. 13. 1987. “Salvation of a Homeland: Miles Richardson,” McLeans. Dec. 28. .  1967. “In terms of high art a beauty from first to last,” The Province. Sept. 1. 1967. “Indian Storyteller at the Art Gallery,” Western News & Advertiser, Jul. 20. 1966. “Indian craftsmen are skilled carvers,” Telegram. Nov. 23.  Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Methuen Publications. Ashcroft, Bill. Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. 1989. The Empire Writes Back. New York: Routleledge.  148 Barbeau, Marius. 1957. Bulletin. No. 139, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources/National Museum of Canada, ix. 1950. “Synthesis and Compilation,” Totem Poles According to Location. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. Barman, Jean, Yvonne Hebert, and Don McCaskill. 1987. Indian Education in Canada. Volume One: The Legacy. Vancouver: UBC Press. Berger,. Thomas R. 1981. “Wilson Duff and Native Land Claims,” The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff Ed. Don Abbott. Victoria: Morris Printing.  1992. A Long and Terrible Shadow: white values, native rights in the americas, 1492-1992. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre. Bhabha, Homi K. 1984. “Of mimicry and man: the ambivalence of colonial discourse,” October. 28 Spring. Birnie Danzker, Joanne, and Tony Hunt. 1983. “Personal Perspectives,” Vancouver Art and Artists: 1931-1983 Catalogue. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery. .  Blackman, Margaret B. and Edwin S. Hall. 1981. “Contemporary Northwest Coast Art: Tradition and Innovation in Serigraphy,” American Indian Art. vol. 6, No. 3, Summer: 54-61. Boas, Franz. 1955 (1927). Primitive Art. New York: Dover Publications. Borden, Charles E. 1981. “Wilson Duff (1925-1976): His Contributions to the Growth of Archaeology in British Columbia,” The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthropology in Honour of Wilson Duff Ed. Don Abbot. Victoria: Morris Printing. Bouchard, Serge and Ignatius E. La Rusic. 1981. “The Shadow of Bureaucracy: Culture in Indian Affairs,” Department of Indian Affairs, June.  Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Richard Nice trans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. British Columbia Indian Advisory Newsletter. Bound Volumes: October 1964June 1968. Bulletin of the Vancouver Art Gallery:1944-45. 1945. No. 564, vol. 12, No. 10, June. Canadian Weekly. 1984. September.  149 Cannizzo, Jeanne. 1983. “George Hunt and the invention of Kwakiutl culture,” Sociology and Anthropology 20.1: 44-58. Canadian Corrections Association. 1967. Indians and the Law. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. Canaday, John. 1967. “Not Coptic, Not Melanesian, Not Even African, “New York Times. 3 Sept. Cardinal, Harold. 1969. The Unjust Society: The Tragedy of Canada ‘s Indians. Edmonton: M.G. Hurtig. Carpenter, Edmund. 1975. Introduction. Indian Art of the Northwest Coast: A Dialogue on Craftsmanship and Aesthetics. By Bill Holm and Bill Reid. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre. Cohn, Bernard S. 1983. “Representing Authority in Colonial Africa,” The Invention of Tradition. Eds. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cole, Douglas and David Darling. 1980. “Totem Pole Restoration on the Skeena River, 1925-30: An Early Exercise in Heritage Conservation,” BC Studies. No. 47, Autumn: 29-48.  Cranmer, Barb. Prod. 1990. Mungo Martin: A Slender Thread/The Legacy. Video. Canadian Filmmakers Distribution West. Cranmer Webster, Gloria. 1990. “Serious Flaws Mar Totem-Pole Guide Aimed at Mass Market,” Times Colonist. November 10: A-12. Crosby, Marcia. 1991. “Construction of the Imaginary Indian,” Vancouver Anthology: the institutional politics of art. Ed. Stan Douglas. Vancouver: Talonbooks. Crow, Thomas. 1985. “Modernism and Mass Culture in the Visual Arts,” Pollock and After: the Critical Debate. Ed. Francis Francina. New York: Harper and Row. Cummings, Peter, Neil H. Mickenberg, et al. Eds. 1980. Native Rights in Canada. 2nd ed. 1970; Toronto: The Indian Eskimo Association of Canada in association with General Publishing. Davis, Robert and Mark Zannis. 1973. The Genocide Machine in Canada. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Department of Indian Affairs Indian, Art Centre Archives.  150 Dominguez, Virginia, Trinh T. Minh-ha and James Clifford. 1987. Discussions in Contemporary Culture, Ed. Hal Foster Seattle: Bay Press. Duff, Wilson and Hilary Stewart. 1975. Images Stone B.C.: Thirty Centuries of Northwest Coast Indian Sculptures. Saanichton: Hancock Publishers. 