Curating Colonial Canada:

Museum Architecture and the Display of Aboriginal Cultures

Noémie Despland-Lichtert

School of Architecture, McGill University, Montreal, September 2013

A report submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the

requirements of the degree of Master of Architecture.

© Noémie Despland-Lichtert 2013 Table of Contents:

Abstract /Résumé 2

Acknowledgements 4

Preface 5

Introduction 7

Introductory Literature Review 10

The Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia 26

The Canadian Museum of Civilization 40

Pointe-à-Callière Montréal Museum of Archaeology and History 53

Conclusion 63

Bibliography 69

Annex 74

List of Abbreviations

CAD Computer Assisted Design

CMC Canadian Museum of Civilization

MOA Museum of Anthropology

PàC Pointe-à-Callière

UBC University of British Columbia

1 Abstract

Architecture reflects the values and goals of the society that produces it. However, its role is not only passive: the built environment impacts the experience of the users. Museum architecture offers a good example since it plays an active role in shaping the viewer’s perception of an exhibit.

In Canada, several museums present exhibitions on the Aboriginal peoples and their role in the shared history. This research report studies museum architecture’s impact on the viewer’s understanding of Aboriginal cultures. Three case studies were chosen: the Museum of Anthropology at the

University of British Columbia, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and the

Montréal Museum of History and Archaeology Pointe-à-Callière. The three museums adopt different architecture and curatorial approaches.

2 Résumé

L’architecture reflète les valeurs et aspirations de la société qui la produit.

Mais son rôle n’est pas uniquement passif : l’environnement bâti contribue à former l’expérience de ses utilisateurs. L’architecture des musées en représente un bel exemple, dans la mesure ou elle participe activement à la perception de l’exposition par le visiteur.

Au Canada, plusieurs musées présentent des expositions sur les peuples autochtones et leur rôle dans l’Histoire commune. Ce rapport de recherche porte sur l’influence de l’architecture des musées sur la compréhension des cultures autochtones par les visiteurs. Pour cela, trois études de cas ont été choisies : le

Musée d’anthropologie à l’Université de la Colombie-Britannique, le Musée canadien des civilisations et le Musée d’archéologie et d’histoire de Montréal, Pointe-à-

Callière. Les trois musées adoptent une architecture et des approches curatoriales différentes.

3 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my greatest gratitude to my supervisor and professor Annmarie Adams for her inspiring classes and valuable advice, as well as for her patience and continuous support during my Master’s. As an advisor, she provided much-needed feedback on my work and helped me structure my thoughts.

Special thanks go to Nathalie Oswin and Amelia Jones who taught memorable courses: “Sex, Race and Space” and “The Conceptual Body in Art

Since 1960,” respectively.

Marcia King, Post Professional Masters Program Graduate Secretary, lent me a sympathetic ear and offered a great deal of helpful advice. The

McGill Writing Centre staff and my friend Charles Alexandre Tisseyre helped me write and edit this project in my second language. I thank them all for the quality of their help and support.

I am grateful to my amazing classmates, Camille, Tanya, and Zamila, for the feedback they provided on my ideas as well as for their encouraging words.

I want to thank my dearest friends, Dounia, Léa and Badr, for their love and support. My friend Dounia kindly agreed to read my draft and provided constructive criticism and bright advice.

Finally, I want to thank my parents. Without their moral and financial support, it would have been impossible to pursue this project.

4 Preface

I am an outsider to the subject of Aboriginal cultures in Canada. I do not have Aboriginal ancestry since both my parents emigrated from Europe.

The more research I have conducted the more I have realised how it is a delicate matter to study a culture to which one does not belong, especially in the case of Aboriginal peoples who have suffered and still suffer from an unbalanced relationship between researchers and the research subjects.

Increasingly, not only consultation, but also true partnerships and research conducted by Aboriginals on their own culture are needed. Rather than studying Aboriginal art or architecture per se, this research focuses on the viewer’s experience of architecture relating to his or her understanding as an outsider or insider of Aboriginal cultures. I find this position easier to adopt due to my own identity. I am adopting an anti-racist and post-colonial critical approach1 to the subject as much as possible and try not to create a binary opposition between “us” and “them.”

I also want to acknowledge my small sample of museums. Canada has many institutions dealing with national history and the Aboriginal peoples, and I could only choose a few. Therefore, my research does not provide a broad review of the situation throughout the country. This paper only represents an avenue towards more research since so much more could be done on this subject.

1 Post-colonial Studies or Post-colonial Theory is a field of studies and a method that analyses the legacies of colonialism and imperialism and its human consequences in the colonial and contemporary periods.

5 Finally, as much as I tried to analyse the architecture and exhibits in the most objective way possible, my own experience and identity shape my understanding and conclusions about the spaces. To a certain degree, I believe I can only offer a personal interpretation of the subject, as is often the case in the humanities.

6 Introduction

This report explores the architecture of three museums exhibiting

First Nations art and artefacts in Canada. To do so, I chose three different cases from across the country: in Vancouver, Gatineau and Montreal. Each museum was designed for the purpose of displaying objects and housing permanent as well as temporary exhibits; however, they represent different kinds of institutions. The Museum of Anthropology (MOA) is part of the

University of British Columbia (UBC), while the Canadian Museum of

Civilization (CMC) is a federal institution and Pointe-à-Callière Montréal

Museum of Archaeology and History (PàC), is privately owned.

I try to demonstrate how architecture shapes the experience of the viewer and therefore has a strong impact on his or her understanding of

Aboriginal cultures. I believe museum architecture shapes the Canadian historiography of the colonial and contemporary periods in a very active way. Museum architecture not only reflects but also shapes our understanding of Aboriginal cultures. In this analysis I aim to better comprehend Canada’s relation to Aboriginal people and their contribution to the national cultural heritage. I hope this analysis will help us to think critically about Canada’s history and the contemporary understanding of it and to build a more inclusive society.

In order to do this, I use an interdisciplinary approach drawing from my own experience in the fields or archaeology, art history and architecture and apply it to the three case studies. After describing the role, mandate and

7 history of the institutions, as well as the architecture, I conduct an iconographical and formalist analysis of the building, paying special attention to how each relates to the museum’s mandate, its collections and the experience of the viewer. I am particularly interested in the effects of the architecture on the users of the building and how space is experienced.

Therefore I try to demonstrate how the architecture can shape the understanding and experience of the viewer.

The Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia is my first case study. Built in 1976 and designed by the Canadian architect

Arthur Erickson, it is the oldest building considered. In addition to being open to the public as a traditional museum, it also functions as a teaching and learning centre for the students of the university.

My second case study is the Canadian Museum of Civilization, soon to be called the Canadian Museum of History, in Gatineau, Quebec. Built in 1989 by Douglas Cardinal, a Canadian architect of Métis and Blackfoot ancestry, it is one of the most important national museums.2

Finally, my last case study is Montréal Museum of Archaeology and

History, Pointe-à-Callière. Designed by Dan S. Hanganu Architects and opened in 1992, it is the most recent construction.

Each example is based in a different city, is owned by different organisations (university, federal government, private) and has a slightly different mandate (anthropology, culture, archaeology). However, they all

2 Boddy and Cardinal, The Architecture of Douglas Cardinal, 131.

8 share the aim to teach visitors about different cultures in time and about

Canadian history.

9 Chapter 1: Introductory Literature Review

Architecture is commonly understood as reflecting the value systems, tastes and beliefs of the society producing it. Therefore, one can read and understand the society’s values, apprehensions and aspirations in the architecture when they are not necessarily expressed elsewhere in a more direct manner. Architecture is not only shaped by our understandings and beliefs but plays a very active role in shaping them. This report looks at the agency architecture exerts on its users and their perceptions of an exhibit in the case of museums. I consider that architecture has a strong impact on the experience of the visitor to the museum in many different ways. Museum architecture can have different important impacts; it can inspire or confuse, dominate or complement, welcome or forbid, be inclusive or exclusive.3 Also, iconic architecture, a famous building or architect, can attract many visitors to the museum who come as much to visit the building as to see the exhibit contents.

In Interpreting Art in Museums and Galleries Christopher Whitehead explains that “the production of art interpretation includes the manipulation of the physical display environment” and describes how the viewer’s experience is con structed by a combination of circumstances, environment and text (Figure 1).4 Circumstances include the mood of the person on the day of the visit, whether he or she is tired, hungry, relaxed, alone, with a friend or a child. These circumstances will all shape the viewer’s experience

3 Macleod, Reshaping Museum Space, 54. 4 Whitehead, Interpreting Art in Museums and Galleries, xiii.

10 of the museum. Also, according to Whitehead, environment includes the lighting, graphics and use of space; and although he does not directly mention it, I will assume that it includes the architecture of the museum and its exhibits. Finally, the textual aspect includes the labels, pamphlets and so on accompanying the works. And what the visitor experiences is a combination of the three. Amelia Jones in Seeing Differently5 adds to the viewer’s experience the notion of identity. By focussing on the subjectivity and the personal background (race, gender and class) of the viewer, she questions how different works can be seen differently. If these two authors use these methods for the particular example of visual art, I believe the models can be applied easily to broader subjects, including art works but also artefacts and different kinds of historical evidence.

The circumstances of the viewer’s visit are to a certain extent out of the control of the institution, although museums provide more and more accommodations for creating easier and more enjoyable circumstances (coat checks, cafés, changing tables). The textual content of the exhibitions is usually well thought out and prepared, for it is recognized to influence the experience of the exhibits in a more conscious and direct manner. The identities of viewers constitute something over which museums have a degree of influence, not by changing viewers’ identities, but by being inclusive or exclusive to certain cultural, class or gender groups. For the purpose of my research I will focus on the role the environment, and

5 Jones, Seeing Differently.

11 particularly architecture, plays in the viewer’s experiences. More precisely I want to understand how architecture’s agency influences the experience of the exhibits and relates to the viewer’s opinions about Aboriginal collections and culture, regardless of whether the viewer is Aboriginal.

Art and valuable collections necessitate the kind of space that museums and galleries create. In the same way, these spaces contribute to the production of art6; or at least they often are thus understood in the contemporary period. I believe this kind of dual relation of cause and consequences between art and the recognition the museum space provides also applies to the relation between the architecture of the museum and people’s opinions and understanding about Aboriginal cultures. To the extent that the perception of Aboriginal cultures influences the budget, location and choice of architects, the result of these decisions, the architecture of the museum influences the perception of Aboriginal cultures the viewer gains by the end of the visit. This includes concerns as simple as whether the building is modern or old fashioned, is famous and recognized for its architecture, is in a prestigious setting or in the periphery as well as more subtle design elements.

