Do you think you could expand on the stereotypical expectations that are affecting artists? I agree that there is a lot of traditional work for sale, but when I look at your work, or Mike Dangeli’s, or Andrew Dexel’s, or Alano Edzerza’s, I also see a lot of artists pursuing their own paths. How much of a problem are those expectations?

I understand what Nicholas is doing, and I think I share his opinions so far as I understand them. What I wonder about is whether it isn’t an over-intellectualized approach to art (which, of course, says as much about my preconceptions as about Nicholas’ art).

I have a google update that sends me links with internet updates containing all things related to my work (including your recent post), I would like to correct a few misunderstandings you have posted on your blog. (I do question my delivery as a speaker when I come across such interpretation)

The song I referred to not knowing its origins was indeed the Digital track(hiphop) perhaps a misunderstanding to the question, the digital music came from a gentleman I met in NYC, he makes music and gave me some of
his… these videos were made years ago and I did get permission, I just never held onto his name, the track was untitled. The traditional Track is Public domain, it is not traditional though it is in form. Harold Jacobs, gifted this song to Sealaska Heritage in 2000, he gave this permission for all to use…George Davis wrote these words on a speech… which inspired the music, I of course explained the meaning of the song and the reason for choosing it. The film work has traveled and won international film festivals, it has also been included in major publications(American Indian Art Magazine). Regardless, the information is not as important as the visual information, it is also not a form of validation ( I get the sense that you are seeking this in your writing).

I am more than interested in Traditional arts, I have given over 10 years of my life to studying, preserving and teaching this aspect of the culture (I have 4 apprentices at the moment), I was not at the gallery to discuss this
side of my work, it seems.

I outsource very little of my work (the work i discussed in this show does not represent all I do, I am very active creatively), the raven being solely outsourced (100%)… even then I am involved in all major decisions.

I appreciate your public dialogue, this is why I create. I am not a public speaker but am practicing (I speak often, learn through experience). I also feel very young in my craft and generally never respond to such posts, I am
constantly amazed with other folks interpretations of my work, talks etc., please feel free to ask me questions, I am always available to clarify.

Cheers for attending the talk and good luck with your writing.

Many artist throughout the ages have chosen to out-source work. His work is about the concept and the intention. His out-sourcing is a commentary on the tourist trade and their appetite to obtain west-coast work without the premium price point. Creating a discourse in the rampant knock off market that plagues our traditional culture.

The masks in the works you are referring to as in his solo show at the grunt, titled “the Curtis legacy”. The works deal with the taboo and objectification of the female form combined with the sacridicity of a west coast mask. The mask itself is a commentary on the knock-off culture, being farmed out to Asia to produce works for the tourist culture. He hired a photographer and a model, as well as a photoshop artist (airbrushing)to re-touch the photo to make it a commentary on the culture of men’s magazines that objectify women. The mask was not added by a graphic editor.

His use of out-source is a tool, much like a brush or a knife. Not many artist would own up to the fact that they out-source and Nicholas’s admittance to the use is a commentary of art itself.

With the unfortunate mismanagement of the curatorial vision and the lack of interest in doing something new and unique, some artist feeling like they were being pushed or coddled, the show became a miss-mash of a clash of the titans. The “I am Traditional” and “I am contemporary” debate. Just make art. end of story.

I consider myself an artist. I’m not an “Indian Artist” I am an artist who happens to be of aboriginal decent. I don’t create for a market, I create work that makes me think, in turn, I know it will make the viewer think. I make work that makes me happy and let the market come to me.

This will not be a show that will appeal to everyone. Especially those who prefer to keep aboriginal art and artist from the west coast to stereotypical romanticized notion of the culture and identity. If we don’t grow and adapt, we become stagnant. Forging new paths is a hard thing to do. Bill Reid forged a path and he was seen as radical for his time. He was not widely accept when he began because the work wasn’t seen as “haida” enough. Now he’s considered a contemporary master of Haida art, having taught many of the current contemporary masters we know today.

I appreciate all the artist in the show and I think every piece in that show has its own merits and direction in conception. Art is about intention, and every artist intended to make art to make you think. Some artist want to continue the traditional, and it is very important that we have artist who will carry our stories forward. For my work, I find it more important educated people on the issues we face today, politically and socially.

On another note, I really admire your ability to visit so many aboriginal art events. I’m quite sorry that I didn’t know about or pay enough attention to this one ahead of time.

I’m curious about one thing: what does “saved texts” mean? I can think of many different interpretations of those words.

(Unsurprisingly, every artist who has spoken at the presentations has suggested that this distinction doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter to them).