IN MY OPINION: Canada 150: It’s Our Party

by

Canada is poised to mark a momentous collective milestone on July 1: the sesquicentennial of Confederation. It’s improbable that many of us will be around to witness the bicentennial. So this is it: our opportunity to send a love letter to the nation that has nurtured, schooled and embraced us. Canada 150 will be the year’s leitmotif; every action and public event will surely be enwrapped in the flag, acknowledging our anniversary. So what’s the plan?

In the inaugural issue of Galleries West Digital, arts writer Paul Gessell gamely spelled out the highlights of regional visual arts projects that had received Canada 150 funding from Ottawa. Really, that’s it? Not since Calgary’s 2012 Cultural Capital year of balloons, face painting and birthday cake have we encountered something so underwhelming. The entire Cultural Capital program was disbanded immediately thereafter. Meanwhile, Montreal has unveiled ambitious, lavishly funded plans to celebrate its 375th anniversary this year. These seem livelier and more fun, yet they too fall short.

It’s not the way these things unfolded in the past. In 1876, in recognition of the 100th anniversary of American independence, a staggering, transformative gift was made by the people of France to the United States: a monumental sculpture by Frederic Bartholdi with the assistance of Gustave Eiffel, the Statue of Liberty. At this late date, I’m guessing we shouldn’t await news of a surprise birthday gift of this magnitude. Nope, our 150th celebration is going to be up to us.

What will we have, comparatively, to boast about and benefit from after Canada 150?

In anticipation of the 1967 centennial, Canada entered into an entirely new era. It was a period of unprecedented building, growth and change. We built staggering public projects: universities, colleges, libraries, sports facilities and parks. These projects immeasurably changed Canadian communities. Twenty-two educational institutions were either founded or upgraded from colleges to universities. Among them are now-revered institutions such as Simon Fraser University, the University of Calgary and York University. Projects in smaller municipalities included the University of Lethbridge and Lakeland University in Thunder Bay, Ont. My own little hometown in the Toronto suburbs built the architecturally modern Mimico Centennial Library. The Winter Olympics – Calgary in 1988 and Vancouver in 2010 – motivated great legacy building projects. What would life be like in these regions without these splendid resources?  Where would we be culturally without them? What will we have, comparatively, to boast about and benefit from after Canada 150?

To  staff the new centennial universities, particularly in the arts, we imported talent from the United States and Europe. At inception, Canadian universities did not offer advanced degrees in the visual arts. These programs would be staffed by a new breed of Empire Loyalists. We owe these people an immense debt of gratitude. Most have reached retirement age, yet their contributions and impact on the path of Canada’s arts have not been fully recognized; we have not paused yet to say thank you. They shaped generations of artists emerging in the 1970s and 1980s. There were virtually no Canadians on visual arts faculties. On balance, little if any Canadian art content was formally presented. This is not ancient history; it was practically yesterday. As we mark Canada 150, all is different. Art departments across the country are staffed overwhelmingly by Canadians, with few foreign instructors. There are many positive things about this. There may be some losses, as well.

Since 1967, Canada has burgeoned; its people, demographics and prospects have flourished and altered. We believed this would be “Canada’s century.” Optimism prevailed. We initiated the Order of Canada. Dennis Reid penned his important book, A Concise History of Canadian Painting. The cornerstone of the centennial effort was unquestionably Expo 67 in Montreal. Canada welcomed the world to come see us afresh. Architectural projects, on the Expo site and across the land, were bold, declarative statements of a rising new progressive nation. Canada had finally exited the 19th century and was joining the 20th century with a vengeance.

Grand-scale visual arts exhibitions attempted to summate the state of Canadian art, among them: Canada: Art d’aujourd’hui in Paris, with related projects in Scotland, across the world and the country. Could such projects occur today? Perhaps it was easier 50 years ago to attain consensus about our leading national arts figures. Maybe it’s as simple as realizing that then there were fewer aspirants. Our arts colleges now produce thousands of new prospects annually. Who is in and who is out in the collective picture of visual arts in 2017? The scale of the task is enormous.

