8 planet of the arts / december 1997

This most recent painting honours the land I live and work on. I’ve lived in
Vancouver for five years and only now feel at home. The beauty and power
of the First Peoples who originated here is great. I want to thank them and

their ancestors for allowing me to live and work on their territory.

Production costs are lower and revenues higher from the trees
mowed down at Sims Creek because, compared to other parts of TFL
#38 and other tree farm licenses, access at Sims Creek is relatively easy
and the fibre quality of the trees for industrial purposes is superb.

In addition to escorting people into the area to record and come
away with their own impressions, Clarke regularly offers slide shows
and discussions to present information on the ecology and animal
habitat that are at stake when watersheds such as Sims Creek and its
headwaters are given over to corporate logging. Unknown to Clarke,
one member of his audience at the Robson Media Centre in March
1996 was ta-lall-SAHM-cane. Clarke’s information gave the
Squamish chief and everyone else there a detailed explanation of the
motives behind promoting ecological conservation in Sims Creek.

Three other parts of the chronology relating to the Witness Arts
Exhibition still need to be mentioned. Continuing to enumerate
them according to their recentness, one is the initiative of the late
Randy Stoltmann to document scientifically the case for obtaining
protected status for Sims Creek. The concern:among his peers to hon-
our and continue his legacy is what brought together the fifty-some-
thing Clarke and the twenty-something Bleck, along with Doug
Brown, Heather Kirk, Rick Hurley, Gian Ward, Lisa Baile and sylvie
macCormac. Their strategizing gave rise directly to the series of
weekend trips to Sims Creek in 1995, 1996, and 1997, and added top-
ical material to Clarke’s wilderness slide shows.

Another part of the chronology of the Witness project is the his-
tory of Sims Creek in relation to the building of two saw mills on the
Burrard Inlet in 1860. The magnificent, centuries-old stands of
Douglas Fir, Hemlock and Western Red Cedar that covered the
Vancouver region have all but disappeared from here save for a hand-
ful of places such as Sims Creek. This catastrophic ecological record
spurred the dedication and professionalism of Stoltmann and his col-
leagues in their attempt to bring accurate and comprehensive infor-
mation about Sims Creek to government decision-makers and into
the public domain.

The oldest part of the chronology of the Witness project relates to
ownership of the Sims Creek watershed by the Squamish Nation.
Notwithstanding the label “Tree Forest
License #38” or the counter-label “the
Randy Stoltmann Wilderness Area’, the
Squamish Nation has never ceded or
surrendered title to any of its lands. To
quote Squamish Chief Joe Mathias fol-
lowing the December 11, 1997 Supreme
Court of Canada ruling that established oral history as a valid basis
to determine ownership of land and resources,’Aboriginal title is
alive and well and living in the territories of the First Nations of
British Columbia.” The Witness project communicated this fact to a
diverse public five months earlier than the Supreme Court of Canada,
on the first weekend of Witness project activities which occurred on
July 12 — 13, 1997. And the project has continued to communicate
this fact ever since.

‘ou, the reader, may well be saying, “Whoa, hold on a
Y minute!”, as you ponder a chronology that spans from
1997 back to time immemorial. And you would be right
not to take this or any other history for granted.

If you can bear with me for about nine paragraphs, I think we can
take on this skepticism about history as it relates to the Witness pro-
ject if we get a bit theoretical.

Standing back from the Witness project’s chronology as a whole,
three things seem to be worth noticing. One is the grounding of
Witness in broad social, cultural and ecological circumstances. These
realities have affected, and will continue to affect, large numbers of
people whether or not anyone constructs a framework to focus our
attention .and energies (which they might do with a view to organiz-

The Squamish Nation has
never ceded or surrendered

title to any of its lands.

ing a collective response that modifies the impact of these realities on
our lives).

The second is that the various circumstances that factor histori-
cally into the Witness project are as likely to be disjunctive as they are
to be unitary — in the process of overlapping one another, these cir-
cumstances undermine, modify and reinforce each other through
time in ways that cannot be predicted. Interests in the land vary
among different constituencies, and include: First Nations hereditary
responsibilities and cultural practices; strict conservation; wilderness
recreation; ecologically circumscribed resource practices; and indus-
trial-commercial exploitation.

