Iakwé:iahre (we remember / se remémorer)

A Colloquium of the Aboriginal Curatorial Collective

October 16 - 18 2014 Montréal on the traditional territory of the Kanien’keha:ka

Historiographer’s Report by Chris Creighton-Kelly The Limits of History

All histories are partial. We, each one of us, are walking-history beings. We walk about with our unique perception of events, physical interactions and intuitions. It is wondrous and humbling to imagine what others imagine, how this differs from our own thoughts and how, when others’ understandings are layered together, we see the paucity of our own perspective.

As we walk around the tree together, we begin to see the whole tree. And so it was at:

Iakwé:iahre (we remember / se remémorer) a colloquium organized by the Aboriginal Curatorial Collective, on October 16-18, 2014 on the traditional territory of the Kanien’keha:ka.

It would be literally impossible to explain everything that happened at this colloquium. Even if that were somehow possible, it would still be filtered through an interpretive lens, through the worldview, politics and values of the speaker/writer.

Then, there is the touchy subject of speaking for someone else, of speaking for others. There is a certain indignity in speaking for others. History is littered with the co-optation and appropriation of the voice of individuals, of groups, of peoples. One must be attentive and respectful.

So it is the task of the historiographer to listen, to learn and to share their perspective. More accurately, if they are doing their work carefully, multiple perspectives. I approached this document with that in mind, with humility and a hope that my observations may contribute to a continuing dialogue about the ACC and its relationship to an Aboriginal Arts Living Archive.

And so to repeat, all histories are partial. Some are more partial than others. Some are so deliberately partial, so as to be lies. As in the fictions that Canadians tell ourselves about how this country was formed. The ‘creation story of Canada’ needs to be re-examined.

Iakwé:iahre, with its clear emphasis on remembering, was a small step in re-examining; of telling from Aboriginal points of view; of Indigenizing art history. The colloquium gave voice to stories and practices that approach the idea of an Aboriginal Arts Living Archive rooted in Indigenous lived experience, both past and present.

Those lived experiences honour the orality of much Indigenous knowledge transmission, even when there may be no traces of that transmission. This can create a complex problem for an archive!

Participants were acutely aware that though they did not have complete answers, their ‘remembering’ would shed light on an ongoing discussion. The colloquium was structured in such a way that encouraged an aggregate, collective methodology. The partial histories did, in the end, add up to something meaningful. Many people felt that they had contributed, that they had a stake in the development of a living archive.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !2 Before Anyone Got to Iakwé:iahre

The idea of a living archive might, at first glance, seem like a contradiction seen through the anthropological approach of a Western arts lens. After all, an archive - defined by the Oxford dictionary as “ a collection of historical documents...providing information about a place, institution or group of people” - is usually consulted about things, events and persons in the past, all of which are now, at least, metaphorically ‘dead’. How then can an archive be living?

Recent attempts in museological theory (less so in practice) to imagine and create a living museum; a new museum; a community-engaged museum; an interactive museum, etc. are usually well-intentioned initiatives designed to make a museum’s archives come alive - to inject ‘life’ into ‘dead’ objects. All this so that visitors will have a more ‘user-centered’ experience.

Indigenous people, especially elders, look upon this hubris with bemusement. For most of them, objects have never been dead! In most Aboriginal worldviews - persons, creatures, rocks, rivers, oceans, even some human-made objects - are alive. In addition, they do not die, but rather transform, all the while holding their potent flow of energy. We, humans, are part of this flow.

This is not some simplistic, semantic distinction. From it, flows a world of difference. If oceans are alive, then how we treat them is emblematic of our stewardship (or lack of). If creatures are part of this energy flow, then how we kill them or how we eat them suggests an ethical and responsible consideration. If certain human-made objects are alive, then ‘what is sacred and why it is sacred’ establish cultural ways that have profound implications for art making.

To an Aboriginal curator the idea of a living archive is not a contradiction. It is not a point of contention, but a point of departure. These curators know that almost all Aboriginal visual artists make some reference to tradition in their work - whether stylistically; whether with reverence for ancestors; whether in choice of materials or even ironically.