Over the last two years, the Glenbow Museum devised a large project, Made in Calgary, to chronicle the city’s art from 1950 to the present. This alone required a series of five back-to-back exhibitions extending over three museum floors. As the curator of one component, I can say that to this day, I uncomfortably bump into artists I might well have included. There is only so much space.

However, official national representations are even more contentious and problematic. I had the extraordinary privilege (and challenge) of curating an exhibition, Reflecting Paradise, to represent Canada at Expo 93 in Korea. The sponsor, the Department of External Affairs, wished to see an exhibition drawn jointly from a corporate and a public collection. We settled upon the law firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt and the University of Lethbridge.  As draft exhibition lists were prepared, it was courteously, yet emphatically, stated that selections needed to reflect all of Canada with a demonstrable balance of key demographic factors: age, gender, regions, language, ethnicity and sexual orientation. The exhibition was probably better as a consequence of the prodding. Unintended discrimination and personal bias plays a part in statements of preference.

So far, with Canada 150, I see no grand gesture to rally around.

So far, with Canada 150, I see no grand gesture to rally around. There appears to be no cohesive national scheme for celebrating the visual arts, nor are major new monuments, museums, universities, hospitals, science institutes or other public infrastructure in the works. In 1867, we undertook to unite the nation with a great railway system. In an era cognizant of climate change, do we have a grand green plan to make us the envy of the world? Can’t we even link principal cities with a modern high-speed rail service?

As I see it, the government is not driving the Canada 150 train. It’s going to be up to individuals and communities, that is, if we even care. In the visual arts, it will come down to arts centres from coast to coast. Surely most will enact projects to mark the 150th anniversary. So, maybe the celebration will be cumulative and include many voices? Maybe this is superior and reflects current realities? You can’t truly portray the spirit of the arts of the nation by an updated tops-of-the-pops presentation. Canada at 150 is just too diverse; there are too many constituencies, too many regions and too many special issues. Something or someone is always left out. Everyone deserves a legitimate chance to hold a place at the table. Not everyone can possibly win a seat. Discriminatory practices are quite simply indefensible. We are all grateful that art museums are now more sensitive and attentive to issues of inclusion; to paraphrase the prime minister: “Because it is 2017.”

We can’t turn back time Surely no one longs for a return to the situation when the phrases “excellence” and “quality” were invoked as ample explication and defense for skewed under-representations of whole classes of people and aesthetic approaches. But can all of us always insist upon being represented?

Maybe this is why we foresee no grand, national Canada 150 art exposition. It would be a quagmire, a road wreck waiting to happen. But, as you might anticipate, that is precisely what I’m doing this year at the Beaverbrook Art Gallery: a yearlong series of Canada 150 survey exhibitions. Leading off with images of the “Fathers” of Confederation, there will be key works by historically recognized contributors: the founders of the Royal Canadian Academy, the Group of Seven, Painters Eleven, the Regina Five, the Automatistes and the Plasticiens, who, in reality, are predominantly white males. Truth be told, official cultural representations didn’t substantially transform until the 1980s. Most institutions will have to rely on their permanent collections and local resources to construct cost-effective portraits of Canadian art. We are still light years away from resolve on correcting historical inequities in collections. So, many institutions will do some soul-searching and stock-taking, enacting plans to improve this unfortunate yet stark reality. Honestly, it just isn’t there at this moment. But we all need to try.

Thereby, this is my New Year’s wish. During this most momentous anniversary year, I ask that each of us look to find the positive in exhibitions to mark Canada’s 150th birthday. Add them into the overall mix to celebrate and cherish. Certainly, there will be demographic shortcomings. Forgive them, and move on.

This is Canada’s 150th birthday; it’s also your birthday. Apparently, no one bought you a particularly thoughtful or memorable gift. Sometimes, it happens. Maybe, from time to time, we have to take celebrations in hand and buy ourselves our own special token. Why not mark Canada 150 by making a signature purchase of a work of Canadian art? You can forgo the new car trade-in this year. Do something special and impactful. Make a legacy purchase the nation will cheer at the bicentennial. We have produced extraordinary artists that lift our spirits. This is a moment for direct democracy: buy the art that matters to you and create your personal vision of Canada.