State Support for Inuit Art
The Canadian government has played a major role in the promotion and marketing of Inuit art. In the early days, civil servants directly encouraged production, mainly through the establishment of multi-purpose village cooperatives and the placing of advisors in the field.
So interested was the federal government in this indigenous artform that the Canadian Eskimo Arts Council was set up in 1964 to advise the Minister of Northern Affairs on matters related to the development and protection of Inuit art. As anthropologist and prolific author Nelson Graburn wrote: “Since 1951, the arts of the Inuit have been particularly favoured and endowed by the state” (Graburn 1986:5). Referring to travelling exhibitions and the promotion of Inuit art at world fairs and as state gifts, Graburn’s conclusion was that these Inuit arts “have received exposure out of all proportion to their demographic prominence in the Canadian scene.” This was, he added, “no coincidence,” since money earned from the sale of Inuit art would mitigate the artists’ need for welfare and, after the Second World War, Inuit art served as a compelling icon of Canadian identity.
Today, the hands-on role played by the variously named federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has virtually ceased. In 1987, the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) and the Government of Canada entered into an Economic Development Subsidiary Agreement, through which responsibility for development was devolved to the territory. In 1989, as part of this broad effort to relinquish responsibility for Inuit art, the Government of Canada began the process of disposing of its vast collection: some 5,000 works accumulated over 35 years. Acting Deputy Minister Jack Stagg was quoted at the time as saying: “Inuit art doesn’t any longer need the kind of PR we did in the early days and our problem now is how to dispose of it in a way which will benefit the taxpayers” (IAQ 1989:31).
Nonetheless, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has assembled yet another collection, which is intermittently exhibited, mainly in the lobby gallery of its headquarters in Gatineau, across the river from Ottawa. The primary function of the department’s now combined Inuit and Indian Art Centre is to support artists by purchasing artwork and providing arms-length development support through an annual grant to the Inuit Art Foundation (IAF), which offers training programs as part of its mandate (the government grant represents approximately 50 per cent of IAF’s budget). The department also retains responsibility for the administration of the igloo tag (IAQ 1990/91c:57), developed almost half a century ago to facilitate the export of Inuit art.
Canada is envied around the world for its success in promoting Inuit art at a high level, a task now carried forward by prestigious galleries. Inuit art is featured in many public collections, and enjoys a good reputation and high prices. But there has been relatively little support for artists’ professional development. Both territorial and federal governments have focussed most of their strategies on economic, as opposed to artistic development. Commenting on the GNWT’s 1990 development proposal, Megan Williams, then Program Officer at them Canada Council, highlighted the lack of support for artistic training and development: “The art has to be first in order to make secondary products desirable, but those in charge of administering these programs seem to be brushing aside the art in favour of product. This proposal [from the GNWT] goes back to the status quo with the ominous undertone of light industry predominating” (IAQ 1990:45). Williams was referring to the GNWT’s plan to diversify production from print studios to include T-shirts and stationery. This project, only one of several short-lived strategies promoted over the years, culminated in the construction of the Jessie Oonark Arts and Crafts Centre in Baker Lake. Designed to facilitate the assembly-line production of souvenir products, the centre failed because of opposition from various players in the Inuit art world, including artists (Devine 1992:57).
The dream of establishing moneymaking enterprises in the North to make up for a lack of employment opportunities is longstanding. While the southern world values the art produced in the North, those in charge of “northern development” deplore the inability of fine art projects to generate profits (Myers 1988:3). In 1988, a study commissioned by the federal government concluded that “prints don’t make money,” and asked the question: “who is going to pay for fine art development when it doesn’t make a profit?” (ibid.)
The cultural importance of Inuit art is recognized, of course, but, typically, petitioners must look to economic development, rather than cultural funds for support. The arts are not often self-supporting, and yet those working in the field are frequently in the position of having to defend their inability to make them so. And continuing efforts are made to find ways to commodify artisanal skills in money-making ventures.
The production of Inuit art faces many critical problems that continue without solutions, such as the persistent difficulty many artists have in obtaining carvingstone and the challenges of selling their work. Territorial governments have approached these problems in various ways. In Labrador and Nunatsiavut, the government has chosen to remain relatively uninvolved with the art, which was initially developed and controlled by Moravian missionaries. Consequently, there is no system of cooperatives in this part of Canada and artists sell mainly through private dealers or directly to tourists. The Western Arctic is in a similar position, since co-ops there are not generally strong, and support for producers has been minimal. In Nunavut, which has the greatest concentration of artists, the government recently released a strategic plan for production and marketing, but the financial resources required to carry out the plan appear to be lacking. The first commercial art buying was in Nunavik, and while co-ops there quickly became independent, artistic development eventually took a back seat to economic viability.