This chapter focuses on the theoretical background necessary for the study of the three cases. In the first part, I consider the history and theory of museum architecture in order to locate our examples. In the second part, I consider the theory of museums in relation to cultural minorities and look at

6 Whitehead, Interpreting Art in Museums and Galleries, 34.

12 different texts, offering a post-colonial analysis of museums. In the third and fourth part, I respectively examine the Aboriginal context in Canada and the special case of the Canadian history of museums relations with Aboriginal people. Finally, I explore different contemporary approaches and briefly compare and situate the three examples to be studied.

Museum Architecture

Museum architecture is often monumental and impressive and gives a sense of importance, imposing a certain behavior on the visitor.7 Like people in a religious building, those who enter a museum will typically speak more softly and walk more slowly. In their article “The Museum of Modern Art as

Late Capitalist Ritual: An Iconographic Analysis,”8 Carol Duncan and Alan

Wallach describe museums as modern ceremonial monuments, dedicated exclusively to ideology. Therefore, museum architecture displays the society’s most revered values and beliefs9, but I argue it also constructs them.

A museum’s architecture represents an important part of the institution’s identity. The building can function as a landmark for the city and as a way to attract visitors. Indeed, Lewis Mumford claimed that the museum represents “the most typical institution of the metropolis as characteristic of its ideal life as the gymnasium was of the Hellenic city or the hospital of the

7 Duncan, Civilizing Rituals. 8 Duncan and Wallach, “Museum Of Modern Art As Late Capitalist Ritual: An Iconographic Analysis.” 9 Ibid.

13 medieval city.”10 In effect, museums are important elements of the urban landscape and their architecture is highly symbolical for a city.11 When built by famous architects, they can become a significant tourist attraction. The best-known case is the Bilbao Guggenheim that resulted in the so-called

“Bilbao effect.”12

From the 18th century to the mid 20th century, museums were designed to resemble temples,13 and neoclassical architecture was common.

On the contrary today museum architecture strives to be as distinctive as possible. This new trend might be explained by the new challenge that museums faced in the second half of the 20th century of creating inclusive and accessible spaces. Indeed, museum spaces have often been characterized within cultural and sociological analysis as a means through which social inequalities have been constituted, reproduced and reinforced.14 Museums had to react to these critiques, and this resulted in a new architectural form for museums, externally and internally.15 However, one could argue it only represented a change in fashion. The three case studies of this project belong to the trend of contemporary museums designed in a post-modern approach rather than a neoclassical one. If museums adopted a new architectural form in the 18th, 19th or early 20th century, we can question if it reflected a desire

10 Quoted in Giebelhausen, The Architecture of the Museum, 4. 11 Giebelhausen, The Architecture of the Museum, 5. 12 Rybczynski, “ARCHITECTURE - THE BILBAO EFFECT.” 13 Macleod, Reshaping Museum Space 1. 14 Ibid., 185. 15 Duncan, Civilizing Rituals.

14 by the institution to be a more inclusive space or if it was a matter of contemporary taste.

Museum theory

Museum theory and Museology constitute relatively recent fields of research; however, a great deal of work has been published on the subject since the mid-1990s. It is now recognized that museums are important stakeholders in the society in which they play a social, cultural and political role. A crucial written contribution in the field of museum studies is Carol

Duncan’s Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums.16 Although the text does not address the questions of minorities, it explores the purpose of the museum in western society.17 The author argues that museums both reflect and contribute to the system of values and beliefs about social, sexual and political identities. Today, it is widely accepted to consider museums as important political actors. Consider Simpson’s argument that museums are always political: they can’t be neutral since inaction can be interpreted as a political stand18, and they have the potential to stimulate public debate.19 The idea that museums represent impartial knowledge is now largely discredited.20 It is increasingly believed that museums should attempt to combat prejudice, social inequalities and discrimination.21 Indeed, studies

16 Duncan, Civilizing Rituals. 17 Ibid., 3. 18 Simpson, Making Representations., 37. 19 Ibid., 263. 20 Watson, Museums and Their Communities, 12. 21 Ibid., 95.

15 prove that effective museum design can improve the viewer's opinion of a certain cultural group exhibited, from negative and racist to a more positive one.22 This great power to influence also comes with responsibilities. In effect, I believe a museum’s endeavour is not only to promote different cultures but also to provide a comprehensive understanding of them.

Simpson writes that in Europe, “the tradition of museums as institutions both reflecting and serving a cultural élite has been long established and, in many [cases], is still maintained.”23 Cabinets of curiosities, the European predecessor of today’s museum, reflected not only the view of the dominant culture but also displayed material evidence of colonial achievements.24 Historically, objects from Aboriginal cultures were exhibited as colonial trophies, which makes their display in western museums very difficult still today. The dispossession of objects of cultural value was in itself a tool of colonialism. Land and cultural heritage dispossession went hand in hand in the colonial period.25 Today, many fourth world cultures26 bear little evidence of their heritage since most of their cultural production was confiscated and placed in museums. In addition to the loss of material from the community, the objects were exhibited under western standards and counter to the beliefs of the source communities. The confiscation of art and artefact was accompanied by the display of human remains from fourth

22 Ibid., 107. 23 Simpson, Making Representations., 1. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., 191 26 Fourth world culture here refers to the cultural groups that were previously subjected to the political control of European nations.

16 world country people in a total disregard of their rights and concerns. Today, many conflicts about ownership of certain pieces rage on and the quarrel become more emotional when they concern sacred objects or human remains.27

In the colonial context, ethnographic collections were constituted on the premise that since the people whose material heritage was being collected were dying out, westerners should preserve the remains of their culture for future generations.28 Simpson explains how “exhibitions concerning traditional or tribal societies have frequently been criticized for their failure to show them as dynamic, living cultures.”29

While museums’ relations with source communities during the colonial era were very poor, the postmodern period invited criticism of the museum’s authority.30 Among others, the work of Michel Foucault and

Jacques Derrida greatly influenced a discourse on museums.31 Historically, the relationship between museums and the studied cultures was always unequal and unbalanced in favour of the institution.32 This means that cultural minorities always stood on the side of the subjects being researched rather than as researchers or as viewers. It is now recognised that to have a truly culturally inclusive museum, source communities must not only be consulted but be involved, and participate in the collecting and exhibiting

27 Simpson, Making Representations, 195. 28 Watson, Museums and Their Communities. 29 Simpson, Making Representations, 35. 30 Watson, Museums and Their Communities, 276. 31 Ibid., 9. 32 Ibid.

17 process. This new approach not only offers a more accurate representation of the cultures, but also helps to grow an interest about the exhibitions in the community.33 This also allows the source communities not only to stand as research material but also to participate in the museum as part of the staff and as visitors.

Museum institutions and the public’s perception of museums carry an enduring colonial legacy that they must now address.34 Although western museums are associated with the colonial period, from which they emerged and expanded, the concept of a museum, as a collection of objects of value kept safe for future generations and exhibited for the public, is not unique to western cultures. Museum-like institutions are traditionally found in non- western cultures and even if the European museum finds its roots in the colonial period, it is not an entirely western concept.35 Therefore, museums are not necessarily foreign to non-western and Aboriginal cultures.

Finally, it is important to understand that these issues go far beyond the space of the museum. As Simpson explains, “these issues are not just about display in glass cases but about relationships.” The treatment of cultural minorities in museums reflects their treatment in society. An inaccurate and stereotypical depiction will arise in a racist conception of the culture. Therefore, the topic of my research is as much about museum design as it is about racism and tolerance.

33 Ibid.,10. 34 Simpson, Making Representations, 2. 35 Ibid., 35.

18 Canadian Aboriginal Context

Canada’s colonial history and attitude has many repercussions on today’s native people who suffer from social, political and economical inequalities. It is important to establish the socio-economic context in which

Aboriginals live, in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of how these inequalities affect the treatment of Aboriginal art and artefacts in museums.

Native people of Canada “benefit” from Indian status and are subject to different laws written in the Indian Act dating from 1876. The Indian Act is paternalistic and constitutes a site of great tension, as well as a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.36 The Act applies to a racially defined part of society, but the Indian status criteria are nowhere defined.37 In addition to being racist, the law is unclear regarding to whom it applies.

The Indian Act provides the federal government the authority to legislate on the “land reserved to Indians”, called reserves, and on registered

Indians. Debates regarding ceded and unceded38 land rights and on Indian status39 are still open. For example, in 1990 the so-called “Oka Crisis” emerged as a result of Oka’s Mayor permitting the construction of condominiums on disputed territories situated between the town of Oka and

36 Capell and Tougas, “The Invention of Line.” 37 Ibid. 38 Ceded is a problematic term since it refers to stolen land as part of colonisation of Canada by Europe. It is chosen only because it is the more commonly used term to refer to such land. 39 An individual recognized by the federal government as being registered under the Indian Act is referred to as a Registered Indian (commonly referred to as a Status Indian).

19 the Mohawk reservation.40 Most Aboriginals live on reserves or territories.

However, there are also Aboriginal populations in the cities. The contemporary Aboriginal reality, then, is also urban.

The Indian Act of 1876 had and continues to have a long lasting, profound effect on communities as a result of its inclusion of mandatory attendance at residential schools. These schools were active from the 1820s until as late as the 1980s with the goal to Christianize, civilize and assimilate the natives. The residential schools were places of physical and sexual abuses and cultural genocide.41 Children were taken from their families, forbidden to speak their native language and forced to adopt western traditions and beliefs. In 2008, Stephen Harper presented the first official apology on part of

Canada regarding residential schools.42 Today, however, there are more First

Nations children on child welfare and in foster homes than there were at the height of residential schools. Currently, First Nations children are six to eight times more likely to be placed in foster homes, which often results in them being located in non-indigenous contexts.43

In addition to suffering from lower education and income, Aboriginals face unique health issues. The rate of diabetes, heart diseases, tuberculosis and

40 Kalant, National identity and the conflict at Oka. 41 Chansonneuve and Aboriginal Healing Foundation (Canada), Retisser nos liens : Comprendre les traumatismes vécus dans les pensionnats indiens par les Autochtones. 42 Canada. Parliament. Senate. Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples and Canadian Electronic Library (Firm), “Le chemin à parcourir : Rapport sur les progrès accomplis depuis les excuses présentées par le gouvernement du Canada aux anciens élèves des pensionnats autochtones.” 43 First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada Annual Report, 13.