The respective abilities of these constituencies to articulate and
promote their interests varies considerably — interpretations of the
history of the land are conditioned by the material resources and the
communicative abilities that each party is able to bring into play in
asserting its claims and refuting the counterclaims of other interest-
ed parties.

A consequence of this point is that the extent to which any two
constituencies can forge a shared vocabulary varies according to the
interests and resources from which they start out. Clearly it also
depends on their willingness to suspend parts of their particular
agenda and their prejudices, and do so well enough and long enough
to critically evaluate and act upon the potential for mutual under-
standing and common agreement.

A third point about the overall chronology of the Witness project
is the concerted nature of the efforts made to develop an effective
frame of reference. You usually don’t get it right the first or even the
second time around when it comes to promoting social or economic
change. Effectiveness in such initiatives seems to relate to factors such
as coherence, relevance, and the opportunity given to others for con-
structive engagement — or, more accurately, the degree of each of
these being sufficient to entice the interest of a widening circle of new
participants.

Besides innate and self-developed individual attributes (imagina-
tion, courage, intelligence, hope, altruism, determination, humour) a
contingent element, i.e., being in the right place at the right time with
the right solution (or the converse),
bears significantly on whether personal
initiatives get recuperated into a larger
framework of engagement. Or simply
remain the quixotic actions of a partic-
ular individual. By a “larger” frame-
work I mean one with a social and his-
torical existence, i.e., a framework that gives rise to consequences that
carry meaningfully beyond a personal sphere of interaction and into
public space.

What the preceding few paragraphs point out for us is that in the

face of the general skepticism and the disaffection with history that

mark our times, for us to accept as a concrete fact that the chronolo-
gy of the Witness project meaningfully spans from time immemorial
to the present, we must know how the project demonstrates or takes
account of some important things.

Things like: acknowledging the disjunctive multiplicity of agen-
da-driven, self-justifying interpretations about a matter with vast
social and economic ramifications; the success of individuals in
thinking and communicating past their own particular agendas and
prejudices; and the effectiveness of this dialogue of mutual engage-
ment moving beyond a basis in quixotic, individualized actions and
its corresponding development into a framework with a genuine
social existence.

We can be sure that a plausible accounting of these things will
reveal a dialectic of historical effects that interrelates the very distant

past to the immediate present, and does so cogently and concretely.

George Littlechild, On Sacred Ground. 1996. Mixed Media.

et’s return to our narrative about the origins of the Witness
Le and look there for details and sequences of individual

actions that tie together in a way that reveals the larger signif-
icance of the project.

This part of the narrative will make apparent the decisive contri-
bution of ta-lall-SAHM-cane. It will also make sense of the choice of
“Witness” as the name of the project —a label that simultaneously ref-
erences a particular project-based history, a broader history of cul-
tural practices, and the fusion of these horizons via the agency of spe-
cific individuals at a specific moment.

In the Coast Salish tradition, guests who have travelled farthest
are accorded the honour of being called upon first to “stand” and be

“witnesses” to the occasion at hand. Witnesses have the responsibili- -

ty of attentively listening and watching in anticipation of reporting
back to others on the event that has taken place, and of recalling it
thereafter upon request. At the conclusion of the event itself they can
be called upon to address those assembled with words of insight or
acknowledgment.

“CIvIC committee has taken up, a

more, the problem of acquiring Kital!
lano Indign Reserte, or such parts of it as
are useful, for & park. It js to be hoped
the committee will have more success thar
previous civic bodies have had.

The Kitsilano Reserve has been an eye-.
sore and a nuisance to the city for well
‘over quarter of a century. I¢ was In 1912)
tthat the late Hon. W. J. Bowser, hoping tol

the Reserve: for railway: terminals,
pet the Indians then resident on the land’
move, - oA
:' "The price paid was $350,000, but Mr.
‘Bowser never got title. The Indian depart-
gent held the transaction not a proper.
one, but did admit, Jater, that the province
had an equity in the property to the
ount of the money paid out.

Since 1912, the Reserve has tein’ derd;
‘Yet. The Indian department placed an
iabsurd price on it—$700,000 for eighty
jacres—standing by a valuation made
‘years ago, when there was some possi:
‘pility that terminals and good might bq
‘placed there. A
' Vancouver has long wished to get pos)
session of # good section of the Reservé
to round out its water-front park system!
‘but has never had $700,000 for the pur;
pose or anything like that sum. It has,
however, paid the price several times over
in inconvenience, and the Indian | depart: .
ment has not benefitted. 4. of (B, - ;

Meanwhile, the Reserve’ has beer more}
or less cut up, =. bits of it have been
‘@lienated. The lan Pacific and the:
‘B. C. Electric “something over te
acres fe wantotway? and Wye.