1975. Introduction. “Images: A way of Seeing and A way of Thinking,” Images Stone B.C.: Thirty Centuries of Northwest Coast Indian Sculpture. Saanichton: Hancock Publishers. Ed. 1967a. Arts of the Raven: Masterworks of the Northwest coast. Catalogue. Vancouver: Bergthorson and Derreth. 196Th. “Contexts of Northwest Coast Art,” Arts of the Raven: Masterworks of the Northwest coast. Ed. Wilson Duff. Catalogue. Vancouver: Bergthorson and Derreth. 1959. “Mungo Martin Carver of the Century,” Museum News. vol. 1, No. 1. 1954. “A Heritage in Decay--The Totem Art of the Haidas,”Documents in Canadian Art. Ed. Douglas Featherling. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 158-161. (Original article in Canadian Art, Winter 1954). Duffek, Karen. 1993. “Northwest Coast Indian Art From 1950 to the Present,” In the Shadow of the Sun: Perspectives on Contemporary Native Art. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilisation: 213-231. 1983a. “Authenticity’ and the Contemporary Northwest Coast Indian Art Market,” BC Studies. No. 57, Spring: 99-110. 1983b. “The Contemporary Art Market,” Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Dyck, Noel and James B. Waldram. 1993. “An Introduction to the Issues,” Eds. Dyck, Noel and James B. Waldram. Anthropology, Public Policy, and Native Peoples in Canada. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Fanon, Franz. 1963. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press. Foster, Hal. Ed. 1987. Discussions in Contemporary Culture. Seattle: Bay Press. Flemming Marnie. 1982. “Patrimony and Patronage: The Legacy Reviewed,” Vanguard. Summer, 18-21. Franscina, Francis and Charles Harrison. Eds. 1982. Modern Art and Modernism: A Critical Anthology. London: Harper and Row.  151 Franscina, Francis. Ed. 1985. Introduction. “History: Representation and Mis representation-The Case of Abstract Expressionism,” Pollock and After: The Critical Debate. New York: Harper & Row. Gacs, Ute, Aisha Khan, Ruth Weinberg, and Jerrie McIntyre. Eds. 1988. Women Anthropologists: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: Greenwood Press. Green, L.C. “Canada’s Indians: Federal Policy, International and Constitutional Law,” Ottawa Law Review. Summer, 1970.  Gunther, Erna. 1966. Art in the Life of the Northwest Coast Indians. Portland: Portland Art Museum. 1962. “Seattle Fair--Indian Art,” Art in America. 50.2 Summer: 8-9. Hall, Stewart. 1981. “Notes on De-constructing the Popular,” People’s History and Socialist Theory. Ed. R. Samuel. London: Rutledge, Kegan and Paul. Halpin, Marjori. 1993. “A critique of the Boasian Paradigm for Northwest Coast Art,”. Unpublished. Halpin, Marjorie, and Margaret Seguin. 1990. “Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan,” Northwest Coast. vol. 7, Ed. Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution. 1978. “Some Implications of Connoisseurship for Northwest Coast Art,” BC Studies, No. 37, Spring: 48-59. Harris, John 5. 1985. “of Rauschenberg, Policy and Representation at the Vancouver Art Gallery: A Partial History 1966-1983,” Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Fine Arts, University of British Columbia.  Hawthorn, Audrey. 1993. A Labour of Love: The Making of the Museum of Anthropology, LJBC. The First Three Decades 1947-4976. Vancouver: UBC Museum of Anthropology. 1956. People of the Potlatch and the Cedar. Exhibition Catalogue. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery. Hawthorn, H. B. 1948. “Indian Way of Life has Many Lasting Achievements,” The Native Voice. April: 13. Hawthorn, H.B., C.S. Belshaw, and S.M. Jamieson. 1958. The Indians of British Columbia Toronto: University of Toronto Press. et al. 1966-67. A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada. 2 vols. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.  152 Hill, Tom. 1984. ‘indian Art in Canada: An Historical Perspective,” Norval Morrisseau and the emergence of the image makers. Toronto: Art Gallery of Ontario. 1978a. “DINA Art Collection,” The Native Perspective. Vol. 3,  No. 2.  1978b. “A Retrospect of Indian Art,” The Native Perspective. vol. 3, No. 2. Holm, Margaret. n.d.”The Exhibition of Northwest Coast Art at World’s Fairs,” Unpublished paper. Dept. of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, n. d. Hoim, William. 1991. “Will the Real Charles Edensaw Please Stand up?: The Problem of Attribution in Northwest Coast Indian Art,” The World is as Sharp as a Knife. Ed. Don Abbott. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum. 1989. “The Raven’s Tail by Cheryl Samuel: A Book Review,” American Indian Art. vol. 14, No. 2, Spring: 75-76. 