20 HIV-AIDS among Aboriginal people is higher than among non-Aboriginals.44

Mental health also affects the population, with a suicide rate two to three times higher than national average and five to six times higher among youth.45 These health issues are in part due to a lack of access to health services. This is because the repartition of health facilities and practitioners is unequal in this country; whereby reserves and remote territories (mainly populated by Natives) have the lowest number of operating facilities. These issues are exacerbated, as there is little access to decent housing and clean water.46

Aboriginal people, particularly women, continue to experience Neo- colonial violence.47 For example, missing and murdered Aboriginal women in

Canada continues to be a striking problem. While Aboriginal women represent less than 3 percent of Canadian women, they constitute more than

10 percent of murder victims.48 Aboriginal women are more likely to be murdered by a stranger than other Canadian women, and more than half of the cases involving missing or murdered native women remain unsolved. In

Nunavut, ninety-three percent of unsolved cases of missing and murdered women are closed.49 Many of the victims are mothers, and most of the crimes occur in urban contexts and involve women who had left reservations to go

44 Reading and UVic Centre for Aboriginal Health Research, The crisis of chronic disease among Aboriginal peoples a challenge for public health, population health and social policy. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid., 3. 47 Amnesty International. Canadian Section-English-Speaking, “Stolen sisters: a human rights response to discrimination and violence against indigenous women in Canada.” 48 Native Women’s Association of Canada, “Ce que leurs histoires nous disent : Résultats de recherche de l’initiative Sœurs par l’esprit.” 49 Ibid.

21 to the city to find work or escape domestic violence.50 Some of the victims are sex workers or homeless or both, which makes them even more vulnerable to violence and subject to prejudice on the part of the police and legal institutions.51 These socioeconomic inequalities, coupled with a different legal status, means that Aboriginal people are often treated as second-class citizens within Canada, perpetuating exclusion and racism.

Therefore, this social, political and economic situation impacts

Aboriginal presence and representation in cultural institutions. The museum and its architecture as a political stakeholder can help to dismantle racism, or on the contrary, to strengthening it.

Canadian Museum Context

Postcolonial criticism of the museum’s role in society and toward cultural minorities has impacted Canadian museums’ attitude toward

Aboriginal peoples. In the 1970’s United States, the first Black and Indian cultural studies department in schools and colleges appeared when the aim of mass assimilation, characterised by the idea of the “melting pot”, slowly gave way to the consideration of the value of cultural diversity in national identity.52 Tourism and interest in “Indians”53 also increased in the same period. Museums served as a tool to fight inaccurate and negative images of

50 Ibid., 29. 51 Ibid., 34. See also, for examples, the Pickton case. 52 Simpson, Making Representations, 9. 53 The term Indian is used here only to refer its historical use.

22 Aboriginal people and to reaffirm their cultural identity.54 These regional museums exhibiting the culture of one tribe represent only one of the context in which Aboriginal cultures can be presented. For example, Aboriginal cultures can also be exhibited in larger museums showcasing several different Aboriginal groups or in western regional or national museums as part of shared history. Most often, community museums include a broader range of activities and events than western museums55 and function not only as exhibition centres but also as a meeting place for gathering, rituals, lectures and various kinds of events.

While interest in Aboriginal cultures grew, sensibility for appropriate curating and consultations was not yet the norm. In 1988, the exhibit The

Spirit Sings: Artistic Tradition of Canada’s First People opened at the Glenbow

Museum in Calgary as part of the Winter Olympic festival. The exhibit was partly funded by Shell Oil Canada Limited. The Lubicon Lake Cree called a boycott of the Winter Olympics and of the exhibits to draw attention to

Shell’s confiscation of their land. At the time of their financing of the exhibition, Shell was actually drilling in Lubicon traditional lands.56 The call for the boycott received international support; while the exhibit still went on, it had beneficial repercussions on Canadian museum policy later on. The boycott helped to generate positive developments in relations between

Canadian museum professionals and communities. The Task Force on

54 Watson, Museums and Their Communities, 137. 55 Ibid., 75. 56 Harrison and Trigger, “‘The Spirit Sings and the Future of Anthropology.”

23 Museum and First People was created and later published in 1992 Turning the

Page: Forging New Partnerships between Museums and First Peoples.57 It is now more widely accepted that any curatorial team must arrange consultations with the source communities and receive their approval for any decisions. Aboriginal people are increasingly considered equal partners in the planning and presentation of exhibitions and programmes relating to their cultures. Furthermore, it is more accepted that museums can function as important forums of debate on contemporary issues.58

Different Approaches and Case Studies

Aboriginal cultures can be and are presented in vastly different manners depending on the institution. When shown in a national or regional museum, it is displayed as part of common history or narrative, therefore making it more difficult to ignore the historical and ongoing conflicts. If exhibited in a community museum, separate from non-Aboriginal works and history, it is depicted as different. This particular choice of portrayal can be perceived as valuable but can also run the risk of appearing atemporal and unconnected to the rest of the world. Thus, Aboriginal history would not be presented in national museums and included in the common history and an important part of the past would be ignored

These three case studies illustrate a contemporary architecture more or less influenced by Aboriginal architecture. The three institutions have

57 Simpson, Making Representations, 261 58 Ibid., 262.

24 varying objectives and are owned by distinct groups. Moreover, their sizes differ: for example, the MOA is much smaller than the CMC. The three institutions stand in urban settings. Both the CMC and PàC are in the city centre and the MOA is on a university campus. We must keep these similarities and differences in mind when studying these buildings. In the following chapters, I will analyse how architecture impacts the visitor’s perception of the exhibition content and of Aboriginal peoples.

25 Chapter II: Museum of Anthropology at University of British Columbia

The Museum of Anthropology (MOA) at the University of British

Columbia (UBC) is a public research and teaching museum. It is both a tourist attraction and a learning centre for UBC’s students. Renowned for its architecture, it is one of the most famous buildings by the Canadian architect

Arthur Erickson. An important aspect of the Museum’s mandate is to acknowledge the diversity and value of Aboriginal cultures.59 It functions in partnership with local communities and hires Aboriginal staff, as well as hosts a youth program for Aboriginal teenagers to work in the Museum. In this chapter I will offer a brief history of the institution as well as a description and interpretation of the space.

History and Mandate

The MOA was founded in 1949 by husband and wife team Harry and

Audrey Hawthorn. It was based on the collections of Frank Burnett acquired by UBC in 1927. These collections were composed of objects the Scottish immigrant had gathered during his travels in the South Seas. The Museum’s first collections also included several totem poles acquired from Marius

Barbeau, a Canadian anthropologist.60 Harry Hawthorn, the Museum’s first director, was hired by UBC to found the Department of Anthropology. His wife Audrey was the MOA’s first curator. In 1963 the first course of non- western anthropology and museum studies was taught at UBC in the Museum

59 University of British Columbia, “About the Museum.” 60 Mayer and Shelton, The Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia, 9.

26 by Audrey Hawthorn and is till today a requirement for the anthropology degree. In 1967 Montreal’s Mayor Jean Drapeau invited Audrey Hawthorn to curate an exhibition on First Nations culture for Expo 67, which brought much visibility to the Museum and created a demand for a proper exhibition space in Vancouver.61 Four years later, in 1971, the federal government announced a grant of 2.5 million dollars for the construction of a new building for the Museum, which was until then situated in the basement of the library. To the federal grant UBC added 1.8 million dollars, and architect

Arthur Erickson was chosen to realise the project.

In 1974, Dr. Michael Ames became the second director; among other things he is recognised to have founded new partnerships with source communities in the particular case of two archaeological exhibits between

1994 and 1996.62 In the article “How to decorate a house,”63 Ames explains the process and difficulties encountered in arranging consultation with First

Nations especially on the part of Museum staff who had to learn new ways of working. This new approach was very different at the time and was first thought to threaten the institutional authority. The Museum’s procedures and curatorial practise were changed since the decisional power was shared between museum staff and the local First Nations communities. These changes were keeping with the recommendations of the 1992 Canadian Task

61 Hawthorn, A Labour of Love, 75. 62 In museum studies, the term “source communities” refers to the people from whom the objects exhibited come. It is often used in the context of non-western art and artefacts. 63 Ames, “How to Decorate a House.”

27 Force on Museums and First People. If it took time to adapt this soon became the new norm.

Five years after the federal government announced the grant, the new building was inaugurated in 1976. One of its most innovative aspects was a large accessible storage area, allowing the visitor and the students to browse through the collections (Figure 2). The Museum claims it was a radically new innovation in international museum design at the time.64

As early as 1981 the Museum needed more space and considered expanding. In 1990 a new wing was opened, and in 2001 the Museum underwent a second expansion. From 1997 to 2002 Ruth Phillips was the third director before Ames returned as acting director from 2002 to 2004.

Since then, the current director, Anthony Sheldon, has adopted a multidisciplinary approach and started a programme of acquisition of non- traditional contemporary Aboriginal art.65 In 2006 a project for a third expansion of a new research wing was launched. In 2010 the renovation and expansion project for the new research infrastructure “A Partnership of

People” opened. In addition, landscape architecture at the back of the existing building was newly added, even though it had been part of Erickson’s original design but was not accomplished because of budgetary restrictions.

64 Mayer and Shelton, The Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia, 4. 65 Ibid., 12.

28 Architecture and Urban Setting

The MOA’s architecture is very famous and highly praised. It is said to acknowledge the spiritual power of Aboriginal cultures,66 to be a place of extraordinary beauty,67 and to embody the essence of Canada’s West Coast.68

Arthur Erickson describes the Museum as a work of light and shadows.69 The

Museum serves as a research and learning centre, with various programmes and laboratories, but also as a reconciliation institution and a tribute to the

Aboriginal cultures of Canada. Erickson wrote: “when you design a museum, the important thing is to ask questions about the real nature of the institution.”70 The Museum claims to be an Aboriginal-friendly and driven institution. Therefore we can ask ourselves, how is this mandate reflected in the building’s architecture?

I will explain how the Museum’s architecture is strongly inspired by traditional West Coast Aboriginal architecture. Also, the Museum display is arranged according the Aboriginal conception rather than western standards, and it functions today as a dynamic cultural centre for Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal people. Erickson explains that the importance of the Museum is to give a sense of pride in one’s culture and how this is particularly important in the context of First Nations, since during the colonial period their dignity was taken away and their culture and beliefs destroyed.71 He also explains that a

66 “Objects and Expressions of Human Creativity by Jennifer Webb.”, 21. 67 University of British Columbia, “MOA.” 68 Mayer and Shelton, The Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia. 69 Ibid., 1. 70 Iglauer, Seven Stones, 113. 71 Ibid.

29 museum of Native Art must be able to reconcile sacred space with public access and allow visitors both to observe what is there and feel what is not.72

In the case of the MOA, it is important that the architecture of the building fit the beliefs and conception of Aboriginal people about their cultural production.

