Conclusion
The Indigenous and Western perspectives in art through the lens of lifestyle and landscape take on different approaches in what is depicted. The Indigenous perspective often tells a story and serves a cultural purpose in its representation while the Western perspective often reflects a scientific pursuit or the journey during the scientific pursuit. The Indigenous art has deep cultural rooting in the story it tells. There is a purpose in its depiction that is deeply personal to the community it represents, which often in our analysis, was the Inuit community in the Arctic. The Western art through illustrations and photographs represents a desire for exploration and discovery rather than having Western cultural significance. There are also influences of wanting indigenous communities to fit within what the West considers civilized whether that is through religion or through acceptance of a Western power, as shown in the image with the British flags in the indigenous household.
Western representation of lifestyle as compared to Indigenous representation of lifestyle is devoid of the cultural backing the is central to Indigenous life. There was few depictions within the home from the West unless it was to convey this sense of imperialism in the "discovery" of the Arctic. Western understanding of Indigenous lifestyle is unidentified, colorless representations while Indigenous art captures the mobility present in the nomadic and everchanging lifestyle that was in unison with nature. Western art viewed Indigenous peoples with disrespect and illustrated them as uncivilized, as we saw with Rockwell Kent's illustrations. There was a desire to change Indigenous life or belittle it for not being identical to the West. Indigenous art representing lifestyle on the other hand captured stories grounded in their traditions such as the story of Sedna and the origins of marine life. There was a desire to explain and work with but not conquer the Arctic. Additionally, the Western art was very ambiguous and did not depict any importance between the native community and the animals, whereas the Indigenous perspective emphasized what animals mean to the community and the importance of the hunt itself to their culture.
Landscape representation also falls within this stark difference in what is captured between Western and Indigenous artists. Often, Western depictions of the land emphasizes that the Arctic is vast, unhinhabitable, and untouchable. So often, these images depict a wide open space, with little human engagement, a sense of magnitude, and a threatening atmosphere. In stark contrast, Indigenous art reveals a deeper meaning, rather than presenting the image or scene so matter of factly as is the case in Western art. There is an uncovering of meaning in indigenous art while there is an uncovering of science in Western art. The examples we have included here emphasize the story told by the land by indigenous artists, whether it be the food the land provides or the deeper understanding of the essence and soul of living things. Every art piece tells the story of that connection, and places a great value on the Arctic as a place of culture, life, and meaning. The Arctic is not a daunting, uninhabitable space that Western artists depict, but rather a space of community, growth, and survival.
Lifestyle and landscape capture main themes of the Arctic we wanted to better understand, and the two perspectives approach each one uniquely. The West echoes a sentiment of conquering and a desire for discovery while the Indigenous representation wants to convey their narrative to capture the beauty of the Arctic without an outward need of stripping it of its culture. There is an understanding in the latter perspective of the Arctic being living and breathing and everchanging and is not a goal to be conquered but rather appreciated and a means of sustaining life and tradition.