Calls growing for law to protect Inuit art from fakes. But how would it be enforced?
‘In some ways, cultural appropriation approaches fraud but in a legal sense, it isn’t,’ says executive director of Inuit Art Foundation
This is an example of an Igloo Tag issued by the Inuit Art Foundation. The tag guarantees the art it is paired with is authentically Inuit-made. (Photo by Arty Sarkisian)
Like many Nunavummiut, Janet Pitsiulaaq Brewster was very young when she made her first carving. She carved a little seal head while in Grade 5 at Nakasuk School in Iqaluit.
“I ended up giving it to my first boyfriend, he probably still wears it around his neck,” she said.
Brewster is now the MLA for the Iqaluit-Sinaa riding. She spoke last week in the legislative assembly about the importance of government protection for Inuit artists like herself.
MLA Janet Pitsiulaaq Brewster says she would feel more secure as an artist if there were a federal law in place protecting Inuit art from mass-produced imitations that can devalue the real thing. (File photo by Jeff Pelletier)
“We live in a time when not only some people are pretending to be us, others continue to exploit us,” she said to her colleagues on May 29, while asking David Akeeagok, the minister for economic development, what the Government of Nunavut is doing to address this issue.
There are currently 13,650 Inuit artists producing visual arts and crafts in Canada, according to a report prepared in March for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada.
Almost one-third of them are producing art “with the objective of earning income,” the report said.
However, mass-produced imitations of Inuit art are often sold in gift shops and airports for a fraction of the cost of the real thing.
“The mass production and sale of inauthentic pieces deprives Inuit artists from the opportunity to make a decent living from the sale of their creations,” Brewster said in the legislative assembly.
The issue is also on the mind of Brewster’s federal counterpart, Nunavut MP Lori Idlout.
“Not only is it about cultural appropriation, it’s about opportunities for Inuit to earn income in such a difficult economy in Nunavut,” she said in an interview.
Idlout suggested it might be beneficial to explore the idea of adopting a law similar to the U.S. Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which prohibits “misrepresentation in the marketing of Indian art and craft products within the United States.”
For a first-time violation of the act, an individual can face a fine of up to $250,000 or five years in prison.
Idlout said a law like this in Canada would help “protect authentic Inuit art” and help make sure Inuit artists are “respected for the work that they do and are able to earn income from it.”
But it could be a difficult thing to enforce, said Alysa Procida, executive director of Inuit Art Foundation.
She said it’s complicated to find a legal definition for “Inuit art fraud” and even “Inuit artist.”
“In some ways, cultural appropriation approaches fraud but in a legal sense, it isn’t,” she said.
In legal terms, a plastic imitation of an Inuit carving would be similar to someone making a painting in the style of French impressionists, Procida said.
The fundamental difference, though, is that a contemporary painting in French impressionism style would not compete in value or recognition with works by Claude Monet, Vincent Van Gogh or Paul Cézanne, she said.
But for someone who is “not an art person” a $20 Inuksuk made out of plastic can feel the same as a piece of real Inuit art.
“It deeply undermines the value of the work because, unlike French impressionists, individual Inuit artists are not valued by the market,” Procida said.
And in the era of “pretendians” — people pretending to have Inuit or Indigenous identity — the job of defining and mitigating this issue becomes even more challenging, she said.
There have been attempts, though.
Under Procida’s supervision in 2017, the Inuit Art Foundation took over the trademark of the Igloo Tag from the Government of Canada.
Inuit Art Foundation gives licences to wholesalers to use this tag to reaffirm that a piece of art was made by an Inuit artist.
“That is helpful information, but it doesn’t stop the fakes from being made,” she said.
This system operates under the assumption that people buying a piece of art care about the authenticity of its origins, which is not necessarily the case, Procida said.
The only tool that can enforce the authenticity, she said, is individual lawsuits. But those are costly. And with individual artists having to bear those costs, it’s rarely a feasible route.
