 |
|
Fig 1 Designs for ritual. A Yirrkala boy being painted for a circumcision rite (Williams, 1976:269) |
Knowledge is constructed by the institutions, systems and culture that surround us. The space we inhabit and the structures of our society create meaning and form our understanding of the world. We each have a language of meaning that is inscribed by our own culture. In the same way that different languages must be translated in order to have meaning, aspects of culture must be interpreted to fit into a different culture's understanding. Through this translation, something is always altered, lost or added. Sometimes, too, the translation of a culture becomes something of a transformation, where the power of interpretation lies in the hands of a dominant culture verses a marginal one. The transformation has the potential to alter meaning, reinstill myths and keep power in the hands of the powerful. Through the translation of Aboriginal culture according to Western constructs of art and myths of authenticity and Otherness, Australian Aboriginal 'art' is transformed.
Before talking about art, we need to consider where this concept is situated. Every label carries with it networks of insinuation and cultural connotation. Despite the cloud of definitions following each label, Western terminology is often used in all cultural contexts. By Western, I mean the people, systems and institutions of the colonizing countries, most notably Europe, America and Australia. Western meaning might be quite different in worlds outside of Western culture. This universal labeling not only lessens the understanding of a culture, it pushes the culture into a small box when in actuality it is so much more. The term art is haphazardly used in this way to talk about indigenous remnants of ritual or everyday objects. By accepting the word art, we accept all the Western connotations but ignore the very culture from which the object originates. By doing this, "We may miss the essential qualities of non-Western art. Even worse, we may describe as art that which in other cultures is not art and that it may have some other deeper significance within that culture" (Rogers 1994:13).
The idea of art is a Western construct. What does it mean to define cultures through these boundaries? We miss many qualities when we limit our sight to the pale horizon of a dominating sector of the world. In this way, the acknowledgment of other cultures' conception of what we label art (though we can never fully understand) opens up new pathways of vision and insight. Unfortunately, the discrepancy between cultural constructs is not usually acknowledged when talking about art. In fact, by applying our cultural constructs to an indigenous culture, change within the indigenous culture is inevitable, whether it be within the art form in question or within the culture itself. A good example of this will be shown with Australian Aboriginal paintings entering into the Western sphere of fine art.
To understand how the Western notion of art may not apply to indigenous objects labeled art, lets look at what art means in the Western world. The label art suggests a distinct space for objects of elevated status (Shiner 1994:225). Art at its most simple, is a visible symbol and signifier. Something that is "seen but contains elements unseen" and has the ability to "make visible certain ultimate meanings hidden in ordinary life until spotted in art" (Grana 1989:18). There is also value found in the uniqueness of a work of art. "This creativity or singularity is thought to be a good thing in itself. We value the difference that is implied. We value the change that this difference may bring about. We value, too, the cult of the individual" (Rogers 1994:14).
Because art is seen as something of a translation of societal values, beliefs, problems and sometimes as possessing some glimpse of truth, the individual artist also comes to posses this power. They are given the power to have the "seeing, embracing unifying eye to reach beyond and see the 'whole' view" (Flauber cited in Grana 1989:21). The artist comes to understand some aspect of reality. The artist, too, can become the voice of the conscious collective. Hippolyte Taine believed that the artist had, "The voice that turns into song the muffled drone of the peoples murmur" (Grana 1989:28). He believed that society already contained the elements for the work of art, but the artist was the one "who provides meaning to this common experience, who summed up the content of society and culture" (Grana 1989:29). There is a connection between the artist's gift and the expression of spirit and culture. Though all of us have this universal spirit, not all can express it. Hegel believed art was a "birth of the mind" which "supplied the key of interpretation to the wisdom and religion of the people" (Grana 1989:24).
Though, it might be an expression by the individual for the collective, not everyone has access to art. Tolstoy saw modern art as egotistical and false. Art was only known to about 1% of the population while the rest had no accessibility and probably couldn't understand it anyway (Grana 1989:22). In the twentieth century, many theorists see art as no longer a process of representation but a process of production and find it important that "artists must not supply the existing productive apparatus without attempting to change it" (Owens 1992:259). In this way, art is recognized as a product of the hegemonic systems in the West. Though the boundaries might flex a bit, art still remains a system of production and a symbol in which individual difference, creativity, and meanings not expressible by all are believed to be represented and reproduced.