The? epartment of Defense bough
" four: “aches for an armory site, paying:
* $30,060; or $7500 an acre. The city secured:
about six and @ quarter acres for Burrard!
Bridge footings and roadways, the price;
being set by arbitration at _— or, al
trifle over $¥000.an acre.

From The Province, April 11, 1939.
8 plonet of the orts / december 1997

This most recent painting honours the land I live and work on. I've lived in
Vancouver for five years and only now feel at home. The beauty and power
of the First Peoples who originated here is great. want to thank them and

their ancestors for allowing me to live and work on their territory.

Production costs are lower and revenues higher from the tees
‘mowed down t Sims Creek because compared to other parts of TFL
18 and oer tee farm licenses, access at Sims Creek ielatvly easy
and the bre quality ofthe res for industrial purposes is super
to the area to record and come
say with their own impressions, Clarke regularly offers slide shows
and discussions to present information onthe ecology and animal
-bitat that are at stake when watersheds such as Sims Creck and its
headwaters ae given over to corporat logging. Unknown to Clarke,
‘one member of his audience at the Rabson Media Centre in March
1996 was tall SAHM-cane. Clarke's information gave the
Squamish chit and everyone ele there a detailed explanation ofthe
‘motives behind promoting ecological conservation in Sims Creek
“Thee other parts of the chronology relating tothe Witness Arts
Exhibition sill ned to be mentioned. Continuing to enumerate
them according to their recentness, one is the initiative ofthe late

dition to escorting people

Randy Stltmann to document sintifaly the ease for obtaining
protected status for Sims Creek The concern among his pers tohon-
‘our and continue his legacy is what brought together the ifty-some-
thing Clarke and the twenty-something Bleck, along with Doug
Brown, Heather Kitk, Rick Hurley, Gian Ward, Lisa Baile and syvie
sacCormac. Their strategizing gave rise drelly to the series of
‘weekend tips to Sims Creek in 1995, 1996, and 1997, and added top
ical material to Clarke's wildenes sie shows

“Another part ofthe chronology ofthe Witness project isthe his-
tory of Sims Creek in elation to the building of two sw mills onthe
Burrard Inlet in 1860. The magnificent, centuries-old stands of
Douglas Fir, Hemlock and Western Red Cedar that covered the
‘Vancouver region have all but dsappested from here save for hand:
ful of places such as Sims Creck. This catastrophic ecological record
spurred the dedication and professionalism of Stltmann and his col
leagues in their attempt to bring accurate and comprehensive infor
‘mation about Sims Creek to government decision-makers and into
the public domain,

The oles par of the chronology ofthe Wines project relates to
‘ownership of the Sims Creek watershed by the Squamish Nation,
Notwithstanding the label "Tiee Forest.
License #38” or the counter abel “the
Randy Stoltmann Wilderness Area the
Squamish Nation has never ceded or
sortendered tle to any of ts lands. To
‘quote Squamish Chet Joe Mathias fl-
lowing the December 11,1997 Supreme
‘Court of Canada ruling tat established orl history asa valid basis
to determine ownership of land and resources” Aboriginal tle i
alive and well and living inthe teritories ofthe First Nations of
Brtsh Columbia” The Witnes project communicated this fat toa
diverse public five months ari than the Supreme Court of Canad,
on the fist weekend of Witnes project activites which occrted on
July 12 ~ 13, 1997. And the project has continued to communicate
this fact ever since

nthe reader, may well be saying “Whoa, hold on a
Y minute as you ponder a chronology that spans from
1997 back to time immemorial. And you would be right

‘not to take this of any other history for granted,
you can bear with me for about nine paragraph, thnk we an
take on this skepticism about history ast relates to the Witnes pro-

ject if we get bit theoretical

‘Standing back from the Witnes projet’ chronology as whole,
thee things sem to be worth noticing. One is the grounding of
‘Witnesin broad soca cultural and ecological etcumstances, These
realities have affected, and will continue to aft, large numbers of
people whether or not anyone constructs 2 framework to focus our
they might do with view o organiz~

attention and energie (

The Squamish Nation has
never ceded or surrendered
title to any of its lands.

ings coleie response that modifies the pact ofthese elites on
out ve).