“There is nobody who would like to fund that kind of work,” she said.
Despite the legal difficulties, Procida said she thinks the burden of enforcement should still be on the government, and she does support some version of Idlout’s proposal for a Canadian law modelled on the American one.
“It’s a bit of a trap to think that we’re ever going to get this 100 per cent defined or nailed down,” she said.
“What we can do is not get overwhelmed and discouraged that it won’t be perfect, but to just work with what we have to improve things now.”
“Idlout suggested it might be beneficial to explore the idea of adopting a law similar to the U.S. Indian Arts and Crafts Act”
Go on any reserve in the US or Alaska and you’ll see tons of made in China “Indian and Eskimo style art” and nobody seems to care. By placing made in China, its not misrepresentation but its still cultural approproation.
The problem is much bigger in the US than in canada, probably why they need those laws. You don’t see too many shops selling Made in China carvings here.
People looking at the American law should realize it doesn’t stop anyone producing something that looks like a handmade American Indian art, only from claiming that it. That plastic carving, if it was clearly labeled that it was made in China (or wherever), would be perfectly legal.
So now we’re trying to restrict what people can make in our free country. Why? Who cares honestly.
It’s up to the buyer to source their purchase correctly should they feel the need to have only purchased something that was traditionally made. We do this already with routine purchases by verification of where somethings made.
Appropriation is a bit of a running joke at this point given borderline anything can be sourced back to coming from one group or another and when do you ultimately draw the line.
The people buying those knockoff pieces at a fraction of the cost were never going to put up hundreds or thousands of dollars for a “legitimate” piece of art so to say it’s taking business is not entirely true I don’t think or if so the impact is truly minimal. If the purchaser does not care about authenticity does that mean they can’t own a piece of art that replicates something because they can’t afford the real thing. I think not.
but only from Lori’s store then you know it is legit. If not her store then its fake. problem solved
Is this in response to those Inuksuks that Home Depot had been selling? Lori has really got to prioritize her issues here. Just trying to stick it to the man as her predecessor… and well, that didn’t go too well.
I think that most Canadian souvenir stores have “authentic Eskimo Inukshuks” (mass produced )and True North gear available in southern Canada.
Does Brewster have any constituents to look after? Yesterday it was about finding a place where homeless individuals can seek help, and now this?
However, mass-produced imitations of Inuit art are often sold in gift shops and airports for a fraction of the cost of the real thing.
“The mass production and sale of inauthentic pieces deprives Inuit artists from the opportunity to make a decent living from the sale of their creations,” Brewster said in the legislative assembly.
——————
There are Chinese imitations of Ogopogo sold in BC and Chinese imitations of Anne of Green Gables on PEI…… and something very similar in every single province in between. Very few people want the real thing and nobody is being fooled.
In the 1970s and 80s there was a big market for handmade tourist items, that market is now gone. This is the IKEA generation…… very few people are willing to pay a craftsman to build anything.
This is just a tempest in a teapot.
Honestly, I’m more concerned about a well-known restaurant in Iqaluit.
There we have members of the dominant culture who have appropriated another culture’s physical culture product – pizza – and are selling it for profit, all without acknowledging its origins. They don’t even call it “Italian style” pizza, but advertise it as actual pizza.
Have they made arrangements to share a portion of the profits with Italians?
Enquiring minds do want to know.
Then we can start with the keffiyeh clad. Admittedly, there is little profit being made, but violent disorder is being committed in many cases. Have they sought approval from cultural representatives for use of cultural artifacts in this manner?
So many important questions, so few answers available.
And what about the fake mayo?
I know, right? Once you start looking for it this appropriation problem is just everywhere!
I’d think that the bigger concern would be the absolutely massive copyright infringement in Nunavut. How many times have you seen Inuit seamstresses using the Toronto Maple Leaf or other copyrighted symbols on products that they sell for profit?
I have reported a number of these incidents, but to be frank no one wants to be seen as going after Indigenous infringers, it is to politically loaded.