Situated at a distance from the campus’s other buildings, the Museum is accessible by car from Marine Drive (one of the UBC Campus’s main roads); it offers a large parking lot for buses and cars. The MOA can also be reached by smaller walking paths from neighbouring buildings. Situated on Point Grey, at the extreme west of the UBC campus, the Museum stands on the coast of

Vancouver’s peninsula overlooking English Bay. In addition to Erickson’s main building, the Museum comprises two traditional Haïda houses built by

Bill Reid and Doug Granmer,73 as well as six totem poles. The landscape architecture by Cornelia Oberlander includes a small hill, a belvedere view on the bay and a reflecting pool. Therefore, water is omnipresent in several ways around the building. Erickson explains that by introducing an artificial lake, like an arm of the sea, the setting of a North West Coast village with its long houses and totem poles along the beach is reproduced.74

Composed of several spaces, the Museum is a one-storey building following the ground slopes, with a higher ceiling at the back than at the entrance. The Museum entrance is not spectacular or monumental; it is fairly

72 Erickson, The Architecture of Arthur Erickson, 20. 73 Hawthorn, A Labour of Love, 18. 74 Ibid.

30 small and surrounded by trees. Before the actual entrance to the Museum, on the Welcome Plaza are different contemporary works of art by local artists.

Once inside the Museum, the visitor finds the gift shops to the left, the ticket booth in front and the Café to the right. Behind the Café are located the office space and archives. To access the rest of the space the visitor must purchase a ticket at the information desk. The entrance space is not very well lit, and most of the light comes from the back of the Museum. This has the effect of putting the focus on the main hall and the works exhibited and lighted by skylights, thus making them very attractive to the visitor. Erickson’s architecture always puts a great emphasis on light.

Erickson’s design of the entrance and first part of the exhibition strongly shape the path of the visitor. From the entrance the visitor goes through a small slope down to the main gallery, this space is called the Ramp and exhibits monumental cedar sculptures: totems and wooden boxes. The exhibition order seems shaped by the architecture and is easy to find, the visitor does not face the anxiety of not knowing what is coming next or where to go. The Ramp leads to the Great Hall. With its 15 metre-high glass walls it allows enough space for the totem poles to be flooded with natural light

(Figure 3). The Ramp and Great Hall with its totem poles and other sculptures are visible from the entrance. The Ramp and Great Hall form one large open space. The absence of division in several rooms and general openness remove the sense of surprise but allows the different objects to dialogue among them and with the architecture in a single space. Indeed, the

31 grouping of objects is not traditional for this type of museum but is said to follow indigenous conceptions75 rather than western standards. For example, the objects are not exposed in glass cases, grouped by type or function as in traditional anthropology museums but according to the culture to which they belong. Instead of displaying side-by-side different examples of the same object coming from different cultural groups, the Museum displays different objects from one culture in the same space to give a sense of the cultural uniqueness of the different groups.

Accessible from the Great Hall, the O’Brian Gallery and the larger Audain

Gallery are housing travelling and in-house exhibitions on changing themes.

The Koerner European ceramics gallery exhibits ceramic pieces from the 16th to 19th centuries. One of the most famous spaces of the Museum is the

Multiversity Galleries (Ways of Knowing), with their 10000 objects exhibiting almost all the Museum’s collection and making it accessible to public view and to students. Some of the objects are visible in large window cases while others are stored in drawers under the cases. Computers in the room provide additional information on the objects. The building also hosts the Michael M.

Ames Theatre for special events and the Bill Reid Rotunda where the eponymous artist’s works are displayed. The building is aligned around the axis of World War II artillery emplacements76; three gun emplacements are situated on the site (Figure 4). Due to their historical value they could not be removed and were incorporated into the design of the Museum. Therefore,

75 Ibid., 3. 76 Olsberg et al., Arthur Erickson, 15.

32 the Museum tell the story of it own site, including First Nations history before and after colonisation and the World War II period.77 Reid’s sculpture actually stands on one of the gun emplacements, now the centre of the rotunda.78 The two other gun emplacements are outside the Museum.

Once the visit is finished, it is through the same doorway at the entrance where the visitor will exit. From the back of the Museum, the landscape architecture offers a view on the back of the building and the houses, and it features indigenous plants and grass. The back façade of the Museum, with its large glass wall, allows one to see the inside of the Great Hall. With its deconstructed pyramid shape made of concrete pillars and tall windows, it is the most famous façade of the building; it is the one reproduced on the postcards and other souvenirs sold in the gift shop, as well as being the image of the cover of the Museum’s catalogue (Figure 5).79

The exchange between the interior of the Museum and its surroundings is omnipresent. Erickson said that “the essence of architecture is the dialogue wrought by bringing a building and its setting in conversation”80; and this dialogue seams very present in the Museum. From the single entrance and exit, the visitor sees all the way to the back of the building its large window façade facing the reflecting pool and Haïda houses. From the inside of most of the exhibition space, the architecture allows a view of the exterior. This openness highly contrasts with the typical white cube architecture of

77 Ibid., 41, 78 Ibid., 2. 79 Mayer and Shelton, The Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia. 80 Olsberg et al., Arthur Erickson, 15.

33 modernist museums and galleries, where the light is artificial and comes from the ceiling and where the rooms have little or no connection to the outside.81 An example of the white cube architecture is the Museum of

Modern Art in New York. In traditional modern museums, these larges windows would be considered to risk “distracting” from the works. The concrete architecture appears very open thanks to its large windows at both ends and numerous skylights allowing natural light to flow onto the sculpture in the main room. Another element adding to this sense of openness is the presence of artworks and artefacts both inside and outside of the building. In the Welcome Plaza, one finds totem poles, as well as a fountain and mosaics realised by contemporary Musqueam artists Joe Becker and Susan Point, respectively.82 The choice of display and the architecture do not convey a strong sense of boundaries between the outside and inside, or more symbolically between what is considered art and what is not.

From the front entrance, to access the Haïda houses, belvedere and reflecting pools, the visitor’s path goes through a pseudo forest around the

Museum. Erickson explains this choice and how that the mediation of sea and forest is a central function of North West Coast native villages.83 At the back of the Museum, the traditional architecture of the Haïda houses dialogues with the modern form of Erickson’s architecture (Figure 6). The concrete structure is inspired by the traditional post and beam wooden architecture;

81 O’Doherty, Inside the White Cube. 82 The MOA is on Musequem territories. 83 Olsberg et al., Arthur Erickson, 20.

34 similar elements are present but arranged in a new manner. Also, Erickson’s architecture contrasts with the traditional Haïda houses by its size and materials. The juxtaposition of concrete and wood may appear conflicting, and the size of the Museum does overshadow the traditional houses. One deceptive aspect is that the Haïda houses are closed most of the time, even when the Museum is open, and that very little information explains them.

The Museum’s collections are very diverse and the European ceramic collection appears at odds with the rest of the collections, although it is meant to dissolve the common distinction between museums dedicated to

European art and culture and their non-western counterparts.84 The most important and celebrated collections are from local Aboriginal artists, historical and contemporary; but the pieces are all relatively traditional in style. In addition to the large sculptures on the Ramp and in the Great Hall,

Reid’s jewellery and very famous sculpture Raven and the First Men are exhibited in the rotunda. The world cultural material is much more densely exhibited in the darker Multiversity Galleries; and while it is accessible to view and for research, it is not presented in the context of the Museum’s masterpieces.

Symbolism and the Viewer’s Experience

It is very clear that the architecture was designed for the Museum’s

Aboriginal collection. The height of the Great Hall follows that of the totem

84 Mayer and Shelton, The Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia, 13.

35 poles as they determine the lines of the glass canopy.85 There is little distinction between the collections and the architecture, as they appear to fuse. The architecture stands as an exhibited piece both in the form of

Erickson’s building and the traditional Haïda houses. The structure of the houses and of the Museum is similar but at the same time very different.

Erickson’s architecture is far from a pastiche, and the Museum does not mimic the form of Haïda architecture. Although Erickson’s work reuses elements from the post and beam architecture, the pillars are not arranged in the same way, but they are still present and visible. The traditional architecture is deconstructed and rearranged using the same elements in a different manner. For example, the concrete columns resemble the posts of traditional Haïda architecture, and Erickson’s architecture also includes beams. One could say that Erickson’s architecture is inspired by Haïda architecture in the way a cubist painting reinterprets reality; all the elements are present but broken up and reassembled to produce a different form.

Erickson is not an Aboriginal but his design was made in consultation with Aboriginals and includes references to the Aboriginal ways of building.

For instance, the metaphor of the long house shows respect for Aboriginal culture and belief. By inspiring himself by the form of the long house,

Erickson places Aboriginal architecture on the same level of values as his own. It also functions as a way to acknowledge the Aboriginal presence on the site before the western one. In addition, the display of contemporary

85 Olsberg et al., Arthur Erickson, 20.

36 Aboriginal works of art help present Aboriginal cultures as dynamic and contemporary. Erickson’s design had served as a model for the design of other museums. Consider the CMC, for example, where the Great Hall’s form and exhibitions reuse elements present in the MOA.

The small scale of the MOA and its withdrawal from the rest of the campus buildings provide an intimate setting for the works. It allows the visitor to contemplate and experience the collections in a more private setting, which can also contribute to his or her perception of the collections as valuable. Because the scale of the Museum provides limited exhibition space, the Aboriginal collections are not presented as part of the broader history of the region and of Canada. Separated from the national narrative, it is easier to celebrate their culture while ignoring the colonial conflict and ongoing issues of Aboriginal peoples. Although the Museum’s panels mention the colonial period, it is not the main aspect of the exhibition. Moreover, the

Aboriginal collections are presented in a separate area from the rest of the collections. The latter are grouped in one room, separate from European ceramics, world culture and travelling exhibits. While displayed in a different space, the Aboriginal objects are presented on the same level; and they benefit from the largest and more spectacular space of the Museum with the window facade at the back.

The clever use of natural light in the Museum and the general openness of the space present the works in a context closer to the one they were meant to be in. Most of the cedar sculptures were made to stand outside. Therefore,

37 the natural light and large windows offer an environment closer to the original one while still protecting them from the weather.

The architecture reflects the institution’s esteem for the Aboriginal collections since the design was truly made to best host the works. It suggests the Museum’s aim at celebrating Aboriginal and world culture. The

Museum design can improve the viewer’s opinion toward Aboriginal cultures since it presents them as valuable. In addition to offering stunning perspectives of the works, the one large space of the Ramp and Great Hall allows the visitor to compare different Aboriginal objects. In turn, it creates the possibility to comprehend the diversity of Aboriginal cultural production in Canada. The space showcases the contrasting aspects of the works, and therefore helps to fight the simplistic and homogenous stereotypical images of Aboriginal peoples. Erickson’s design permits the viewer not only to have a more positive opinion on Aboriginal art, but also to have a better and more accurate understanding of the diversity of their cultures.

The MOA’s building was designed for the Museum’s collections, in particular the cedar sculpture, and in consultation with the communities to better suit their values and beliefs. Its small scale allows for an intimate experience of the works but prevents the inclusion of Aboriginal cultures in the larger regional or national narrative. This exclusion presents a risk of only presenting the positive aspects of the culture and ignoring the difficulties resulting from the colonial period.