The important consideration, then, is not should there be an Aboriginal Art Living Archive? Or why do we need it? The question beyond what or why is how. How could Aboriginal curators/artists create one? This raises a whole series of complex questions.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !3 For example, as Heather Igloliorte writes:

Who is it for, and who has access? Who will preserve and maintain the archive, and where will this be done? How will decisions be made about what is included and what is excluded? Should an online archive of Indigenous art history be open-access, freely available, and inclusive? It has been long-understood by Aboriginal people that not all Aboriginal knowledge should be openly accessible; but does sacred knowledge and other forms of culturally restricted knowledge belong online at all? If we did want to include such material, how would we protect that writing, imagery, or information? What are the Indigenous protocols and methodologies that will apply in cyberspace? How do we ensure that the archive will not only serve a small group of those with specialized knowledge of archives (academics, archivists, researchers and others) but also be useful to anyone with an interest or stake in the production and dissemination of Indigenous art history?...These technical questions take on decolonial, political and social implications and must be considered alongside ‘big picture’ theorizations of the Archive.

Igloliorte wrote this in a position paper - commissioned by the ACC - following two 2013 gatherings that led up to Iakwé:iahre - Transmissions: Sharing Indigenous Knowledge and Histories in the Digital Era, that she organized at Concordia University and Residency for the Aboriginal Living Archive organized by the ACC. Igloliorte and her colleague, Sherry Farrell Racette, felt it was important to connect their research to the project being considered by the ACC.

The difficult question of sharing what Igloliorte calls ‘culturally restricted knowledge’ especially online, is elaborated in a second position paper - also commissioned by the ACC - written by Guy Sioui Durand:

Le maintien vivace de la mémoire est pourtant grandement affaire de respect. Pour plusieurs amérindiens, il y a une grande dimension spirituelle qui sous-tend la conception même d’une archive. Cette remarque a trait à la compréhension distincte entre rituels et oeuvres d’art. Elle est transposable à propos du patrimoine à archiver. Au regard traditionaliste, certaines situations et certains artefacts, bien que de haute teneur artisanale et artistique demeurent vivaces en soi. On ne peut pas les archiver, les conserver et les exposer impunément! Dans certains cas, c’est la limite, dans d’autres ça nécessite des protocoles particuliers.

The issues surrounding use of Indigenous objects are complex and contested. They are percolating in many conversations among Aboriginal artists/curators themselves and also with their non-Aboriginal colleagues and allies. Much of this discussion centres on Indigenous protocols - how they may be, on the one hand, respected for their traditional use, and on the other hand, adapted to contemporary understandings of Indigenous cultural objects.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !4 Overheard While Sipping Coffee

This conversation, paraphrased below, between two Aboriginal artists - one a Francophone, the other an Anglophone - took place in English, as do most ‘bilingual’ conversations in Canada.

We (the ACC) have taken an important step at this symposium by trying to bridge the gap between Aboriginal artists who speak English and those who speak French.

But French is such a colonial language - the French came to this territory to try to save souls for Catholicism.

But, hey, English is also a colonial language!

I want Aboriginal people to learn their ancestral languages...but in the meantime, English is the common language that we all speak.

Whoa, not true! There are Indigenous people in Québec who do not speak English.

Yes, but still we are replicating the Canadian state notion of bilingual country called Canada and that clearly is not true, in fact. Canada is NOT a bilingual country. That is a myth.

Yes, that is true, but never mind the Canadian government. The fact is that we are stronger as a pan-Indian force if Francophone and Anglophone Aboriginal people can communicate with one another.

OK, that is true. I agree with that. But how does this initiative continue then? What comes next?

I am not sure, honestly. We will need to talk about that.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !5 So What Happened at Iakwé:iahre in Montréal?

Aboriginal artists, curators, administrators came from across the land, from the four directions to gather, to remember, to listen, to discuss and to imagine a living archive. They also came to eat, drink, dance, feast and look in each other’s eyes.

Some folks call this networking.

Others, non-Aboriginals, joined them to listen, learn and occasionally contribute. Most of these people felt lucky to be part of Iakwé:iahre.

