The Totemic Art of Small-Town Canada

Abstract

The monumental statues of the Canadian small town are a well-recognized folk art form. Communally sponsored and constructed, town monuments announce the presence of a local social system and are the symbolic expression of some key aspect of a settlement’s social life. Stylistically diverse and varied in subject, they speak of nature, history, ethnicity, economic activity, the regional origins of townspeople, and the achievements of residents. In some sense sacred, town monuments may commemorate an ancestral pioneer population or venerate a cultural heritage, a prized articulation with the land, or a characteristic occupation. More than mere tourist attractions, town monuments make perceptible an intangible set of social relations and are sites for various community events and celebrations. Proclamations of identity are encoded in town monuments, and the structure of signs that results from the creation of each is ultimately a system of totemic representation. Collectively, town monuments facilitate the appreciation of local difference along with a concomitant recognition of the shared presence of community and have come to establish thereby a contemporary form of totemism.

The commercial and regional imagery of big things: Establishing a foundation for the study of oversized roadside landmarks

“…The depiction of game fish, birds, and mammals is one of the central motifs of town monuments, and supplementing this are statues that celebrate the presence of locally distinctive life forms. […] These kinds of monuments are mostly ways of asserting that there is something exceptional about a town in its natural setting (2012: 15–16).It seems possible that in addition to this message of exceptionality, which has obvious commercial potential as a marketing device, the communities that erect such location-specific flora- and fauna-type Big Things are also expressing a desire for nativization. At the very least, we might interpret these landmarks as demonstrating an acceptance of and appreciation for the environment that is deeply interwoven with a sense of physical attachment to place.…”

“…None of these, except for the opening pages of Marling's work (1984), Gebhard's introduction for California Crazy (2001), and Stockwell's introduction for Big Things: Australia's Amazing Roadside Attractions (2004), offer much insight into the historical or theoretical underpinnings of the phenomenon. The discourse is similarly thin across academic journal publications, with only three Australian articles (Barcan, 1996; Cross, 1995; Stockwell and Carlisle, 2003), and Stymeist's exploration of what he called the ‘totemic art’ of rural Canada (2012). While they do provide some theoretical reflections relevant to their geographic locales, and Stymeist's article extends into discourses on material culture theory, none of these articles—nor any of the other texts noted previously—clarify the typological parameters of Big Things.…”

“…One of the few theories that has emerged from the existing Big Things discourse is the suggestion that in Canada and Australia, rural communities have—perhaps subconsciously—erected the giant landmarks as a way of ‘claiming’ the land or asserting their presence. Stymeist, discussing ‘totemism’ in small-town Canada, has argued that ‘(a)n enormous statue is designed, constructed, and exhibited by a community as a declaration of its existence’ (2012: 6). Barcan, and Stockwell and Carlisle, go further still, pondering whether the erection of Big Things in Australian towns is a reactive measure by non-Indigenous Australians concerned with establishing a physical sense of ownership over contested lands (Barcan, 1996: 36; Stockwell and Carlisle, 2003: 12).…”

“…The depiction of game fish, birds, and mammals is one of the central motifs of town monuments, and supplementing this are statues that celebrate the presence of locally distinctive life forms. […] These kinds of monuments are mostly ways of asserting that there is something exceptional about a town in its natural setting (2012: 15–16).…”