38 However, the MOA’s innovative architectural design and pioneering approaches on consultation with source communities made it a model for the inclusion of Aboriginal communities in the museum. Today, it functions as an unconventional museum and a dynamic cultural, learning and exhibition centre. The MOA offers a relatively successful example of how to deal with the colonial past and the present time.

39 Chapter III: The Canadian Museum of Civilization

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is an important touristic destination and landmark for the country. With permanent and temporary exhibits, it also hosts the Children’s Museum and an Imax theatre. The first level presents a permanent exhibition on Canada’s First Peoples. The rest of the level hosts permanent exhibitions on the different cultural groups from

Canada and the country’s history, as well as travelling exhibitions.

Designed by Douglas Cardinal, a Canadian architect with Blackfoot and

Métis ancestry, its monumental architecture is highly symbolic and plays a crucial role in the viewer’s experience of the Museum. The institution’s mandate is reflected in its design. Furthermore, the architectural form of the

Museum greatly influences the visitor’s perception and understanding of the collections.

In this chapter, I first describe the institution’s history and mandate.

Then, I examine its architecture to conclude on how it can influence the perception of the visitor on Aboriginal cultures in the Canadian context.

Institution History and Mandate

While the new building and name of the Museum dates from the

1980’s, the roots of the institution emerged long before. In 1856, a change in legislation allowed the first provincial museum, a geological museum, to open its doors to the public in Montreal. In the early 1860’s, the Museum displayed its first ethnographic pieces of Aboriginal objects made of stone. In 1881, the

40 Museum moved to Ottawa and attracted close to 10,000 visitors in its first year, which represented a great improvement since it was in Montreal. At the end of the century, the “National Museum” changed its mandate to diversify its collections of artistic and industrial objects. It then became the largest national collection. In 1911, the Museum moved into the Victoria Memorial

Museum Building (VMMB) and included an anthropology division with archaeology and ethnology sections. In 1956, the Museum was divided into two parts: natural and human history. Ten years later, a folklore division was added as part of human history. In the 1970’s, William Taylor, the Museum’s director, campaigned to construct a larger building since the VMMB was too small. With the Quebec separatist movement gaining momentum, Taylor advocated that a new building for the Museum could serve as a cultural bridge between the two provinces of Quebec and Ontario. During this era, several national buildings were moved to Hull (now Gatineau), the Quebec suburb of Ottawa, to demonstrate the importance of the bicultural and bilingual aspects of the country. In 1982, the federal government announced a budget of 185 million dollars to finance a new building for the National

Museum of Man. The following year, Douglas Cardinal was chosen to be the architect of the new project to be built in Laurier Park, located in Hull just across from the National Gallery. The building opened its doors in 1989. An important part of the permanent exhibitions is still present today, in particular the Great Hall and its exhibits on Aboriginal peoples of the

Canadian west coast. The MOA contributed to the organisation of the Great

41 Hall exhibit, the result of an eleven-year collaboration between the two museums and source communities.

The Museum’s mandate is broad but consists of two principal aspects.

The first is the social and cultural aspects common to all museums. The CMC endeavours to teach its visitors about Canada’s and the world’s different cultures. George Macdonald, director of the CMC from 1983 to 1998, said that one of the goals of the institution was to “demolish the stereotypes of native people.” Therefore, the Museum is aware of its political responsibilities. The

CMC resumes its mandate with the expression to “educate and entertain the public.”86

The other important aspect of the Museum’s mandate is its political role. The Museum is a national institution providing information about

Canada’s culture to both Canadian and foreign visitors. The federal government finances the institution. The CMC must be understood as a tool of the state.87 The Museum was conceived as a reconciliation tool for the federal government during the tension between Quebec’s independence movement and the federal government. It was a project sponsored by the

Trudeau government,88 and it still stands as a symbol of the tensions between the provincial and national museums in the country.89

Since its beginnings, the aim of the Museum regarding national identity has been very important: the Museum was conceived to be “a symbol

86 Canadian Museum of Civilization, “About Us.” 87 Watson, Museums and Their Communities, 486. 88 Boddy and Cardinal, The Architecture of Douglas Cardinal. 89 Watson, Museums and Their Communities.

42 of national pride and identity” and had a strong agenda for creating a homogenous nation.90 Creating such a cohesive and unilateral national symbol was challenging and contentious in a multicultural country like

Canada.91 Consider how Cardinal describes the Museum’s mission: “this national treasure house must welcome the people, teach them, inspire them, and send them away enlightened and optimistic that we are progressing as human individuals and as a nation.”92 To attain that goal, the Museum publicly acknowledges that the particular view that it will offer of the different cultural groups will be a positive one. It also works in partnership with all the different communities exhibited as advised by the MOA during the collaboration.93 For example, native elders and artisans were consulted and contributed to different aspects of the Museum, such as the houses, the selection of artefacts and the development of the display.94 Finally, one last aspect of the Museum’s goals is to become a tourist attraction and attract revenue for the national capital.95

Architecture and Urban Setting

These mandates and goals are also reflected in the building’s form. Its location constitutes a vital element. When the budget for the National Gallery and the Museum of Man was announced in the 1980’s, it was decided that

90 Liscombe, Architecture and the Canadian Fabric, 341. 91 Ibid. 92 Canadian Museum of Civilization, “Architecture.” 93 Simpson, Making Representations. 94 Canadian Museum of Civilization and Ruddell, Raven’s Village, vii. 95 MacDonald et al., Un musée pour le village global, 8.

43 each side of the Ottawa River, separating Ottawa and Gatineau, would be granted an institution.96 The two institutions were conceived as a physical and architectural stitching together of the two provinces.97 The different perspectives that the Museum’s site offers are also very important. Its architectural design reflects these concerns. The Museum is visible from

Ottawa’s Parliament Hill and Major’s Hill Park. The two wings of the building are arranged to offer a view of Parliament as it used to appear on the one- dollar bill (Figure 7). The Museum serves as a major artefact for the city and reflects the civic role of an urban museum.98

As the federal government was choosing the location for the new building, an important competition was held to choose its architect.

Numerous and renowned architects submitted plans. The choice of Douglas

Cardinal came as a surprise: “Cardinal had the lowest profile with the poorest political and academic connections of the entire group.” Cardinal had never seen the world’s most important museums; he had never visited New York or

Europe.99 However his design was preferred over all the others. Although his

Aboriginal ancestry was not part of the criteria for the selection, it became an important asset.100 His design was sensitive to the Aboriginal heritage and conception of space since he considered architecture to be a spiritual act.

Moreover, Cardinal was one of the first users of Computer Assisted

Design (CAD), an innovative tool that allowed him to design a curvilinear

96 Liscombe, Architecture and the Canadian Fabric, 350. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 Boddy and Cardinal, The Architecture of Douglas Cardinal, 84. 100 Ibid., 1.

44 museum (Figure 8). This was truly a new approach for the time, as it was not inspired by traditional western form.101 Accessible from Laurier Street, the

Museum’s blueprint represents 100,000 square feet and is composed of two major wings: the curatorial and the exhibition wing, separated by a public plaza. The building adopts an organic form of curves and is not arranged under an orthogonal axis. With such a design, Cardinal differs from traditional museum design and the international modern style of architecture.102

Cardinal explains that his design was inspired by Canadian geology.

Four natural elements inspired his design: the Canadian Shield, the glaciers, the streams formed by the melting glaciers, and the Great Plains that stretched before the receding glaciers. Each of them corresponds to a particular space of the Museum. The curatorial wing was inspired by the

Canadian Shield’s geological formation and evokes natural erosion (Figure 9).

The public wing represents the glaciers slowly melting (Figure 10), while the reflecting pool symbolizes the streams that resulted from the melting (Figure

11). Finally, the Great Plains are represented in the vast plaza in front of the

Museum and between the two buildings (Figure 12).103 The building’s materials, such as tiles, stones and bricks, all come from different parts of

Canada.104 The limestone, seen on the exterior walls of the Museum, displays the marks of the glaciers’ passage. The green copper roofs represent the

101 MacDonald et al., Un musée pour le village global, 1. 102 MacDonald et al., Un musée pour le village global, 20. 103 Canadian Museum of Civilization, “About Us.” 104 MacDonald et al., Un musée pour le village global, 13.

45 vegetation growing after the melting of the glaciers. The Great Hall, on the first floor, where the Aboriginal collections are exhibited, is shaped like a gigantic canoe (Figure 13). Cardinal was inspired by the Native myth of the raven’s magic canoe that changes size from tiny to large enough to hold the entire world.105

In addition to creating an iconic building forging a national identity,

Cardinal was also facing the technical challenges of creating a safe place for the conservation, storage, transportation and exhibition of the collections.

The architecture must allow for a strict control of humidity, temperature and sun for the protection of the large collections.106 While protecting the works from the external environment, it also importantly gives a sense of open space to the visitor. For example, the columns of the Great Hall protect some of the artefacts from solar deterioration while still allowing them to benefit from natural light (Figure 14).107 The Great Hall constitutes the most open space of the Museum, and creates an interesting relation between the internal and external environments of the building. It produces a series of visual perspectives of the works from the outside but also onto the plaza and fountains from inside the exhibition space.

105 Canadian Museum of Civilization and Ruddell, Raven’s Village, 1. 106 Boddy and Cardinal, The Architecture of Douglas Cardinal, 128. 107 MacDonald et al., Un musée pour le village global, 25.

46 Symbolism and the Viewer’s Experience

As already mentioned, one of the goals of the Museum’s design was to create a symbol of national pride. It seeks to present Canada as a multiethnic yet homogenous nation, including cultural minorities of both immigrants and

Aboriginal peoples. It is the largest museum in the country; therefore, the political impact of a project of this scale cannot be overstated.108 The architecture is driven by a certain ideology. Consider Cardinal’s principal goal: “my challenge is to create images in sculptural and architectural forms that symbolise the goals and aspirations of the Nation.”109

The symbolism of the landscape is also noteworthy. For Cardinal, the landscape metaphorically represents a common image shared both by

Aboriginal peoples and all Canadians. This metaphor preserves the thought of Canadians linked to their land to which the Group of Seven strongly contributed. In Canadian history, art, landscape and nationalism are always closely connected,110 and the three elements are very present in the building.

Cardinal explains that he sought to make the Museum appear as if it was emerging from the ground. Indeed, he believes that a building in harmony with the ground corresponds to First Nations beliefs.111 It was also meant to resemble the way the country looked when it was first inhabited 15,000 years ago.112 This reference to ancient history was meant to symbolize the past, present and future of the country in an optimistic way, and become a

108 Boddy and Cardinal, The Architecture of Douglas Cardinal, 131. 109 Ibid.., 95. 110 Liscombe, Architecture and the Canadian Fabric. 111 MacDonald et al., Un musée pour le village global, 25. 112 Ibid., 15.