The focus of the organizing committee was threefold. This set three main objectives for the colloquium:

1. remembering all of the Québec Indigenous artists and their contributions to contemporary art;

2. remembering contemporary Indigenous art as a whole and thinking of ways to keep its memory alive and accessible to others;

3. exploring the concept of an Aboriginal Art Living Archive, a new project in development, by providing a space for consultation and discussion.

The idea of a living archive was never fully articulated before the colloquium. It was deliberately planned this way, allowing panelists to approach this concept from varied perspectives, each shedding its own light.

Iakwé:iahre began on Thursday evening, at the McCord Museum with a powerful welcoming to the territory. This was not the two minute simple acknowledgment that has become more customary at public events over the last decade.

Ellen Katsi’tsakwas Gabriel gave a moving presentation based on the traditional thanksgiving address of the Kanien’keha:ka, including the animals and plants on their land. Her words and images lasted over half an hour so a handful of folks got antsy and left. Everyone else stayed and were awed by an expanded traditional welcoming, complete with projected images. Many persons spoke afterward of how much they had learned.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !6 Next, there was an honouring ceremony for two senior artists - Jean-Marie Gros-Louis and Alanis Obomsawin. The late M. Gros-Louis was represented by his wife Mme. Hélène Gros- Louis who was clearly touched by this remembering. Tom Hill warmly talked about his history with Jean-Marie when they worked at Expo ’67 in the Indians of Canada Pavilion. Then came a personal tribute by France Trépanier who spoke of Alanis’ passionate, pioneering work. Mme. Obomsawin was in attendance and graciously thanked the ACC.

A break for drinks. This was followed by two official speeches by Mme. Suzanne Sauvage, President and CEO of the McCord Museum and M. Stéphan La Roche, Président-directeur général du CALQ. Their comments showed a recognition of what the ACC was trying to accomplish and were appreciated by the audience. It was the first time I have ever heard a Québécois civil servant say “Nia:wen”!

All day Friday and then on Saturday morning, twelve panels took place (please see attached Appendix). Ten of these were paired concurrently so it was not possible to witness them all. Fortunately, the two lecture halls were right beside each other, so I was able to catch at least a taste of each one.

It is frequently overheard in English-speaking Canada that Aboriginal people in Québec have no public voice. This is true in some sense but it can lead to some misplaced assumptions. One is that racism is worse in Québec and consequently English-speaking Canada is somehow ‘less racist!’ These kinds of conclusions are superficial and not useful.

A further assumption is that not much has happened with Indigenous curators, artists and arts educators in Québec. The first two panels offered, each in their own way, a clear corrective to this false assumption. Panelists spoke about historically important cultural groups - Terres en Vues; le Musée huron-wendat and Kanien’kehá:ka Onkwawén:na Raotitióhkwa Language and Cultural Centre. They highlighted crucial educational institutions like Collège Manitou (1973-76) which was a precursor for the current project of the Kiuna Institution. A third panel the next day looked back at certain critical moments (or missed moments!) that could have brought Francophone and Anglophone Indigenous artists together. Each participant gave a pertinent presentation that filled in some of this history, but their work, side by side, also served to illustrate this ongoing linguistic gap.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !7 A panel described how Inuit people in remote locations create huge online communities using social media, inspiring participants to imagine how they could use similar strategies in their own work. Connecting via social media is not a substitute for face-to-face communication, but rather an extension, a deepening of traditional methods of communicating. Obviously this appeals to Inuit youth who can learn about their heritage in familiar, fun ways.

The next presentation expanded the more intimate notion of the mentor/mentee relationship. This process, already supported by the ACC, mirrors the more traditional elder/adult/youth knowledge transfer that occurs in communities, both on and off reserve.

Any contemporary archive will likely include many components - both real world and digital. Three panels explored these issues. One looked at the tradition of wampum belts, how they have acted as a kind of living memory document and their relevance to the creation of a contemporary archive. The second one was a conversation about existing digital archive projects. The third spoke of artist driven projects. Using very different starting points, the panels explored current attempts to digitize oral history; material objects; artist artifacts and also non-object, oral, cultural projects that are based in and emerge from communities.

