THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE A TITLE

Breaking the Glass Case | Alexandra Forand
_________________________________________________________________________________

Titles. We would all agree are important. It is important to keep in mind titles, like the institutions they reside in, are not neutral. Titles are often given to pieces of artwork after the piece of artwork has come into a collection—not by an artist, but by that institution or a previous one. The name given to the piece of artwork, is then perpetuated throughout the showing of this piece and becomes the “accepted” title.

Photo courtesy of Carly Wolowich.

This phenomenon is often heightened when discussing collections of Indigenous artwork. The title that is given to the painting or an object is endemic of the time period and reflects the colonial language of when it entered a collection.

Art galleries do not exist within isolation and museum professionals are shining a light on these objects that were titled in the past and tackling the process of trying to change them for the present audiences. In a post Truth and Reconciliation commission world, institutions are working hard to involve Indigenous communities that are affected by the harmful language of the past. The Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) and the National Gallery of Canada (NGC) are slowly implementing the 94 calls to action outlined in the TRC executive summary, and making changes not only to how artwork is displayed, but what these works are called based on consultation

In 1920, while tilling his field in the Fraser Valley, Arvo Skytte found an object that resembled a bowl under a Douglas fir tree. The “Skytte Bowl,” as the object was called at the time was donated to the Museum of Vancouver and was eventually transferred to the National Gallery of Canada (NGC). According to Jaime Koeble Morris (Michif) the curators at the NGC sought to break the cycle of treating Indigenous artworks as nameless, unimportant anthropological specimens. The NGC established two Indigenous Advisory Committees to counsel the institution on how to respectfully collect new artwork, how to best display, and how to care for artwork already in the NGC’s collection. As per the committee’s recommendation the NGC performed welcoming ceremonies.

Qelemteleq at the NGC. Every night the curator covers his case with a blanket so he can rest. Source.

In 2016, the “Skytte Bowl” was officially welcomed into the NGC’s collection. With consultation from the Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia the “Skytte Bowl” was renamed “Qelemteleq,” and the digital records and labels regarding “Qelemteleq” were updated to reflect that he was not a bowl, but a seated stone figure with a living spirit.

In 1929, Emily Carr travelled up the west coast of Vancouver Island by steamer to Yuquot, the territory of the Nuu-chah-nulth people. It was there, in a summer village of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht people, where Carr painted an old white, windowless church, standing starkly against the background of rich green foliage In the 1930’s, the painting was shown extensively in American art galleries and dubbed “I*dian Church.” In 1970, Charles Shaw Band bequeathed “I*dian Church,” to the AGO, where it has since resided on and off of display for many years. Emily Carr’s painting currently hangs on the wall of the AGO is Gallery 126 Richard Barry Fudger Rotunda. Despite being surrounded by equally striking works, this painting has received immense attention from artists, museums professionals, and the international media. In May of 2018, the Art Gallery of Ontario, as part of their broader effort to eliminate offensive language in the museum, Carr’s painting, which up until this point had been known as “I*dian Church” was retitled “Church in Yuquot Village.”

The infamous, Church at Yuquot Village by Emily Carr, at the AGO. Source.

The discussion around this retitling effort has mainly focused on the idea of whether this is an act of the institution’s corrective art history practises or if it is the AGO’s attempt to censor and erase history. While this discussion is timely and merited, I believe it is more productive to explore how this change in the title of the painting by the AGO came about.

The village where Emily Carr painted the church. Friendly Cove, British Columbia. Source.

The AGO’s decision to consult the Mowachaht/Muchalaht community is a landmark event. By changing the name of Carr’s painting and removing the word “I*dian,” the AGO they are no longer going to be a part of propagating the hate of the word “I*dian thereby, connecting the Mowachaht/Muchalaht community to Ontario and placing them in the middle of the conversation.

Changing the name of artwork has not been done without criticism from audience, scholars, and artistic professionals, who make the argument that this is censorship at best, and erasure of history at worst. I argue that this decision to retitle offensive artwork is necessary as a larger act of reconciliation. This decision to consult Katzie, Kwantlen, and Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nations is powerful because it works to restore the communities’ roles in the creation of the item, the institution, and within the tradition of the visual arts.

What are your thoughts? I really want to know! Leave a comment or if Twitter and Instagram are more your speed my handle on both is @Ally_but_online.