47 promise for the future.113 Finally, the Great Hall adopts the shape of a sacred object common to several Aboriginal nations of the country. When entering the Great Hall, the different houses represent the different cultures of the

Pacific coast, from south to north.114 The houses face the reflecting pools outside the Museum, echoing the original setting of northwest coast villages facing the sea. This setting was probably inspired by the MOA’s display designed by Erickson and the Vancouver Museum team.

As a Métis and Blackfoot, Cardinal suffered from racism and prejudice.

During his studies, he was told that he had the wrong family background to work in the profession.115 The architect developed a very critical opinion of

Canada’s attitude toward Aboriginal people. He wrote: “It is not in the interest of Canada’s population to consider our rights and our needs. It is not in their interest to recognize us a people, as a nation. It is not in their interest to recognize Aboriginal rights.”116 The architect’s background precisely relates to the subject of the perception of Aboriginal cultures as conveyed by architecture. Indeed, Cardinal’s origins make him particularly sensitive to

Aboriginal representation. He has a strong critical sense of the situation and a desire to improve it. Therefore, the choice of Cardinal as an architect came as a surprise and was controversial.117 This strong critic of Canadian policy might seem to contradict himself by his agreement to design such an important tool of the Canadian state. On the other hand, Cardinal might be a

113 Boddy and Cardinal, The Architecture of Douglas Cardinal, 128. 114 Liscombe, Architecture and the Canadian Fabric, 345. 115 Boddy and Cardinal, The Architecture of Douglas Cardinal, 17. 116 Ibid., 119. 117 Ibid., 84.

48 truly idealistic person who participated in the competition and accepted the commission with a true desire to improve the perception of Aboriginal peoples.

Cardinal’s famous architecture contributes to the attraction of the

Museum and influences the visitor’s experience. I believe the building’s appearance has a strong and positive impact on the viewer’s opinion of the

Museum. However, one could argue that it serves the same Canadian society

Cardinal accuses of neglecting Aboriginal rights since the Museum serves a national ideology.

Moreover, the architecture could be accused of overshadowing the collections that include Aboriginal pieces. But the building is itself an

Aboriginal contemporary cultural production. The architecture and the use of

CAD by Cardinal were very modern at the time. This innovative approach deconstructs the myth of Aboriginal cultures being both frozen in the past and backward.

The architectural separation of the collections on different floors also impacts the viewer’s understanding of them. Aboriginal cultures are architecturally presented as distinct from the rest of the Museum. Their cultural production is grouped on the first floor and therefore presented as different from the rest of Canadian history. To access the first floor, the visitor uses stairs and goes one floor down from the entrance situated on the second floor. The Great Hall is the lowest floor, while the rest of the collections are presented on the above levels. This placement of the

49 collections can also be interpreted as a cultural hierarchy between the different cultures, with Aboriginals being at the lowest level. It can also be perceived as a chronological evolution, presenting Aboriginals as a culture of the past. That interpretation of the location of the Aboriginal works could however directly influence the perception of the viewer, prompting him to believe Aboriginal cultures are outdated or less valuable than the rest of the

Canadian heritage.

Moreover, this first floor receives the most natural light and is the most open exhibition of all. The architect, in consultation with the community, chose this openness to suit the Aboriginal people’s conceptions of their objects and how they should be exhibited. To the eye of the visitor, however, this absence of a strong distinction between the inside and outside in the

Great Hall could be interpreted as if the collections were less protected and therefore less valuable. It also presents the collection as closely linked to the exterior and nature, which is partially true but can also contribute to a stereotypical interpretation of Aboriginal cultures. If these choices were made to correspond to Aboriginal beliefs, they could always be misinterpreted. No architectural design and curating can present a perfect solution.

Finally, the overly immersive environment of historical reconstruction could negatively affect the collections. However, this approach is not exclusive to the Aboriginal section; it is the curatorial program of the entire

50 Museum. This approach suggests that the Museum’s principal mandate is not to educate so much as entertain its visitors.

The CMC represents a good example of the difficulties that curators and architects face in the treatment of history and representation of cultures.

Canada has a colonial history and ongoing issues that make creating a national museum an arduous task. Since the architecture of a museum shapes the visitor’s opinion, the choice of the architect and design forms a crucial question. By choosing an architect of Aboriginal heritage and organising consultations, the CMC demonstrated its concern for choosing the appropriate context for the display. While the design can be misinterpreted in several ways, it was originally meant to correspond to Canada’s different cultural groups’ beliefs and values.

To celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017, the Harper government announced in October 2012 that the Museum of Civilization would be changing its name to the Canadian Museum of History. This name change reflects a changing mandate that will focus only on Canadian history and celebrate its achievements.118 After the announcement, several entities publicly accused the Harper government of instrumentalizing the Museum for national propaganda. For instance, Victor Rabinovitch, the former director of the Museum accused the new mandate of being “narrow and

118 Communications, “Harper Government to Create the Canadian Museum of History.”

51 parochial.”119 This recent controversy illustrates the importance of the political aspect of the Museum.

119 “Ex-museum CEO Calls Proposed Mandate ‘Narrow and Parochial’ - Ottawa - CBC News.”

52 Chapter IV: Pointe-à-Callière Montréal Museum of Archaeology and

History

Located in the heart of Old Montreal, and designed by Dan Hanganu, the Pointe-à-Callière Montréal Museum of History and Archeology preserves and displays the history of its city in a building famous for its architectural design. PàC seeks to exhibit the history of Montreal and the many factors that led to the city’s creation. It functions as a museum but also an archeology field school. The architecture is meant to engage with the historical context of the site. However, while the PàC Museum stands on historical Mohawk territory, both the architecture and the exhibitions make little reference to the Aboriginal heritage of Montreal. The Museum’s architecture influences the viewer’s experience in his or her understanding of the history of the site and of the role that Aboriginals played in the development of Montreal.

History and Mandate

PàC is a “site museum” based on the archeological excavations done on the site. Site museums are very common in Europe and the Middle East; they are made as a complement to the archeological site and they display the results of the excavations. Sometimes, they also serve as a source of income to allow the excavations of a site to continue. One of the most famous and biggest site museums is the Acropolis Museum in Greece. PàC’s collections include acquisitions and donations, but are primarily made up of the findings

53 of the archeological excavations on the site. PàC is, before anything else, a museum about the history of its location and of Montreal.

The PàC Museum opened in 1992 to mark the 350th anniversary of

Montreal. The Museum’s location is thought to be the exact point where Paul de Chomedey, Sieur de Maisonneuve, landed his boat and founded Ville Marie in 1642, thus celebrating an important event in the colonization of Canada.

The buildings stand in the heart of the old port, the most touristic part of

Montreal. Twenty years after its creation, the Museum attracts more visitors every year and plans to expand.124 Already composed of six different buildings, it has recently acquired new ones and plans to add exhibition spaces; the opening is planned for 2016-2017.125

The Museum’s mission as stated on its website is “to bring visitors to know and appreciate the Montreal of yesterday and today through outreach, education, conservation and research activities revolving around Montreal’s archaeological and historical heritage.”126 Although it also hosts travelling exhibitions on different cultures and describes archeological methods of research to its visitors, the Museum mainly displays the history of its own site and of Montreal. The architecture is meant to accommodate this mandate and is built in response to the site; the Museum is located on the foundations of old structures but is also composed of repurposed historical buildings.127

First Nations people played an important part in Montreal’s history before

124 Pointe-à-Callière, “Projet d’expansion du Musée.” 125 Ibid. 126 Pointe-à-Callière, “About Point-à-Callière, Organization.” 127 Pointe-à-Callière, “À Propos De Pointe-à-Callière, Complexe Muséal, Architecture.”

54 and after the founding of Ville Marie, and the history of the site includes a brief account of its Mohawk possession. But this part of the city’s history is not emphasized in the Museum. Since the Museum includes several buildings and continues to expand, this paper will focus mainly on the exhibitions and the architecture of three spaces: the Éperon building, Place Royale and the archeological crypt underground, and the Ancienne-Douane (Figure 15).

Those three buildings are chosen because they were part of the initial project and because they comprise most of the space dedicated to permanent exhibitions accessible to the public all year long. The other buildings host the administration, the collections and the office spaces.

Architecture and Urban Setting

Romanian-born Canadian architect Dan Sergiu Hanganu designed the

Éperon building, which serves as the entrance to the Museum. It is the most iconic building of the complex (Figure 16). Standing on the foundations of the former Royal Insurance Company building, the Éperon adopts its triangular shape (Figure 17). The building contains, in addition to a ticket booth, a belvedere, a restaurant, an exhibition space and a multi-media theatre. The archaeological crypt and Place Royale link the Éperon building to the

Ancienne-Douane. In the crypt are the remains of Montreal’s fortifications and of different buildings dating from the 17th to the 19th century. The

Ancienne-Douane building, designed by John Ostel,128 was built in 1836-1837

128 Ibid.

55 in a neoclassical style, and the restoration was a project by LeMoyne

Lapointe Magne. In addition to these three principal buildings, the Museum complex also includes the Mariners' House, the Youville Pumping Station and the Archaeological Field School. The Mariner’s House has new exhibition rooms dedicated to temporary exhibits, as well as a gift shop, rental facilities and offices. The Youville Pumping Station was Montreal’s first wastewater pumping station but has now been transformed into an interpretative center.

The field school is now located at 214 Place d’Youville, next to the Éperon, in the Hector de Callière residence.

PàC’s location was chosen because of the long history of its archeological site; the name of the Museum comes from its location. And this particular location is the one of the founding sites of Ville Marie as a French colony; it was the first piece of land colonized by the French on the island of

Montreal. The Pointe-à-Callière is a triangular shaped site created by the meeting of the St Lawrence River to the South and a small river to the North.

It took the name of its first French inhabitant, Hector de Callière. Before the construction of the Museum, a park stood on the location of the Éperon building. Now the various buildings are arranged around Place Royale and

Place de la Grande Paix de Montréal.

At the time of its opening in 1993, the Éperon building was not unanimously praised. The residents of the old port protested against the disappearance of the park and the modern and monumental aspect of

Hanganu’s architecture. The building was called “An elephant in the old

56 port”129 and “A scar on the city’s cheek”130 and “affreux mastodonte sur la

Place-à-Callières”.131 The modern aspect of the new construction was considered too different and ill suited to the landscape of the old port.

Moreover, due to its scale, the building was blocking the view from Place d’Youville to the Port and the other way round. Since Place Royale had been raised a few inches above the ground to host the crypt exhibition space, it is less accessible and is said to have lost its function as a public plaza. But the main concern of the critics was the modern architecture of the Éperon contrasting the surrounding historical buildings.