In the tradition of Western history, there are ways to classify types of art. Art by destination is art that is made to be in galleries, reviewed and is labeled art by the maker (accepting all of the Western definitions). Art by metamorphosis are objects that have been transported to another society and labeled art (Graburn 1976:3). Indigenous objects make up this category. Anthropologist, Peter Sutton disagrees that Aboriginal art should be considered art by metamorphosis. He defines art in its simplest sense as a visible sign, making indigenous and Western art share "the act of representation and a particular potential for meaning" (1988:4). The act of being classified just as a sign, in order to be able to classify Aboriginal products as art, also begs the question, a sign of what? As critic David Carrier observes "in the art market, all works are signs, objects which refer to their exchange value in the market" (Luke 1994:210). So even if we look at Aboriginal art as simply as a sign, its meaning is still being compromised by becoming a commodity.
Fig 1
Designs for ritual. A Yirrkala boy being painted for a
circumcision rite (Williams, 1976:269)
On the
subject of Australian Aboriginal art verses Western art, there are
some essential differences. Art, life, and culture cannot be
separated in Aboriginal communities.3
Objects and designs that the West labels art are intrinsic to
everyday thought and action. The view is holistic, in a way that
everything is interrelated and things are not broken up into
categories.
Although in Western minds, art represents society and culture, to Aborigines, culture, life and politics are much more intertwined. Art can be "communication forms, [it can have] religious significance, and give rules for living" (Rogers 1994:13). Traditionally, paintings are not permanent creations either (see Fig. 1).
The Western idea of the artist varies greatly with Aboriginal conception. Individual, unique and creative are all concepts that don't belong with Aboriginal objects. The culture relies on oral and visual history, repeated through the paintings. Thus, it is not valued to be unique but to duplicate the designs handed down through generations (Rogers 1994:14). Ownership is more a case of 'custodianship' where stories and designs are passed down through descendants, not owned. It is a matter of the survival of history, rather than an explosion of creativity.
In addition, there is no individual artist, as it is a collective process where even the so-called custodian does not get credit because the stories are that of the clan, not of the individual. Instead of one speaking for the collective as in Western art, each member is able to express meaning through the creations. No one Aborigine is designated as having unique abilities, though some are better than others. All members have access to the paintings, to the means of their production and to the meanings behind them (though some may be restricted due to sacred knowledge).
 |
|
Fig. 2 Watya Wannu by Sonda Turner Nampitjinpa, 1988, acrylic on canvas. "This painting celebrates all the activities of the Women's Fire Ceremony. The body paint designs for this particular fire ceremony are represented by the symbols in the lower half of the painting" (Isaacs 1989a:94). |
These ideas carry on to the present even though now many of the paintings are to made to enter the marketplace. By being accepted into Western thought, and processed through Western systems, institutions and definitions, Western constructs of art have come to change Aboriginal art. Contemporary Aboriginal art is perceived to be even more closely tied to Western art because many of the same materials are used. Yet, the disparity in the definitions of art between cultures is still evident. Though Aboriginal art has been changed to fulfill the norms of Western art, the acrylic paintings still contain their original meaning (see Fig. 2). Tony Rogers describes this as a duality where a painting is made for the market but "within Aboriginal society is [still] an expression of power, it tells us not what the maker thinks but what the maker is. It places the maker within society" (1994:15). Contemporary Aboriginal art is a modern construct where art, though retaining its traditional ties, has become a separate category in the Aboriginal mind instead of being intertwined with everyday living. Art has become defined.
How do objects become art? According to Foucault, it is "the complex matrix of power relationships that determine dominant conceptions of artistic value" (Owens 1992:90). Western nations have given institutions, such as history, science and art museums, the unquestioned power to determine what is important and significant. Constructed institutions like these signify that the objects housed behind the walls are those that deserve to be preserved and noticed. The experts within the institutions also carry this authority based on their sanctioned knowledge and expertise. The act of representation (though I will go into more detail further on) is precisely where the power lies. The way an object is represented determines its value and meaning to the public. The importance and prestige of institutions such as art museums is already established in history and, thus, they have much of this power in deciding what to represent.