First. let’s get this straight. We are all indignous to this world. Every living thing is. I am allowed to live anywhere I want on this planet. I love Frob. And I am Canadian. So I live here. Where there is fish.
Politicians talking about art. If only it were less awful than the other way around…
Anyone could go on about the ridiculousness of such a frivolous debate. None of these leaders are experts in either trademark laws or in art, and don’t even know the history of the art they purport to defend. It’s even debatable whether those little sculptures and other objects of concern are “art” (a word that has no traditional equivalent in traditional Inuktut): they indeed seem more like “crafts” or decorative trinkets than some object of artistic value and meaning, like Rodin’s “Thinker” (even though that was his 19th century cash-grab; and now, as ubiquitously misused as the man-shaped inuksuk).
Ridiculous, too, because there is likewise ample plagiarism amongst Inuit artists, like the dancing bear/walrus/whatever; or now, the little stone people with beaded necklaces; or any textile art. And, ridiculous because the whole of Inuit artistic industry started up through the efforts of Qallunnaat like James A. Houston, who insightfully encouraged Inuit to use their skill as an economic resource to sell it to non-Inuit on the world market—so, the argument could be made that the basis of Inuit “art” is as much an appropriation of Western market activity and artistic purpose as the other way around, like the appearance of “blues” music. Ridiculous, because there is a lot of modern misappropriation of ancient Inuit forms, like Sedna becoming an oblique feminist figure, or inuksuit made in the likeness of a Christian cross on our flag.
And—on a point of its own—there’s the colossal ridiculousness of condemning “cultural appropriation”. Anyone who cracks open a history book or investigates their own material culture or beliefs will understand that cultural mixing, even of the pretentious, awkward, or even aggressive sorts is part and parcel of social growth (or degeneration, depending on who you ask). The Renaissance, which mainly occurred as a result of European rediscovery of Greco-Roman pagan philosophy and literature by way of exchange with the Arabic world, was a grand moment of cultural appropriation that has greatly benefited anyone who enjoys democracy, the free market, civil rights or… art.
It’s also ridiculous—and tragic—that Nunavut does not do more to encourage artists themselves; or to develop the market; or to promote public Nunavummiut awareness, pride and celebration of what is Nunavut’s greatest cultural export. The loss of NACA is immensely more problematic than glass inuksuit sold to clueless, tasteless Southeners worlds away. So is the Nunatta Sunakkutaangit’s current management excluding non-Inuit Iqalummiut artists to display their art there as it once did.
But, I’ll sidestep all that ridiculousness to point at the greatest absurdity of all.
Are we really going to be represented and moralised on artistic integrity by someone who decided to deface other people’s artistic creations? (vide: https://macleans.ca/society/an-iqaluit-womans-war-on-obscene-graffiti/)? Really??
I liked Janet a lot better when she was creatively breaking the law, not uncreatively attempting to make new laws.
Alas: one person’s joy is another’s Entartete Kunst. Yet, I am reminded of William Blake’s proverb of Hell: “A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.”
I think the last comment is powerful. I like the reference to needing an organization like NACA to support the artists. Look where that ended up after Janet took over.
Appropriation is very well the most used word to define someone else’s failure. Any piece of art produced by an artist is unique, nobody can duplicate it or mass produce it. It is a one of a kind. However me as a non indigenous person making a carving of a seal or polar bear doesn’t steal the rights from any indigenous person. Give your head a shake Lori and Janet. If I am saying that I am Inuk because I can carve or sew, doesn’t make me a thief.
If we want to stop appropriation, stop building homes that the white man showed you how to build, stop selling Filipino food, stop using hockey logo’s when making clothing. Stop, stop, stop. The list can go on and on. But, what’s the point.
This is just something for people to bitch about because people listen, they only listen because of the drama.
Like any invention, Inuit need to take the time to look at copyright laws. Like I have couple inventions in my brain and I know the potential in the marketplace but they are just still in my head.