The Éperon, if very different in form, has the same exterior material as the neighboring buildings. Indeed, the outside of the Éperon is made of pale limestone while the inside is made of concrete. The choice was made not to contrast too much with nearby constructions. Once inside the Museum, the tension between the interior and exterior materials is not the only one the visitor will find. The design of the entrance is characterized by the contrast of round and angular shapes and of glass, steel and concrete. The ticket booth, the columns and a spiral staircase are round but the motifs on the floor and roof are very angular. The entrance is flooded with artificial light from inside and natural light through the long windows (Figure 18). While the entrance presents openings to the outside, it also has several openings to the upper and lower levels of the building. Therefore, upon entering the Museum, the

129 Sallin, “Un Éléphant dans le Vieux -Montréal.” 130 Hanganu, Covo, and Frampton, “An Incorrigible Optimist.” 131 Alma, Mathieu. “Affreux Mastodonte sur la Place-à-Callières.”

57 visitor already has a glimpse of the temporary exhibitions and of the underground remains. These openings also allow for the sound to go from one floor to another, and guided tours can often be overheard from the entrance.

After purchasing an entrance ticket, the visitor faces different choices.

The typical route would be to enter the Hydro-Québec multimedia theatre and watch the 18-minute multimedia show entitled “Yours Truly, Montréal”, created by Moment Factory. Immersed in a 270° screen, the viewer hears and sees the city of Montreal “telling her story.” The light projections are made both on the screens of the theatre, and onto the archeological remains on the floor of the theatre. The exit of the theatre is a spiral staircase that allows access to the underground remains and exhibitions. Although this is the advised route, the visitor can also directly access the remains from the entrance by another staircase. A third option would be to directly access the temporary exhibitions by taking the elevator at the entrance or by exiting the

Éperon and entering another building. But the visitor can also decide to go to the restaurant or the belvedere first. At the entrance, the visitor faces different options and can choose his or her path according to personal interest.

Symbolism and Viewer’s Experience

PàC’s permanent exhibitions function as a history book, informing the visitor about the city’s and the region’s history, but the curatorial decisions

58 are selective. In terms of the latter, curators choose what people may consider worthy of remembering and omits what people might consider extraneous. In the multimedia show, Montreal’s voice always takes the side of the French colonizers. The city “explains” how it was first “attacked by the

Iroquois” and then “besieged by the English.” Rather than taking the position of a city on which two camps fought, Montreal’s voice in the show always positions itself as besieged by the enemies of the French. Aboriginal peoples in the film are first depicted as “attacking” Montreal, not as defending their native land. Later, Aboriginals are credited with helping in the construction of modern architecture in the 1930s, due to their alleged lack of fear of heights, once again giving a very one dimensional, stereotypical depiction of

First Nations people as a marginalized work force.

In addition to the multimedia show, the Museum possesses various collections both on display or kept in reserve. Some of the objects are the result of the excavations held on the site and in the newly acquired buildings.

These found objects include artefacts (objects made by human use such as tools, ceramics, ornaments etc.) and écofacts (objects modified by human use of animal bones, seeds etc.). The archeological remains are the last part, and perhaps the most important, of the collections resulting from the excavations.

Therefore, the architectural remains are a central part of the Museum’s collections. The latter are present almost everywhere, the one exception being the temporary exhibition room. The lighting, panels, and artefacts are the only additions to the remains. Both old and new architecture are an

59 important part of the exhibition; therefore, the architecture is presented as something very valuable for our culture. The meaning of the exhibitions is created by the “discussion” between architecture and the other collections.

The architecture both protects and displays the collection but it also serves as historical evidence.

Further, Hanganu’s famous Éperon itself stands as an object on display. The tower functions as a point of reference for the entire complex and also serves as the Museum’s logo (Figure 19). Its clock tower is a reference to the clock on the former insurance building. Its shape reproduces the exact form of this old building but also mimics the appearance of a boat with its porthole-like windows and references Montreal’s naval history. The metal structure appears through the concrete to symbolize how the Museum is always under construction.132 While this highly symbolic architecture makes several references to Montreal’s past and present, but it makes none to its Mohawk history.

While most museum designs make the path clear enough for the viewer to know what route or order he or she is supposed to adopt, PàC does not. The route through the underground remains is unclear; the path is not defined by architecture or curatorial direction. The curatorial elements can give clues to the visitor regarding what route to adopt, but the architecture can also direct the visitor’s path in a way like the spiral form of Frank Lloyd

Wright’s Guggenheim Museum in New York. In PàC’s crypt, the absence of a

132 Pointe-à-Callière, “À Propos De Pointe-à-Callière, Complexe Muséal, Architecture.”

60 precise order gives the impression that the visitor is exploring the past by him- or herself and experiencing a personal adventure in history. The architecture influences the viewer’s experience in creating a multidimensional impression of an unmediated experience.

The archeological crypt under the Museum is one dimly lit large space

(Figure 20). The open space architecture is compensated for by the darkness of the room, which conveys a sense of privacy to the visitor. The visitor goes from one period to the next since different strata are on display (cemetery, sewer, insurance building, foundations etc.). The exhibition is therefore not organized in chronological order. This juxtaposition of periods can be a little confusing for a visitor not familiar with archeological strata. While the exhibitions in the remains succeed in giving a sense of walking through history and in space, the overall effect is confusing. The use of concrete and limestone for the inside and outside respectively symbolizes the balance between history and modernity of the Museum’s mandate. However, the materials chosen also express the contradictions or tensions between past and future that are incarnated in the space.

PàC’s radically modern architecture is a good example of how the

Museum, by looking forward, neglects to include and acknowledge the past.

Moreover, the Museum, as shown in both its architecture and collections, fails to recognize the continuing presence and importance of Aboriginal peoples in the colonial history of Montreal. If Museums present what we

61 value the most, this lack of Aboriginal presence in PàC’s architecture demonstrates our lack of consideration, as a society, for Montreal’s

Aboriginal history and the Aboriginal people’s contemporary presence. More emphasis on our Aboriginal heritage and a true acknowledgment of

Montreal’s and Canada’s colonial history, as well as the ongoing issues resulting from it, would result in a more culturally inclusive museum.

62 Chapter V: Conclusion

In addition to the collections, their display and the curatorial textual additions, the architecture of a museum plays an important role in the viewer’s experience. In the Canadian context of colonial history with ongoing issues of racism and exclusion of Aboriginal people, the museums have social and political responsibilities. In the three examples chosen, the different approaches and designs of the architects influence the viewer in various ways.

The MOA offers a unique and intimate setting for the collections to be experienced in an architectural form specifically designed for them. The works are presented as valuable yet separate from the rest of the regional and national narrative.

On a much larger scale, the CMC’s architecture serves as a symbol of national pride. While the allocated space for Aboriginal exhibits was designed in consultation with source communities, the main idea transmitted by the architecture is Canadian patriotism.

The PàC’s architecture was designed to reflect the history of its own site. By making insufficient references to Mohawk influence on the site, it fails to portray an accurate and complete history of its location.

These three case studies illustrate the importance of architectural form on the viewer’s experience. Three main aspects or functions of museum architecture emerge when analysing its relation to the viewer’s experience.

The first is the architecture’s serving as a context of discovery for the viewer.

63 Secondly, architecture is itself an artefact and an object on display. Along with the historical context of the museum’s building, the patrons also constitute important actors in shaping the museum’s design and its activities.

Museums as Contexts of Discovery

Museum architecture creates a context, or an environment, in which the visitor comes in contact with the artefacts. When visiting an exhibition, the use of light, circulation and space contribute to the context for the discovery of the collections. The light can be natural or artificial. When it is natural, it exposes the works to solar deterioration but presents them in a context often closer to the one they were meant to be in. Natural light is also different from the traditional context of museum display. Therefore, the visitor can interpret natural lighting in several ways. It does not constitute a positive or negative element per se. For example, natural lighting in the MOA and the CMC is meant to mimic the traditional setting of the works. However, in the CMC it contrasts strongly with the floors above where the works seem more protected from the outside, thus making them appear more valuable.

The circulation in the building also represents a crucial element of the viewer’s experience. The architecture can direct or, on the contrary, confuse the visitor. Consider that the circulation in the MOA is strongly shaped by

Erickson’s design while the architecture in the PàC’s underground remains does not indicate a specific path for the viewer to adopt. These concerns are significant because the visitor’s path dictates the chronology in which he or

64 she will encounter the pieces. The order of the exhibition presents the curatorial narrative. The narrative structure can either be chronological, thematic or indistinct.

Finally, the size and aspect of the space in which the works are exhibited are also very important. A small space conveys a sense of intimacy often understood as necessary to appreciate works of art. However, larger spaces offer a different perspective on the works. Small artefacts do not benefit from being seen from a far distance as much as monumental sculptures do. In the MOA and the CMC, the Great Halls offer perspectives on totem poles and other objects on display. The Great Hall in the MOA is much smaller but still allows the viewer to see the totem poles from a distance, either from the entrance and the Ramp or from the outside of the Museum. In the CMC, the space of the Great Hall symbolically adopts the shape of a canoe.

Therefore, the form of the space is not only conceived to provide the best setting for the works but also to function as an emblem.

Museum as Artefacts

The symbolic use of space is another crucial aspect of museum architecture. It not only functions as the best host for the works on display, it also acts as an exhibited piece. Building architecture is often symbolic; in the case of the museum, it is essential. The architectural form can convey an ideology and stand as a symbol. In the three cases studied, the architecture is highly symbolic and uses different metaphors to convey meaning. Consider

65 the MOA that reinterprets and modifies, while still being very much inspired by the traditional Aboriginal architecture from the West Coast. The CMC adopts the sacred shape of the canoe for the Great Hall where the Aboriginal works are exhibited. In PàC, the Éperon makes several references to the city’s history while ignoring the Aboriginal contribution.

In addition to the symbolism meant by the architect, the architecture also reflects its period. Consider the CMC, which could not have been designed in the same way without the use of CAD. Much in the same way as any historical evidence, museums reflect the passage of time. The CMC’s copper roofs were meant to become green and echo the other roofs seen in the capital. The MOA underwent several extensions and renovations, which testify to the changing needs of the institution.

Just like any other artefact, museum architecture reveals important information about the period of its construction and the goals of the institution. In addition, it can be perceived and interpreted in various manners. Therefore, it is difficult to make a value judgment on the different aspects of the architecture because users of the space can perceive it in countless different ways. Consider the openness of the CMC and the MOA’s

Great Halls, which both were meant to provide the best setting for the works while being interpreted differently. Much as for a work of art, the understanding of space and architecture depends on the visitor’s personal experience and identity.

66 Museums and their Patrons

Although museum architecture can be experienced in different ways, its analysis still allows us to draw conclusions on the institution’s goals.