‘The second is thatthe various circumstances that factor histor:
cally into the Witness project are as ikl to be disjunctive as they are
to be unitary ~in the proces of oelapping oe anotber, thes i
cumstances undermine, modify and tence each oer tough

ways that cannot be predicted, ttre in the land vary
mong ferent constituencies, and indade Fst Nations hereditary
responses nd cultural practi ste conervation wilderness
scration; elope cicumseribed source pacts and indus
‘Wa commercial exploitation

The respective aii of thse constituencies to atc and
promot thei interests varies considerably ~ interpretations of the
history ofthe land are conditioned bythe material resources andthe
communicative abit that ech party sable o bring ito playin
asetng its his ad efuing the ouster of ote interest
cd partis

‘A consequence of his point i that the exten to which any wo
consivences can forge a shared vocabulary varies according to the

terets and resources from which they start out. Cleary it ao
depends on thir wilingness to suspend parts ofthe particular
agen and thir prejudies and do 0 well enough and long enough
to etal raat and act upon the poe for mutual under
standing and common agreement

‘Athi point bout the overall chronology ofthe Witness project
isthe concerted mature ofthe efforts made to develop an effective
frame ofrefcence You unsly dnt gti right the isto een the
second ime around when it comes to promtig social economic
change Efectveness in such initia
a coherence, relevance, nd the opportunity given to oer fr con-
structive engagement ~ of, more acutely the degree of each of
thes ing sficent totic the intrest of widening cc of new
ticipants

sides inate ands developed individual tutes inagin
tin, courage, iteligene hop, lum, determination, humour
contingent clement, engin the igh place atthe rg ine wih

the right ston (oe the converse),
tears on whether personal
Intves get recuperate into larger
framework of engagement. Or simply
remain the quixotic actions of pat
sar invidal. By a “large” frame
work Iman one wit soil and it

csemsto relate to factor such

tort exstenc, Lea famework that gies ise oconsequences that
carry meaningflly beyond personal sphere of interaction and into
public space

‘What the preceding few paragraphs point out for usis that inthe
face ofthe general skepticism andthe disafection with history that
‘mark ou times for ws to acept as concrete fact that the chronolo-
sy ofthe Witnes project meaningflly pans fom
to the present, we must nov how the project demonstrates or takes
sccount of some important things

“Thing like acknowledging the disjunctive multiplicity of agen
dadriven, self justifying interpretations about a matter with vast
social and economic ramifications the success of individuals in
thinking and communicating past their own particular agendas and
prejudices; and the effectiveness ofthis dslogue of mutual engage-
rent moving beyond a basis in quixotic, individualized action and
its corresponding development into a framework with a genuine
social existence.

We cam be sure that plausible accountng of these things wil
reveal a dilectic of historical effects that nterrelats the very dita
past tothe immediate present, and does so cogently and concretely

‘George Utlechl, On Sacred Ground. 196. Mined Media.

projec, and look therefor detail and sequences of individual
actions that i together in a way that reveals the lage sini
ieance ofthe project.

‘This part of the narrative will mak apparent the decisive conti-
bution oft-lall SAHM-cane twill abo make sens of the choice of
“Witness asthe name ofthe projct~alabel that simultaneously ref
ences a particular project-based history, a broader history of cul-
tural practices, andthe fsion ofthese horizons via the agency of spe
ic individal at a specific moment.

Tn the Coast Salish tradition, guests who have traveled farthest
are accorded the honout of being called upon first to “stand” and be
“witnese” tothe occasion at hand. Witnesses have the responsibil
ty of attentively listening nd watching in anticipation of reporting
buck to others on the event that has taken pace and of realing it
thereafter upon request At the conclusion of the event itself they can
be called pon to addres those assembled with words of insight or
acknowledgment.

Te return to our narrative about the origin ofthe Witness

Apr tt.

ies. cd)

CIVIC commitioe bas ikea up, ono

sore, th problem of acquiring il!
Jano Indign Reserte, or such parts of ft as,
are useful, for & park. It 1 to be hoped
(he commiten will have mere succes that

i

F

&

it
HET

[

2s

1

i
Lt

L

H

i
i
nt