Baudrillard sees it as a 'system of objects' which confers value on certain things and withholds it from others (Clifford 1985:168). For example, in the West, there is a link between civilized and permanence. By locating objects within history, there is a notion of endurance, of overstepping the savage (Errington 1994:205).4 Without permanent objects and surviving artifacts to chronicle history, it is hard to acknowledge a timetable and proof of history in a culture. In this way, objects which are more enduring are more likely to be considered worthy of representation, whereas impermanence is not considered valid knowledge.
In this same vein, Shelly Errington theorizes that the most basic criteria for art (what is in galleries and museums) depends chiefly on the physical characteristics of portability and durability. Both of these qualities facilitate the collectability, display and commodification of the object. This creates a hierarchy of art and of what material it is made. Things such as sand painting and body painting cannot be valued in the West because they simply cannot be included into the dominant discourse of museums. The hierarchy based on durable material is a reason for the transfer to Western utensils from the traditional (and often less durable) materials used in 'primitive' art. Permanent Western materials allow otherwise impermanent art to be exhibited.5
In addition, many indigenous objects are transformed into art by putting them into a frame and closing off extensions to other categories. Once framed, indigenous 'art' is no longer connected with social relations, politics and religious beliefs. Boundaries between art and everyday life are created where before there were none. The frame defines the object as only art. This creation of boundaries is limiting in the very fact that they are made to contain and exclude. The boundaries created by the frame give us the impression that it is not real (i.e. part of everyday life), but a representation of reality (Errington 1994:206). The frame helps indigenous art fit into the dominant Western notion of what art is and what role it plays in the world. Indigenous objects become art by being framed.
Already determined power of Western institutions, and the physical nature of the object in question, determine whether an object becomes art, whether it is valued or not, and whether it is seen or remains unseen. Indigenous objects are altered according to these constructs. We incorporate objects of the Other into Western "institutions of knowledge", but it is only according to these "dominant conceptions of artistic value."
The peaking interest in the last century and, most intensely, in the last fifteen years in Indigenous art forms has a lot to do with how the Other is conceptualized. In the Western sphere, industrialization and mass production has brought a feeling of lost spirituality (Lee 1991:12). It is hard to find a sense of meaning and culture in objects that are made through an emotionless system of production and have lost the distinctiveness of the individual. The modernization of industry has disconnected and hidden the earth in a pile of entwined metal tubes and exhaust. Progress has faded the idea of a common and universal religion and belief (Graburn 1976:2). Max Weber talks about this secularization as the "disenchantment of the world". Through systems based on rigorous rules, formulas and procedures, the world has become all too rationalized. With this loss of magic and spirituality, there is a constant search for cultural replacements.6
The myth of the 'primitive Other' is upheld in ideas that Third and Fourth world people have somehow retained that spirituality and exotic excitement that the modern age has denied the West. Otherness is a difference of pretentious fascination, where the Other is conceived of as simpler and perhaps savage, but because of this, possesses some idealized, intangible quality that we have lost through our development. The objects of the Other also contain these properties. They come to signify purity and are uncontaminated from the stain of modern industry (Errington 1994:212). For example, this quote in a brochure from an Aboriginal art exhibit speaks for itself:
The best thing about Aboriginal art is that it infuses a sense of proportion and calm into our technologically tied, electronically media bludgeoned existence for it can never be duplicated or mass produced. It is, in essence, independent of the Western world- yet it is an art that is increasing in popularity all over the world (Willis and Fry 1989a:115).
The myth of the Other as the uncontaminated, non-alienated artist is upheld in notions such as this.
In addition, this imagined spirituality is intensified by the symbols and ceremonial uses that, in specific, typify Aboriginal art. The art comes to stand for a higher reality and becomes transient. The objects of the Other appear non-utilitarian to us (Errington 1994:213). Much of this collection of the primitive Other can be traced back to colonization. Now the collection of the exotic brings a certain prestige "connected with international travel, exploration, multiculturalism...[and] at the same time there is the nostalgic input of the handmade in a 'plastic world' " (Graburn 1976:2-3). The collection of the authentic Other also is a way to differentiate and define ourselves. Our fascination with the Other is intrinsically linked to the concept of authenticity.