Consider PàC, for instance, which appears to engage with Montreal’s colonial history in a much less successful manner than the MOA or the CMC with their respective histories. The chronology of the three cases studied suggests that the treatment of Aboriginal cultures in architecture is worsening. However, in addition to the chronological aspect, it is crucial to consider the role of each institution’s patrons and how they influence the purpose of the institutions. These diverse architectural approaches not only represent the period of their creation but also the mandates of the institutions.

An analysis of museum architecture uncovers the principles and motivations of the institutions. This particular research project demonstrates that academia is a leading actor in the field of inclusion of source communities. Consider that the MOA is affiliated to the UBC. Through its architecture, curatorial design and various programs, it appears as a pacesetter in the search for reconciliation between museums and Aboriginal groups. For instance, it served as a model in the field and was consulted during the creation of the CMC.

As a national institution, the CMC plays a very different role. Because it serves as a political tool, it can only reflect the vision and aspiration of the government. The change of name and mandate coinciding with the election of the conservative party at the head of the country represents a good example.

67 While PàC receives funding from national, provincial and municipal governments, it remains an independent institution. Therefore, it is harder to understand the motivations of the actors who participate in the decision- making process. However, it is apparent that the inclusion of Aboriginal people in the Museum is not part of the institution’s priorities.

The cases studied seem to present the academic world as a pioneer in both partnership with source communities and in Aboriginal inclusion in museums. This innovative approach contrasts with national politics and private interests.

Museum architecture is much more than a setting for the works; it also reflects the institution’s mandate. It has the power to shape public perception and understanding of Aboriginal peoples. As such, museum architecture plays an active role in historiography.

This research report raises more questions than it provides answers.

It describes the delicate process of designing a museum and its exhibitions of

Aboriginal material in a Canadian context, given the colonial history and its ongoing consequences. Museum architecture in Canada reflects and participates in broader societal situations. More importantly, it can participate in paving the road to cultural reconciliation.

68 Bibliography:

Alma, Mathieu. “Affreux mastodonte sur la Place-à-Callières.” La Presse, May 28,

1992.

Ames, Michael M. “How to Decorate a House: The Re-negotiation of Cultural

Representations at the University of British Columbia Museum of

Anthropology.” Museum Anthropology 22, no. 3 (1999): 41–51.

Amnesty International. Canadian Section - English-Speaking. “Stolen Sisters: A

Human Rights Response to Discrimination and Violence Against Indigenous

Women in Canada.” 2004.

Boddy, Trevor, and Douglas Cardinal. The Architecture of Douglas Cardinal.

Edmonton: NeWest Publishers, 1988.

Canada. Parliament. Senate. Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and

Canadian Electronic Library (Firm). “Le chemin à parcourir : Rapport sur les

progrès accomplis depuis les excuses présentées par le gouvernement du

Canada aux anciens élèves des pensionnats autochtones,” 2011.

Canadian Museum of Civilization. “About Us.” Canadian Museum of Civilisation, n.d.

http://www.civilization.ca/about-us.

Canadian Museum of Civilization, and Nancy J. Ruddell. Raven’s Village: The Myths,

Arts, and Traditions of Native People from the Pacific Northwest Coast : Guide

to the Grand Hall, Canadian Museum of Civilization. Hull, Québec: The

Museum, 1995.

69 Capell, David, and Colette Tougas. “The Invention of Line: Nadia Myre’s Indian Act

/ L’Invention de la ligne. L’Indian Act de Nadia Myre.” Parachute no. 111 (July

2003): 98–111.

Chansonneuve, Deborah, and Aboriginal Healing Foundation (Canada).

Retisser nos liens comprendre les traumatismes vécus dans les pensionnats indiens

par les Autochtones. Ottawa, Ont.: Fondation autochtones de guérison, 2005.

Communications, Government of Canada; Canadian Heritage; “Harper

Government to Create the Canadian Museum of History.” Media release, news

publication, October 16, 2012.

http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1350400008284/1350400644673.

Duncan, Carol. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. Routledge, 1995.

Duncan, Carol, and Alan Wallach. “Museum of Modern Art as Late Capitalist Ritual:

An Iconographic Analysis.” Marxist Perspectives 4 (Winter 1978): 28–51.

Erickson, Arthur. The Architecture of Arthur Erickson. Montreal: Tundra Books,

1975.

“Ex-museum CEO Calls Proposed Mandate ‘Narrow and Parochial’ - Ottawa - CBC

News.” Accessed September 12, 2013.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2013/06/06/ottawa-

museum-civilization-history-rebranding-new-mandate-concerns.html.

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. First Nations Child and

Family Caring Society of Canada Annual Report. Rapport Annuel, 2012.

http://www.fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/2010AnnualReport-

v2.pdf.

70 Giebelhausen, Michaela. The Architecture of the Museum: Symbolic Structures,

Urban Contexts. Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press, 2003.

Hanganu, Dan S., David Covo, and Kenneth Frampton. “An Incorrigible Optimist:

2008 RAIC Gold Medal [Dan Hanganu].” Canadian Architect 53, no. 5 (May

2008): 60–67.

Harrison, Julia D., and Bruce Trigger. “‘The Spirit Sings’ and the Future of

Anthropology.” Anthropology Today 4, no. 6 (December 1, 1988): 6–10.

Hawthorn, Audrey. A Labour of Love: The Making of the Museum of Anthropology,

UBC ; the First Three Decades, 1947-1976. Vancouver: UBC Museum of

Anthropology, 1993.

Iglauer, Edith. Seven Stones: a Portrait of Arthur Erickson, Architect. [Vancouver]

B.C.; Seattle: Harbour Pub. ; University of Washington Press, 1981.

Jones, Amelia. Seeing Differently: A History and Theory of Identification and the

Visual Arts. 1st edition. Routledge, 2012.

Kalant, Amelia. National Identity and the Conflict at Oka: Native Belonging and

Myths of Postcolonial Nationhood in Canada. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Liscombe, R. W. Architecture and the Canadian Fabric. Vancouver: UBC Press,

2011.

MacDonald, George F, Stephen Alsford, R. A. J Phillips, and Musée Canadien des

Civilisations. Un musée pour le village global: le Musée Canadien des

Civilisations. Hull, Québec: Le Musée, 1989.

Macleod, Suzanne. Reshaping Museum Space: Architecture, Design, Exhibitions.

London; New York: Routledge, 2005.

71 Mayer, Carol E, and Anthony Shelton. The Museum of Anthropology at the

University of British Columbia. Vancouver [B.C.]; Seattle: Douglas &

MacIntyre ; University of Washington Press, 2009.

Native Women’s Association of Canada. “Ce que leurs histoires nous disent :

Résultats de recherche de l’initiative Sœurs par l’esprit,” 2010.

O’Doherty, Brian. Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space.

University of California Press, 1999.

Olsberg, R. Nicholas, Arthur Erickson, Edward Dimendberg, Laurent Stalder, and

Georges Teyssot. Arthur Erickson: Critical Works. Vancouver; Seattle: Douglas

& McIntyre : Vancouver Art Gallery ; University of Washington Press, 2006.

Pointe-à-Callière. “À Propos de Pointe-à-Callière, Complexe Muséal, Architecture.”

Musée Pointe-à-Callière, n.d. http://pacmusee.qc.ca/fr/a-propos-de-pointe-a-

calliere/musee/complexe-museal.

———. “About Point-à-Calière, Organization.” Musée Pointe-à-Callière, n.d.

http://pacmusee.qc.ca/en/about-pointe-a-calliere/organization.

———. “Projet d’expansion du Musée.” Musée Pointe-à-Callière, n.d.

http://pacmusee.qc.ca/fr/a-propos-de-pointe-a-calliere/musee/projets-

futurs-expansion-musee.

Reading, Jeffrey Lawrence, and UVic Centre for Aboriginal Health Research. The

Crisis of Chronic Disease Among Aboriginal Peoples: A Challenge for Public

Health, Population Health and Social Policy. Victoria, BC: University of

Victoria, Centre for Aboriginal Health Research, 2009.

http://www.cahr.uvic.ca/docs/ChronicDisease%20Final.pdf.

72 Rybczynski, Withold. “ARCHITECTURE - THE BILBAO EFFECT.” The Atlantic

Monthly. (2002): 138.

Sallin, Patrick. “Un éléphant dans le Vieux-Montréal.” Le Devoir, June 19, 1992.

Simpson, Moira G. Making Representations: Museums in the Post-colonial Era.

Routledge, 2001.

University of British Columbia. “About the Museum.” Museum of Anthropology, n.d.

http://moa.ubc.ca/about/index.php.

University of British Columbia, Museum of Anthropology, and Jennifer Webb.

Investigating, Preserving and Presenting Objects and Expressions of Human

Creativity. Vancouver: Museum of Anthropology, University of British

Columbia, 1999.

Watson, Sheila. Museums and Their Communities. Routledge, 2013.

Whitehead, Christopher. Interpreting Art in Museums and Galleries. Routledge,

2011.

73 Annex:

Figure 1:

Whitehead, Christopher. Interpreting Art in Museums and Galleries. Routledge, 2011, xiii.

Figure 2:

UBC Museum of Anthropology

74

Figure 3:

UBC Museum of Anthropology

75

Figure 4:

http://www.mbarrick.net/blog/100620/exploring-some-vancouvers-world-war-ii-relics

Figure 5:

http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/MAYMUS.html

76 Figure 6:

http://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuseum.ca/sgc-cms/expositions- exhibitions/bill_reid/english/resources/moa_village.html

Figure 7:

Musée canadien des civilisations, D2004-23605 ($1 bill)

77

Figure 8:

Musée canadien des civilisations, S93-1280 (exterior seen from river)

Figure 9:

Musée canadien des civilisations, T2004-223 (facade of curatorial building)

78

Figure 10:

Musée canadien des civilisations, D2004-18595 (Grand Hall interior)

Figure 11:

Musée canadien des civilisations, T2004-222 (museum from river)

79

Figure 12:

Musée canadien des civilisations, S93-2833 (exterior from front)

80 Figure 13:

Musée canadien des civilisations, IMG2009-0096-0003-Dm (Grand Hall interior)

81 Figure 14:

Musée canadien des civilisations, S93-14632 (Grand Hall exterior)

Figure 15:

Pointe-à-Callière Montréal Museum of Archeology and History

82 Figure 16:

Pointe-à-Callière Montréal Museum of Archeology and History

83 Figure 17:

Pointe-à-Callière Montréal Museum of Archeology and History

84 Figure 18:

Pointe-à-Callière Montréal Museum of Archeology and History

Figure 19:

Pointe-à-Callière Montréal Museum of Archeology and History

85

Figure 20:

Pointe-à-Callière Montréal Museum of Archeology and History

86