Nonetheless, it is clear that Canada still leads the world in providing support to its indigenous artists and artisans. On the whole, Canadian Inuit have been well-served by the cooperative system set up over half a century ago by the federal government — and by the marketing and promotion efforts of government agencies, private dealers, and galleries. Indeed, we have been lucky in Canada to have had enlightened, progressive thinkers providing both private- and public-sector support for Inuit art.
Marybelle Mitchell, editor-in-chief of Inuit Art Quarterly
May 2011
References
Devine, Marina
1992 (Fall/Winter) “No Demon Carvings from Baker Lake Arts and Crafts Centre... Yet”
Feheley, Patricia
2009 (Spring) “Terry Ryan: A Visionary with a Pragmatic Edge: Part One, Sketching a Future”
Graburn, Nelson
1987 (Spring) “Graburn Replies to Vastokas”
1986 (Fall) “Inuit Art and Canadian Nationalism: Why Eskimos? Why Canada?”
Gustavison, Susan
2008 (Winter) “Inuit Artists and Tuberculosis Patients in Hamilton”
Mitchell, Marybelle
2003 (Spring/Summer) “Believed in Enough to Continue”
2001 (Fall) “It Happened in Canada”
1993 (Spring) “The People behind the Art”
1990 (Winter) “From the Editor”
Muehlen, Maria
1990/91 (Fall/Winter) “Government Activity in Inuit Arts and Crafts”
Myers [Mitchell], Marybelle
1988 (Winter) “Who Will Control? Who Will Pay?”
Speak, Dorothy
2000 (Fall) “Three Women, Three Generations: Drawings by Pitseolak Ashoona, Napatchie Pootoogook, and Shuvinai Ashoona”
Vastokas, Joan
1987 (Winter) “A Reply to Graburn”
Inuit Art Quarterly
2004 (Fall/Winter) “The Support System for Inuit Artists”
1999 (Fall) “We Wouldn’t Be Doing What We’re Doing if It Weren’t for Him”
1990/91a (Fall/Winter) “Inuit Art in Labrador”
1990/91b (Fall/Winter) “Promotional Support for Inuit Art in Quebec”
1990/91c (Fall/Winter) “The Igloo Tag”
1990 (Spring) “GNWT Tables a New Arts and Crafts Strategy”
1989 (Winter) “INAC Collection: No Decision Yet”
Selected references from Inuit Art Quarterly (IAQ)
Editorials
1987, Commentary: A Reply to Graburn, vol. 2, no. 1(winter):15, by Joan Vastokas 1.00 Mb - 1987, Commentary & Letters: Graburn Replies to Vastokas, vol. 2, no. 2(spring):2 & 18, by Nelson H.H. Graburn 1.60 Mb
- 1990, From the Editor, vol. 5, no. 1(winter):2, by Marybelle Mitchell 456.56 Kb
- 1993, The People Behind the Art, vol. 8, no. 1(spring):3, by Marybelle Mitchell 563.21 Kb
- 2001, It Happened in Canada, vol. 16, no. 3(fall):3, by Marybelle Mitchell 438.57 Kb
- 2003, Believed in Enough to Continue, vol. 18, no. 1(spring/summer):5, by Marybelle Mitchell 203.72 Kb
Features
- 1986, Inuit Art and Canadian Nationalism: Why Eskimos? Why Canada?, vol. 1, no. 3(fall):5, by Nelson H.H. Graburn 2.49 Mb
- 1990-91, Inuit Art in Labrador, vol. 5, no. 4(fall/winter):43 658.44 Kb
- 1990-91, Promotional Support for Inuit Art in Quebec, vol. 5, no. 4(fall/winter):42 882.92 Kb
- 1990-91, Government Activity in Inuit Arts and Crafts, vol. 5, no. 4(fall/winter):38, by Maria Muehlen 1.04 Mb
- 1999, Osuituk Ipeelee in We Wouldn't Be Doing What We're Doing If It Weren't For Him, vol. 14, no. 3(fall):27 854.55 Kb
- 2000, Three Women, Three Generations: Drawings by Pitseolak Ashoona, Napatchie Pootoogook, and Shuvinai Ashoona, vol. 15, no. 3(fall):38, by Dorothy Speak 1.23 Mb
- 2004, The Support System for Inuit Artists, vol. 19, no. 3&4(fall/winter):86 4.59 Mb