Even to the present day, a mere mention of the standoff - which began between the people of Kanehsatà:ke and the town of Oka - can set off a heated argument. As we all recall, at its essence was a dispute about land, its use, its “ownership” and respect for ancestors.

It marked a pivotal moment in Indigenous-settler history. Panelists, working in different artistic genres, spoke of the influence that these events have had on their artistic practice, how they awakened a whole generation of artists. And how these issues, in general, are still not resolved to this day.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !8 The day ended with two panels looking at the role Aboriginal artistic practice plays in institutional change. One dealt with a specific permanent exhibition, Wearing Our Identity, at the McCord Museum which rotates work from its collection and, at the same time, brings in new artworks from contemporary artists. The second panel examined whether educational institutions are appropriate sites for the study of Aboriginal art history. Emerging Aboriginal artists presented work that uses both traditional imagery and up-to-the-minute techniques that push conventional notions of Aboriginal art.

In the evening, participants gathered for an exhibition, Exhibiting the Archives/Performing the Archives, curated by ACC board member, Dayna Danger. The area around the FOFA gallery was packed as people patiently waited for performances by artists Amy Malbeuf and Émilie Monnet. The third artist, Sonny Assu, exhibited his prints in one of the FOFA vitrines.

The large crowd made it somewhat difficult to appreciate the exhibition, but then openings are not really for looking at art! Successful openings are composed of an overflowing crowd and lots of appreciative buzz. This one had both.

Throughout Iakwé:iahre exhibitions and performances occurred in other venues in Montréal. These included Making a Mark curated by Nadia Lisi and Tricia Livingston, at the VAV gallery, an exhibition space for visual art students at Concordia.

Saturday morning began with a plenary address by Simon Brault, Director and CEO of the Canada Council for the Arts. He reiterated Council’s support for Aboriginal arts, assuring the colloquium participants that funding for Indigenous artists and arts organizations would grow.

The last panel was designed as a think tank. It offered an opportunity for input and summary from participants. They were only two presenters who were speculative, rather than definitive, in their approaches. The idea was to open new possibilities and conversations. It worked well and participants made creative, stimulating commentary. This was a fitting conclusion (but also not a conclusion!) to the discursive panels.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !9 We went back to the McCord Museum for a compelling performance, Artist Tour Guide, by Maria Hupfield. She intensely demonstrated how museums can simultaneously (re)present the meaning of objects and, at the same time, deny the agency of those objects.

Two curatorial collaborations, commissioned as ACC mentorship projects, were presented at the McCord Museum. André Dudemaine, France Trépanier and collaborated on a multimedia projected screening. Guy Sioui Durand, Michelle Smith and Mike Patten partnered to create their version of an exhibition within the McCord’s permanent exhibition.

In the evening, participants chilled out over drinks at Cabaret Playhouse with tunes by DJ Madeskimo. A silent auction of drawings made by Iakwé:iahre participants were bid on and sold as a benefit for the ACC travel fund which supports young, Indigenous curators and artists.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !10 Some Questions - Asked and Unanswered

Like all healthy gatherings, Iakwé:iahre raised more questions than answers. I heard some at the panels. I overheard some in the hallways, cafés and bars. Some questions came naturally out of deliberate conversations with participants.

Cataloguing the richness of these queries prompts an imagining of more structured dialogues that could have taken place at Iakwé:iahre. Small group break out talks; discussion circles; facilitated responses; ‘burning issues arising from the day’ conversations; more questions from the audience.

This was really the only commonly heard criticism of Iakwé:iahre that I encountered: there was not enough formal opportunities/spaces for participants to speak.

These are some questions that percolated:

What is the ‘living archive’?

What does it mean to speak of it in the present, contemporary tense?

Can the artist act as an archivist? Artists do not always deal with “facts”. What are artists’ methodologies that can contribute to a living archive?

