source: ENFORM Architects Inc. (enformarchitects.com, 2018)
The revisioning of Indigenous arts inclusion at the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) in Toronto with the Look:Forward project is impressive, however there is more work that can be done to engage the public with Indigenous arts and culture, as well as to systemically challenge Canadian settler views as the default. Drawing from ideas in texts by Gaudry and Lorenz, Martin, as well as discussions with Danielle Printup, and independent research, I will analyze the AGO’s J.S. McLean Centre for Indigenous and Canadian Art as a reconciliation, indigenization, and decolonization effort in the field of Canadian arts curating.
The renaming of the J.S. McLean Centre for Indigenous and Canadian Art–formerly the J.S. McLean Centre for Canadian Art–was the first step towards a more inclusive gallery with the intention to recognize the “the historical and contemporary position of Indigenous Art as existing prior to and extending beyond Canada’s borders” (“AGO’s New Department,” 2018). Although it is just a name, the consciousness of how it translates into separating what it means to be ‘Canadian’ versus ‘Indigenous’ is crucial. It acknowledges the thousands of years of Indigenous occupancy prior to European colonization, which is often lost in the Settler narrative. The Look:Forward project has three focal values: “to celebrate exceptional art by presenting the very best of [the] Collection; to inspire meaningful and engaging experiences for our visitors; and to be relevant to our changing audiences by reflecting and strengthening the vibrancy and possibility of Toronto,” (Look:Forward | Art Gallery of Ontario, 2019). The project curators are aiming to give special attention to underrepresented artists deserving recognition, in hopes of challenging the status quo and reflecting a variety of voices. From this mission statement on the project’s main page, it sounds like there was an effort to increase the space allotted to Indigenous art, as well as give more exposure to underrepresented artists and to challenge the status quo in order to reflect more diverse perspectives. However, after reading the Gallery’s reflection of the project, “Looking back on Look:Forward,” there was no mention of any Indigenous art among all of the European highlights, which does not reflect the project’s mission statement of inclusivity. Further, this exemplifies the point made in the Gaudry and Lorenz text, in which participants consistently critique the concept of inclusion, as it does not transform systemic inequities in institutions, but rather it is really just a minimum level of commitment (Gaudry & Lorenz, 220).
One way in which I think the AGO did a particularly good job in replacing settler perspectives for those of Indigenous ones is how the Indigenous collection is designed. The centre’s pieces are not presented chronologically, as opposed to the Thomson Collection galleries of Canadian art. This was intended to be inclusive of multiple narratives, according to Stephan Jost, museum director. Indigenous curator, Wanda Nanibush elaborates on this by saying that the standard method of presenting Canadian art chronologically “doesn’t allow for indigenous art to speak on its own terms,” (Dobrzynski, 2018). This is an instance in which inclusion–having an Indigenous curator in a decision-making role–is able to truly bring Indigenous worldview to the gallery and represent the art in an authentic way. It would not be enough to only have Indigenous artists represented, without Indigenous professionals working in roles of authority that can challenge systemic instruments of oppression within the field. The pieces in the collection are also labelled in either Anishinaabemowin or Inuktitut, in addition to French and English (Dobrzynski, 2018) to further embrace Indigenous culture. One item to note, however, is that this Indigenous labelling is not as consistent on the gallery site, where I was unable to see the Indigenous labels on the digital catalogue. The effort to include Indigenous perspective, does, however extend in other areas of the gallery’s site, such as the Professional Learning for Educators page, where it acknowledges crucial questions such as “How do we understand pedagogies of land? In what ways have different artists used visual language to share ideas, express land, environment and materials at different moments in time?” (Professional Learning for Educators | Art Gallery of Ontario, 2020) which are necessary explore within the context of reconciliation in arts.
Overall, based on the research found from the gallery’s public site, it seems like there is a good effort to embrace Indigenous culture and reflect it accurately and respectfully alongside Canadian art. The gallery recognizes the difference in narratives between Indigenous People and Settler Canadian, and seems committed to applying Indigenous worldview to the Indigenous Collection. The Look:Forward project brought increased gallery space for Indigenous art, with a large amount of it being contemporary. The decision to exhibit the contemporary Indigenous art alongside the contemporary Canadian art demonstrates a vision of unified, equal artists. It may be up to personal interpretation, but I do think that having them displayed together helps to demonstrate them as equal, especially in contrast to the segregated feeling that the National Gallery has with its Indigenous collection on a separate, lower floor. The AGO has taken the concept of inclusion a step further than a basic level by having Indigenous-led projects, curators, and staff in decision-making roles, which is essential in decolonizing art.