The notion of authenticity is also a cultural construct. Dominant institutions, such as fine art and history museums, plus those people within the institutions who hold this knowledge of legitimacy direct our understanding of authenticity. The concept of authenticity is the backbone to finding the 'art' and 'primitiveness' in primitive art. The difficulty is determining how authenticity is created. A surface glance might turn up that it is the search for the real, and in primitive art, the untouched, pure Other. The definition of authenticity is negotiable and depends on the "sophistication of the collector" as well as the backing from acknowledged experts (Lee 1991:8). With Aboriginal paintings, greater depth in meaning and the older the work is adds to its perceived authenticity. The criteria of authenticity is reflected in "works...that would be used for indigenous purposes and largely uninfluenced by Western contact, works that are aesthetically pleasing, and works that are finely executed" (Morphy 1991:23).
Much of this criteria really depends on where the boundaries lie and how far definitions extend. If authenticity accumulates with sacredness and Otherness, then where is the line between secular and sacred and insider/ outsider? Is the painter sitting in the red dust of the Australian desert but painting with tools introduced by whites more authentic than the urban artist whose painting more visibly depicts Aboriginal struggles for survival? Though the producer may have some authority in determining authenticity (by the simple act of being Other and defining the symbols as sacred), the acceptance of this authenticity ultimately is in the hands of the people who the Western world accepts as experts, such as gallery owners, curators and art critics. With Aboriginal paintings specifically, it is the middlemen or presenters of fine art who really have the power to determining authenticity or whether an object is fine art (Morphy 1991:22). The basis for authentic art lies in a complex web of unspoken social relations and processes exercised through the powers of legitimacy.
Authenticity also comes to be defined through the uniqueness or singularity of the object. Mass produced tourist souvenirs lose a sense of meaning and separate the spirituality of the creator from the object. The myth of purity and Otherness disappears through a process that wipes a smear of rationalized industry on the object. With Aboriginal painting, authenticity is retained through the acknowledgment of an individual artist (one element designating authentic fine art), and describing the importance of the painting in Aboriginal society (legitimation of the authentic Other). Jean Baudrillard points out that the individual artist (or identity identified with the work, in this case) really creates the value: "The painting is a signed object as much as it is a painted surface" (Michaels 1988:60). In this way, the stories connected to Aboriginal paintings "serve primarily as signatures of differentiation of the iconic from the semiotic and of primitive paintings from modern" (Stratton 1988:112).
However, this search for the authentic is really self defeating. If the true conceptualization of authenticity is to find the untouched and real, then the act of acquiring the authentic should tarnish it as inauthentic because it has been tainted by Western influence. If this is true, then the concept of authenticity has no tangible qualities but is determined only in our minds and through dominant boundaries and definitions.
These imagined boundaries of authenticity are easy to manipulate, especially in the example of Aboriginal fine art. Eric Michaels, an Australian writer, points out that the 'authentic, traditional' paintings are really a result of art advisors' and anthropologists' subtle intervention. Many of the styles, and physical nature of the painting have been altered to claim value in a contemporary market.
Practices of a once merely ethnographic interest, ascribed to pre-industrial culture (but obscured when marketing so-called primitive art), now resonate with modern or postmodern aesthetics and obviously affect the manner of asserting 'traditional' works in a contemporary market (Michaels 1988:61).
'Traditional', however false a judgment, becomes an accepted label for Aboriginal acrylic paintings as a marketing strategy and to feed our hunger for the authentic.
The ideology of authenticity is based on several of these myths noted above. Through these myths, several inconsistencies appear within the definitions of what is authentic or inauthentic. For example, Western artists who borrow images and ideas from indigenous art are proclaimed as creative and innovative (e.g. Pablo Picasso and African sculpture), but when an indigenous artist blatantly borrows from the Western tradition, the piece is marked as inauthentic. This is true for urban Aboriginal artists who do not paint in traditional styles and as a consequence are often considered less authentic. It is also interesting that the objects made for utilitarian uses become elevated to authentic art, while objects made to be non-utilitarian (such as tourist souvenirs) are rejected as inauthentic (Shiner 1994:226).
Considering all the myths and faults within the concept of authenticity and how it is constructed, Aboriginal acrylic paintings come to challenge many of these boundaries. The paintings are a new form both to Aboriginal and Western culture. Though the traditional designs are utilized, the material and the idea of a community creation have been 'tainted' by Western influence. In addition, the paintings are being made to be sold on the market, another marker of an inauthentic object. Yet, Aboriginal acrylic paintings are still promoted as authentic. Perhaps, these discrepancies are because the paintings are living within the worlds of both fine art and primitive art and being legitimized by both. In being primitive art, the paintings retain authenticity by using traditional symbols and myths, generated by the Other. Authenticity under the gaze of fine art is produced through the painting's uniqueness and the acknowledgment of an individual artist. In this way, the breaches in each category are overlooked.