Memory is the conscious/unconscious act of remembering. Where do we look for the physical traces - the ‘not yet living archive’ - of memory? In peoples’ homes? On the tip of an elder’s tongue? In dusty boxes found in obscure places? How can these be brought alive respectfully?

How does going back to school interrupt a more “natural understanding” of the land?

Is a wampum a text? Or is it more than a text because it is a “living object”?

Are academic ways of knowing compatible with Indigenous worldview, values or traditional knowledge?

How does one approach a residential school survivor in a respectful way?

Is curatorship a new idea for Aboriginal artists? For their communities?

Are decolonization and Indigenization the same thing? Are they part of a continuum? Do we have to decolonize before we can Indigenize? How do we know that decolonization is occurring?

How does one become “a recovering academic”? Ot is it more a matter of inventing a new kind of Aboriginal academic who thinks, works and acts in new ways?

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !11 How do elders guide the process of a living archive? How are they honoured in that process? Are they, themselves, in their presence, in their spirits, a living archive?

How is an Aboriginal arts infrastructure to be built? Who are the funding partners? What are the priorities…Aboriginal-run buildings? Training for arts administrators? Artists’ residencies? Publications, both electronic and print, to develop critical discourse?

Does the digitization of archives, through its process and techniques, create a kind of uniformity that reduces the unique character of every First Nation, not to mention each community? How do we develop protocols that are relevant both to Aboriginal people and the demands of new and emerging technologies?

How can the jump-started Anglo-Franco dialogue continue? Is there enough commitment within the ACC? Is there even a consensus that this is an important priority?

Do ‘bilingual’ events (various projects going back to the Indians of Canada Pavilion at Expo 67) simply reflect and reinforce the colonial ‘founding’ of the Canadian nation-state? Are there ways to bring both Aboriginal linguistic groups together and not replicate this official construction? Is there a way to break from this official language duality by ensuring that Indigenous languages, as well as French and English, are always spoken at ACC national gatherings?

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !12 Overheard While Sipping Wine

This conversation, paraphrased below, between one of the Iakwé:iahre organizers and a conference participant took place waiting for a performance to begin.

I wanted all day to be outside.

Yeah I know, I felt it too. But it is a colloquium at a university.

But that is part of the problem...the university context, I mean. It is not very Indigenous.

What is that supposed to mean? Indigenous people cannot be at universities?

Well, of course they can. But us being here at a university creates a certain context and dynamic. Like lecture rooms with no windows. Microphones. No chance to be in a circle. Authority at the front of the room, everyone else furiously taking notes.

True, true. But it was Concordia, specifically the Department of Art History that stepped up. We were not in a position to be fussy about the venue! We were fortunate to have this space. Or maybe no gathering at all.

But still academic environments encourage a kind of elitist conversation with certain ways of speaking and understanding. These are not Indigenous ways.

Well, yes and no. I get what you are saying about Aboriginal protocols, worldviews and ways of knowing. But I also do not want to box our people into a corner - that they have to be so traditional; that they do not belong at universities or worse, that universities are bad for them! The ACC founders were trying to respond to the fact that almost all critical discourse about Aboriginal visual artists was being written by non-Aboriginal scholars and academics. They wanted to create a space for Aboriginal voices.

I still think that in some ways universities are deficient. People do important community work on the front lines for a pittance. Academics, making five times as much, come along to ‘study‘ them. Often with no community input into their methodology. Yet the community sustains critical knowledge - the presence of elders; the connection to the land; the ability to use traditional techniques; the ways in which community evolves.

Agreed, agreed. That is a problem. But most of the folks here at this colloquium, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, are not professors. In fact, many of them work in communities and some others teach. A lot of us do both.

Well, you have to connect those ways of working across communities with the academic world. That is not easy to do. How are you going to do that?

I am not sure, honestly. We will need to talk about that.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !13 The Vibrancy of the ACC

It is critical to mention that the current state of the ACC is vibrant. Funding was received from multiple sources - federal agencies, two provinces, a university, a cultural institution and many arts organizations all contributed to the success of Iakwé:iahre.

