Introduction

Introduction The History of Art as a discipline in Canada is so relatively new and undeveloped that it is not even entered in The Canadian Encyclopedia (1985) which does include most other academic fields of inquiry. Art, Architecture, Art Dealers, Art Education, Art Galleries and Museums, Art Writing and Criticism all merit entries, but not Art History. Even today, Canadians seeking a doctorate in the discipline can attend only the Universities of Toronto and British Columbia where limited programmes are in effect. Otherwise, they must go abroad, to the United States, Great Britain, or Europe. For the History of Canadian art in particular, the situation is even more disheartening. In the ten years since T.H.B. Symons reported on the neglect of Canadian Art History in universities (Symons 1975, 36-40), no doctoral programmes have been established that would train the necessary personnel. Canadians wishing to specialize in the field are still required to pursue doctoral work at foreign institutions. This state of affairs applies to all branches and periods of Canadian art, whether architectural history or that of painting, sculpture, and the so-called "applied" arts, as well as native, folk, and popular art. As one department chairman complained to Symons: "There is probably no other country which has paid and still pays so little attention to the study, documentation, and practice of its own art and artists" (Symons 1975, 37). Not unimportant, too, is the prejudice in academic circles that matters specifically Canadian as opposed to those of a global, or more usually Western European , import are regarded as less weighty, as holding less status for young scholars seeking a significant academic focus. As stated by David Bercuson, Robert Bothwell, and J.L. Granatstein (1984, 140), a Canadian Studies specialty is widely perceived as lacking in academic credibility. Some branches of Canadian Art History have suffered more neglect than others, but for reasons additional to those of academic snobbery and a general lack of commitment to things Canadian by Canadian universities. Native art in particular has occupied an "apartheid" status within the spectrum of Canadian Art History. The proper place for native art of all periods - prehistoric, historic, and contemporary - is still widely held to be the Museum of Anthropology , not the Gallery of Art. A small, but growing number of art historians in Canada and the United States have rejected these outmoded, culturally-biased conceptions of native visual culture. The papers in this special issue by three art historians and one ethnohistorian are intended as contributions to the growing recognition of native art history as a vital Canadian expression, deserving of intense scholarly investigation at the highest academic levels. The papers selected for publication here were initially read in May 1984 at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto at a symposium held in conjunction with the Bicentennial exhibition, From the Four Quarters: Native and European Art in Ontario, 5000 BC to AD 1867. The exhibition was co-curated by Dennis Reid of the Art Gallery of Ontario Journal of Canadian Studies Vol. 21, No. 4 (Hiver 1986-87 Winter) 5 and Joan M. Vastokas of Trent University. The aim of the symposium and the exhibition itself was to address the issue of native and colonial art as valid subfields in the discipline of art history.* While the focus of the papers here is largely upon Ontario, they raise issues and offer insights of relevance to the pursuit especially of native art history across Canada. The first paper, by Joan M. Vastokas, addresses the issue of native art as a neglected sub-field in an effort to dismiss frequently cited obstacles to native art research by conservative art historians. Reasons for the neglect of native art in Canadian departments of art history are explored and, given the absence of indigenous written texts, methodological strategies for dating and interpreting both prehistoric and historic period native art are outlined. These strategies are vital, since denials of a valid "history" of native art are often made on the grounds that written "documentation" is lacking. The second paper, by David W. Penney, exemplifies and illustrates the value of one of the major resources available to scholars for reconstructing native art...