A Little Give and Take: What Garneau’s Paintings Give When They Take, and Other Stories From Future Past
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the possibilities related to conciliation that are closed, and those that might be opened, through Métis contemporary visual artist David Garneau’s paintings, Aboriginal Curatorial Collective Meeting and Aboriginal Advisory Circle Meeting. I argue that Garneau’s explicit and manifest exclusion of settlers and the colonial gaze on his paintings is also, at the same time and in actuality, a form of invitation into something else. To do this, I first briefly explore how thinkers have problematized settlers’ recognition of Indigenous knowledge, ways of knowing, and art. I then pose the question of what ought to be the normative limits around settlers’ access to Indigenous knowledge and spaces, using Garneau’s own written work about his paintings. I then bring several scholars into conversation around why certain spaces should remain exclusive, some or all of the time, to Indigenous peoples. Finally, I conclude by explaining how the existence of these spaces—and the communication of their existence—is a necessary and otherwise impossible step in the conciliation process. Indeed, I propose in this paper that to experience and confront our own limits to comprehension, as settlers, is a gift; that by creating and sharing his paintings with settlers, Garneau simultaneously reveals settlers’ exclusion from Indigenous spaces to ourselves and invites us into new imaginary spaces of conciliation—ones that are actually possible, because not predicated on an ongoing colonial system of power distribution, but instead on uncertainty, a condition of continued and active relatedness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".