Commodification

It is through the system of commodification, the marketing of paintings as commodities, that Aboriginal paintings come to be recognized within Western institutions. Entering the market may be one way that Australian Aborigines can work within dominant structure and appropriate its systems to gain recognition and power. In another sense, it is not so much Aboriginal intentions but whites subtle intervention and suggestions that have contributed to the production of these cultural commodities. 

Fig. 12 Crocodile Hunting Story by Mick Gubargu, Western Arnhem Land, 1979, ochre and charcoal on bark. (Sutton 1988:71)

The marketing of Aboriginal art has picked up speed since its origins in the 1950's. Since the white invasion and with it, the invasion of market economies, Aboriginal culture has had to make a dramatic shift from an economy that is based on hunting and gathering to one based on cash. The missionaries and anthropologists encouraged the sale of art, and in many ways influenced ways the art was made and presented. To understand the marketing of Aboriginal paintings, let's examine the Aborigines living in the northern most coast of Australia, at a site called Yirrkala.⁹

The market for Aboriginal goods started small with demand from collectors, history museums and missionaries. Gradually, bark paintings became the most marketable commodity.¹⁰ (see Fig. 12) By the mid-1950's due to white influence, "the mission [at Yirrkala] had assumed the function of art dealer as a means of improving the economic base of the Aboriginal community, and the sale of arts had come to be viewed as a major source of cash income to Aborigines" (Williams 1976:275).

As there were more and more requests for paintings, certain criteria began to evolve according to what sold the most along with the buyer's judgments of authenticity and 'good' value. There were four main determining factors of how value would increase:

1. Is the painting of good quality with no cracks, smooth lines, and good pigment?

2. Is there a story behind the painting?

3. Are the designs aesthetically pleasing to white customers.

4. How large is the painting? Larger paintings meant more work and production time (Williams 1976:277).

Aborigines knew that generally whites wanted large paintings with 'important' stories. Often they were told by those marketing the paintings not to deviate from traditional norms such as the color of pigment and details of design, but other innovations, that allowed the painting to fit into the category as fine art (such as size, shape and signs of authorship), were encouraged.¹¹

Though value and authenticity was found in the paintings imagined to be pure and unaltered by white influence, this obviously was unavoidable. What consumers saw as authentic primitive art was mainly the Aborigine's interpretation of the white buyers' criteria (Williams 1976:277). Most physical properties of the paintings were irreversibly changed due to the determinants of market value. Though the meaning was symbolic of a whole string of historical stories, the painting's aesthetic value was just as important to white buyers. In Yirrkala, the works of art were reduced to market value and the amount that they appealed to the consumer. This is still the case today with Aboriginal paintings.

White contact has issued a range of responses from Aborigines in the production of their art. There has evolved three main forms in which paintings are produced: functional fine art, commercial fine art, and souvenir art.

Fig. 13 Pattern in Sand by Sorty Lungkara Jungarrayi, Papunya, 1980, acrylic on canvas. (Sutton 1988:134)

Large paintings with sacred stories are considered functional fine art. These are important to Aborigines because the paintings reinforce their beliefs, but the paintings also have the highest market value to the white buyers. In functional fine art, the meanings remain unchanged, but the technology and materials are altered in order to be entered into Western markets and institutions. In this sense, the paintings perform a traditional function by "reinforc[ing]...an important aspect of traditional culture and the value it expresses", but also the paintings constitute contemporary art and serve a contemporary function by providing an income (Williams 1976:282).

In the paintings considered commercial fine art, the stories are less significant, but the Aboriginal beliefs are not compromised. The paintings are made to appeal more to the white customers, and the aesthetics of the piece are more important. Though the designs are unchanged (but perhaps less meaningful), the production is merely for commercial purposes, making the market value less than that of functional fine art.

Souvenir art takes the form of simple, small bark paintings made only for profit. They are objects bought in volume by tourist shops. The tastes of the buyers override those of the producers (Williams 1976:282-284). Tourist art is dismissed as inauthentic by Western institutions and experts that determine value.

The categories of paintings create a hierarchy of art primarily based on the imagined and sanctioned criteria of authenticity in both art and Otherness. The separation of tourist art and fine art helps keep the more meaningful designs sacred. Yet the hierarchy extends further up than just the marketed products mentioned above. In many cases, Aborigines have denied the public paintings which are highly sacred, keeping them instead for private use. Those paintings which are restricted from public viewing in the marketplace are even restricted from some members of the tribe (Rubinstein 1989:43). In retaining restricted knowledge and by continuing to produce what is meaningful to Aboriginal culture (in both the protected paintings and in the functional fine art), Aborigines insure that they control the products and meaning that are of most value to their culture and in the marketplace.