1987a. Spirit and Ancestor: A Century of Northwest Coast Indian Art in the Burke Museum. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 198Th. “The Head Canoe,” Faces Voices and Dreams: A celebration of the Centennial of the Sheldon Jackson Museum, Sitka, Alaska 1888-1988. Ed. Peter L. Corey. Sitka: Division of Alaska State Museums and Friends of the Alaska State Museum. 1983a. Smokey-Top and the Art and Times of Willie Seaweed. Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum Monograph 3. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 1983b. “The Vanishing Race and other Illusions: Photographs of Indians hy Edward S. Curtis by Christopher M. Lyman: A Book Review,” American Indian Art. Summer: 68-70, 73. 1982a. “A Mantle Neatly Wrought: The Early Historic Record of Northwest Coast Pattern-Twined Textiles-1774-1850,” American Indian Art. vol. 8, No. 1, Winter: 34-55. and Thomas Vaughan. 1982b. Soft Gold, the Fur Trade and Cultural Exchange on the Northwest Coast of America. Portland: Oregon Historical Society. and Bill Reid. 1975. Indian Art of the Northwest Coast: A Dialogue on Craftsmanship and Aesthetics. Seattle: University of Washington Press.  153 1974. “Structure and Design,” Boxes and Bowls: Decorated Containers by Nineteenth Century Haida, Tlingit, Bella and Tsimshian Indian Artists. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1972. Crooked Beak of Heaven. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. 1967a. “The Northern Style: a form analysis,” Arts of the Raven: Masterworks of the Northwest Coast. Ed. Wilson Duff. Catalogue. Vancouver: Bergthorson and Derreth.  196Th. “Exhibitions,” Preview of Arts of the Raven. artscanada. June/July: 4. 1965. Northwest Coast Indian Art: An analysis of form. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. Hooper, Jaqueline. 1967. “B.C. Indian Art is Something to Shout About,” Seattle Post-Intelligence. Saturday, July 22. Hoover, Alan L. 1989. “A very disturbing message,” Seattle Times Editorial. May 3. Howard, David. 1986. “Progress in the Age of Rigor Mortis,” Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Fine Arts, University of British Columbia.  Hume, Robert. 1958. Preface. One Hundred Years of British Columbia Art. Exhibition Catalogue. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery. Hunt, David J., Bill Wilson, and Musganiagw Tribal Council, Port Hardy. 1989. Articles are an insult to the great kwakiutl chiefs and artists,” Seattle Times Editorial. May 3. Indian Eskimo Association of Canada. 1960. “Approach to the Future,” a brief prepared for the Parliamentary Committee on Indian Affairs. Toronto. Inglis, Gordon B. et al. 1990. “Tsimshian of British Columbia Since 1900,” Northwest Coast. vol. 7, Ed. Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution. Jacknis, Ira. 1985. “Franz Boas and Exhibits: On the limitations of the Museum Method of Anthropology,” Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture. Ed. George W. Stocking. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.  Knight, Roif. 1978. Indians at Work: An Informal History of Native Indian Labour in British Columbia, 1858-1930. Vancouver: Newstar Books. LaRocque, Emma. 1991. “Racism Runs Through Canadian Society,” Racism  154  in Canada. Saskatoon: Fifth House Publishers. Lazore, Melissa. 1978. “A look at International Marketing of Art,” Native Art in Canada. vol. 3, No. 2. Lindsley, Robert. 1991. “Painting and the Social History of British Columbia” Vancouver Anthology: The Institutional Politics of Art. Ed. Stan Douglas Vancouver: Talon Books. Lord, Barry. 1967. “The Birthday Party,” artscanada. January. Lowndes, Joan. 1967. “The view of a man who came back,” Vancouver Province. July 7. 1983. “The Spirit of the Sixties: By a Witness,” Vancouver Art and Artists: 1931-1983. Catalogue. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery. Manuel, George and Michael Posluns. 1974. The Fourth World: An Indian Reality. New York: The Free Press. McCabe, J. T. S., and Ian G. Scott. 1988. “The Role of Provinces in the Elucidation of Aboriginal Rights in Canada,” Governments in Conflict, Eds. Anthony J. Long and Menno Boldt. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. McNaught, Kenneth. 1988. The Penguin History of Canada. Markham: Penguin Group. Morton, Desmond. 1987. “Strains of Affluence: 1945-1987,” The Illustrated History of Canada. Craig Brown ed. Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys.  