In addition, Aborigines struggle with the idea of retaining their own authenticity. Though the culture determines the authentic objects while they remain inside, once the art enters the outside world, Aborigines lose control. It is important for objects to remain authentic and meaningful to Aboriginal culture so that Aborigines can create a distinct identity within dominant white discourses and transform colonization and domination into resistance and a distinctive voice (Lattas 1993:253). The key to retaining power and meaning within Aboriginal culture as the paintings enter into a marketing system, is to continue to produce art that fulfills it's role within the community. By not changing the meaning of the painting and the space it occupies within Aboriginal culture, the paintings will continue to be authentic in the eyes of their makers.
It is difficult
to talk about Aboriginal 'paintings' as paintings. They have been
inscribed with other meanings which stretch far beyond their original
intent. The 'paintings' are manipulated and reinvented both
physically and within our minds in order to understand Aboriginal
culture. The 'paintings' have become a Western construct. In the most
basic way, the 'paintings' still act today as they did in Aboriginal
tradition. Fig.
3&4 Time, Space, Knowledge and Meaning are transported
from the Australian outback to an urban living
room.
Their material form operates symbolically across time and space
finding connections with past meaning. Traditionally, 'paintings'
were signifiers of ancestral land. To the Australian Aborigines, the
'painting's' material form was impermanent and insignificant in and
of itself. It was the connection to ceremonies that gave the
'paintings' their importance. The symbols had no universal meaning
because, until they were inscribed with meaning through ceremony,
there was no connection to other dimensions. Today, new connections
and meaning still exist across time and space, although Western
cultural authorities have altered the 'painting's' meaning as well as
its material form. The 'paintings' have entered into multiple
narratives and networks stretching from the tourist trade to the art
world to anthropological spaces, all of which extend far beyond the
'painting' in its original, material form. Though the more recent
acrylic paintings still symbolically connect historical stories and
myths with the present, many more connections are being made by the
audiences who interpret them.
The 'paintings' continue to mean in many of the same ways to those who have been socialized in the Aboriginal communities. However, they have acquired many additional layers of unintended meaning as they have been 'translated' and 'made available' through the institutions of the marketplace, the museum, and the academy. The 'painting's' tangible, material form comes to represent ideas and meanings that were never foreseen by their makers. This mountain of interpretations generated by these many institutional constituencies impose new definitions and new modes of conceptualization on the 'paintings' as an art form. This is the difficulty in referring to the Aboriginal 'paintings' using the Western concept of painting. They are encased by our structures of thought and knowledge. This is representative of the repressive ways that we deal with new knowledge. We fit the 'paintings' into our world by inscribing layers of meaning, dominating the ways in which Aboriginals perceive the world. The 'paintings' represent more about our dominant cultural structures within which they are working, than the Aboriginal culture from which they originated. In this sense, Aboriginal 'paintings' are restrained within the boundaries and structures of Western thought. They are not allowed to act in a way that would challenge our world. We have made them fit into ours.
However, in this same way, the 'paintings' are transgressing boundaries. They are finding new ways of being known by becoming part of Western thought. Through this new meaning, the 'paintings' are connecting many worlds. Though they are encased by our rules, they are still breaking boundaries by functioning in a different way and within different worlds. As tourist art and fine art, Aboriginal 'paintings' connect with academia, travelers, art critics and art audiences. They stretch beyond their boundaries of meaning. By being encased by a different sort of boundaries than intended, the 'paintings' have transgressed the boundaries of Aboriginal thought by connecting to other worlds.
The 'paintings' are representative of the ways interpretations build new limitations, but in the same processes extend objects to mean in a different way, blurring boundaries. It is through these connections and contradictions that we can come to acknowledge the systems which are governing our world. The Aboriginal 'paintings' may conform to our standards of art and the myths of Otherness and Aboriginality, but as a result, Aboriginal culture is now connected to the Western world. Understanding the 'paintings' and their significance in the world does not come from understanding the art itself but from realizing how the paintings connect time, space, and knowledge as a consequence of being recontextualized.