A number of enthusiastic students volunteered, amplifying the dedicated work of what is actually a small paid staff. A keen and active board worked collaboratively to enact the mandate. They are building on the vision of the founders from a decade ago.

The feeling created at Iakwé:iahre was welcoming, non-judgemental and amenable. The ACC had strong women on its executive and committees, as well as its staff. Without wanting to be reductionist or to gender-stereotype, it is often observed that women work in more cooperative, less combative ways. It is possible this has affected the ethics and process of the current ACC. At the AGM which was held on Friday, some new women and men were voted onto the board. This spirit of cooperation continues.

And what an AGM it was! Perhaps it was the energy generated by Iakwé:iahre; perhaps it was the pressing issues in the Aboriginal arts community or perhaps it was the free pizza! In any case, the room was crowded. The organizers were more than a little surprised, expecting - as most small organizations do - a modest turnout. There were more candidates than vacancies. No acclamations, so a lively election ensued.

At the end of the panels on Saturday, there was a moment of gratitude for departing board members. An energetic thank you was also given to the staff, especially out-going National Coordinator, Jessie Short.

As an arts consultant, I have worked, over the decades, with numerous organizations, large and small. The ACC is one that stands out as vital, collaborative and necessary.

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !14 The Aboriginal Art Living Archive

Before the collective knowledge of the experience, there is the archive.

Before the archive, there is the ‘telling’ of the experience.

Before the telling of the experience, there is the memory of the experience.

Before the memory of the experience, there is the experience itself.

To make the archive living, it takes imagination to spark across this process, this continuum. It is here the artist comes in, watches and then acts. This is how the memory is activated. S/he articulates in whatever medium of choice. Including storytelling - one of the first art forms developed by humans - wherein there is usually no physical trace of the memory, but rather an ‘oral memory.’

The artist, it appears, can begin a process which leads to an Aboriginal Art Living Archive.

It is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.

all photo credits: Scott Benesiinaabandan

except cover photo credit: video still image Chris Creighton-Kelly

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !15 Appendix

These are the 12 panels that were presented at Iakwé:iahre:

Indigenous Art Institutions in Québec Panelists: Sonia Robertson, André Dudemaine, Teharihulen Michel Savard, Martin Loft Moderator: Nadine St-Louis

The Legacy of Aboriginal Arts Education in Québec Panelists: Edward Poitras, Prudence Hannis, Roger Wylde Moderator: Guy Sioui Durand

Digital Storytelling: Mobilizing Inuit Cultural Heritage Panelists: Anna Hudson, Britt Gallpen, Geronimo Inutiq, Ryan Oliver, Koomuatuk Curley Moderator: Heather Igloliorte

Mentorship: Roles and Responsibilities Panelists: Jennifer Bowen Allen, Tarah Hogue, Sheri Nault Moderator: Jaimie Isaac

Digital Archive Projects Panelists: Jonathan Dewar, Julie Nagam, Heather Igloliorte Moderator: Sherry Farrell Racette

Oral History Projects, Artists and the Archive Panelists: Jake Chikasim, Dolores Contré-Migwans, Lisa Myers, Rachelle Dickenson Moderator: Peter Morin

The Original Archive: Wampum Belts Panelists: Rick Hill, Alan Corbiere, Jonathan Lainey Moderator:

From the Barricades: The Impact and Influence of the Mohawk Crisis in First Nations Art Panelists: Ryan Rice, Arthur Renwick, Rebecca Belmore, Moderator: Wanda Nanibush

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !16 Activating the Archive, as Artists/as Museums Panelists: Maria Hupfield, Mary Longman, Guislaine Lemay Moderator:

Indigenous Students, Indigenous Perspectives: Studying Art and Art History Panelists: Wahsantiio Cross, WhiteFeather Hunter, Erin Sutherland Moderator: Clayton Windatt

What’s Under the Bed? Archives, Collections and Collectors Panelists: David Garneau, Daina Warren, Louise Vigneault Moderator: Cathy Mattes

Collective Think Tank Presenters: Jason Lewis, Sherry Farrell Racette Moderator: France Trépanier

Chris Creighton-Kelly Historiographer’s Report !17