Morris, J. A. 1956. Preface. People of the Potlatch: Native Arts and Culture of the Pacific Northwest coast. Catalogue. Vancouver Art Gallery/University of British Columbia. McMaster, Gerald. 1993. “Tenuous Lines of Descent: Indian Art and Craft of the Reservation Period,” In the Shadow of the Sun: Perspectives on Contemporary Native Art. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilisation. McNaught, Kenneth. Ed. 1988. The Penguin History of Canada. Markham: Penguin Group. McNeilly, Leonora. 1948. “Ottawa Hearing Lifts ‘Iron Curtain’,” Saturday Night. Feb. 21. Minh-ha, Trinh T. and James Clifford. 1987. Discussions in Contemporary Culture. Ed. Hal Foster Seattle: Bay Press.  The Native Voice. Vancouver, 1946+.  155  Nisga ‘a: People of the mighty River. 1992. New Aiyansh: Nisg.a’a Tribal Council. Nuytten, Phill. 1982. The Totem Carvers: Charlie James, Ellen Neel, Mungo Martin. Vancouver: Panorama Publications. Raunet, Daniel. 1984. Without Surrender without Consent: A History of the Nisiga ‘a] Land Claims. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. Reid, Martine. “In Search of Things Past, Remembered, Retraced, and Reinvented,” In the Shadow of the Sun: Perspectives on Contemporary Native Art. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilisation. Reid, Bill. 1981. “Prologue: Wilson Duff, 1925-1976,” The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff Ed. Don Abbott, Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum. 1971. Out of the Silence. Photographs by Adelaid de Menile. Amon Carter Museum, Fort Worth. New York: Outerbridge and Dienstfrey. 1967. “The Art--An Appreciation,” Arts of the Raven: Masterworks of the Northwest coast. Exhibition catalogue, Vancouver: Bergthorson and Derreth. 1958. Introduction. “Art of the B.C. Indian,” One Hundred Years of British Columbia Art. Exhibition catalogue, Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery. Robertson, Heather. 1970. Reservations Are For Indians. Toronto: James Lewis & Samuel. Royal British Columbia Museum Archives.  Saturday Review, 1991. March. Sealy, Bruce. 1975. The Metis: Canada’s Forgotten People. Winnipeg: Manitoba Metis Federation. Shadbolt, Doris. 1967. Forward. Arts of the Raven: Masterworks of the Northwest coast. Exhibition catalogue. Vancouver: Bergthorson and Derreth. 1983. “Personal Perspectives,” Vancouver Art and Artists: 19314983. Exhibition catalogue, Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery. 1986. Bill Reid. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre. Sicard, Bunny. 1978. “Lack of Native Art in Art Gallery of Ontario, The Native Perspective. vol. 3, No. 2.  156 Silcox, David P. 1983. “An Outside View, Vancouver Art and Artists: 1933-1983. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery. Smith, Derek G. 1993. “The Emergence of ‘Eskimo Status’: An Examination of the Eskimo Disk List System and Its Social Consequences, 1925-1970,” Anthropology, Public Policy, and Native Peoples in Canada. McGillQueen’s University Press.  Sullivan, J.B. 1966. Annual Report: Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, fiscal year 1965-1966. Suttles, Wayne. 1982-83. “The World is as Sharp as a Knife: A Review Article,” B.C. Studies. No. 56. Winter.  Tennant, Paul. 1990. Aboriginal Peoples and Politics:The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1 849-1989. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Telegram, 1967. Toronto. Sept. 9. Trigger, Bruce G. 1985. Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s ‘Heroic Age’ Reconsidered McGill-Queen’s University Press. Vancouver Art Gallery Annual Report 1968. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery, 1968. Vancouver Art Gallery Archives, Box A-102.  Vancouver Sun. 1983. “The Man Who Knows Form,” November 5. “Vancouver: scene with no scene,” 1967. artscanada. vol. 24, No. 6, 7 June/July: 2-8. Wallis, Brian. 1983. “The Art of Big Business,” Art in America. 74, 7-10.  Weaver, Sally. 1981. Making Canadian Indian policy: The Hidden Agenda 19681970. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. .  1993. “The Hawthorn Report: Its Use in the Making of Canadian Indian Policy,” Anthropology, Public Policy and Native Peoples in Canada. McGill-Queen’s University Press.  Weber, Ronald L. 1987. “Captured Heritage: The Scramble for NWC Artifacts by Douglas Cole: A Book Reveiw,” American Indian Art, vol. 12, No. 3, Summer: 71-2+.  157 t Vancouver Art and Artist: 1931-1983. Wilcox, David P. 1983. “An Outside View,’ Catalogue. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery.  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items