The following was emailed to the Back Page. We are posting it in the hope that readers might be interested to discuss the issues with our contributer.
Ed.
Hello
I would like to raise a topic something I have come across a lot and I find it a very interesting issue especially in these times of change. Its about non indigenous artists being inspired by dot paintings and using dots in their own paintings.
With the ever increasing expansion of aboriginal art and indigenous culture, Many artists have found themselves doing dot paintings as a form of self expression. I would like to know is this a problem and why? In a Post Modern Context isn’t it a part of the deconstruction part of the appropriation stuff we all do now. I find the artists themselves feeling really shy about coming out. Could someone comment or please tell me, beyond modernism isn’t it time this started happening and wouldn’t it add to the canon of contemporary art in a positive way if not please explain.
Thanks Anon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Last year I had a similar debate regarding the playing of the didgeridoo. A fellow student argued that the didgeridoo must be played at All times (and in this case an international exhibition opening in Australia) by an Aboriginal person. My argument was that eventually this instrument, like all in history - the violin - the typewriter - the lightbulb - will become international. So when will that be? (Having said that, I still won't play as I am a woman.)
Yes, This raises interesting issues art is more than self expression it is creative rresponse. We are in a age of identity theft people all over are paraniod about this including those who colaborate and appropriate work of other artists. I think we need to move on to a connectedness, to co exist without fear.
Until I have time to write more considered comment, I think NAVA has some useful publications dealing with the issue in relation to Australian Aboriginal motifs. There is also an ongoing debate in relation to appropriation and intellectual property rights covered on Newsgrist. I noticed Back Page has put up a link to it. Ownership is a curious thing. We seem determind to convert all that was free, or held in common, to individually owned and tradable commodities. Where does the rights to own part of nature or human culture reside if not in economic or military power?
That being said, ethical dealing and respect within the game are still a good option.
Nice question anonymous two – unfortunately, ownership and copyright, are artists armour and sword, within a culture that does not intend to shift its focus from profit, and military prowess. Since original and authentic language is precious, we need to retain these voices from appropriation, profitable design, and political gain.
Thanks Anon I ve know NAVA. You are miising the point, what im talking about is SHIFTING culture. In a informed way, artists arent just people who do what they are told by some Dady, they shift disrupt, bring about change in culture and social context, they are there to be the voice of social commentary. So thanks for the advice but been there done that.
Sorry if I am missing the point, esplin., I agree that we are dealing with shifting culture and that art forms will constantly change both materially and in their meaning. From the original post I thought the issue was whether anyone is free to use a form that another cultural group regards as copyright. And in this matter it seems we are dealing with a judgement of similarity of form, and entering the legal arena.
You say artists don’t do what “Dady” (or Mommy) tells them, then say “ they are there to be…” which sounds a bit prescriptive in itself. Personally, I’m not sure what they are there for. But to be the voice of social commentary, is one possibility, shared by journalists, social scientists etc. To disrupt, shift, bring about change, begs the question; to what ends? Do all artists have the same political and social objectives? The anarchic, radical impulse seems to be part the creative process for many artists, but to be an agent of social and cultural change, means we have to think about, and be committed to, objectives and effectiveness. I share your desire for change, so I am interested in how artists go about it.
I don’t know where you have been or done, but would be interested to hear how your ideas are present in your work
Well said, Sylvia – esplin.’To dot or not’, is a sensitive topic to discuss, Sylvia has offered some helpful suggestions to “anonymous email”. Diversity and tolerance within art making, is a great thing, it keeps the conversation flowing, and allows us to have a deeper understanding of what is going on.
Ok, to get beyond semantics, were does it enter the legal arena? What I mean by Dady is when people are insecure when they feel threatened they run to Dady to tell them what to do. Instead of being the agent of change themselves, personally if art doesn’t do that its not worth doing. That’s my personal opinion I don’t expect everyone or anyone to agree.
Ok so ask yourself the question what are artists there for ? be the answer. To What ends?
When I find out Ill let you know, Im not a demigod, don’t expect it to make any sense now , its just a narrative just a tributary not a main artery, all that ended a decade ago, whether you like it or not we are post modern age now.
Am I not allowed to be prescriptive? There is another rule for ARTISTS.
One of my Indigenous students, were questioning whether dots were really Aboriginal symbols, so I looked into it, and discovered that dot painting put Aboriginal Art in the international spotlight from 1971. The dots were used in communities around Alice Springs, and it wasn’t until Geoff Bardon came into the settlements and encouraged the men to paint, that the elders were concern the paintings could reveal sacred ritual sites. The artists, known as “Papunya Tula artists”, began to paint dots to conceal parts of their works. One of the early masters of this technique was Johnny Warungula Tjupurrula (1920 -2001). The rest of the artists in that settlement gradually took up his technique of “over-dotting”. By 1975, this technique became one of the central characteristics of Western Desert art.
There is also the work of Georges Seurat - a French Pointillist, Impressionist painter. So, Anon email, that should be something to think about.
Allen Susan, "Papunya Tula – The Birthplace of Contemporary Australian Aboriginal Art", Review for ICFI, 2001
Lets make a distinction here, there are a lot of people ripping off indigenous art and calling it indigenous art. What im talking about is not called indigenous art but some "other" what would it be called? beyond I like the dot as a symbol, I like how they used dots to conceal parts of their work.
What was it they were concealing?
NE
The dots concealed sacred ritual sites, which were important to the narrative of the paintings. The "elders" expressed concern, (when it was suggested the paintings could be sold), that the artists had revealed information, referencing their sacred rituals. This information could not be revealed to outsiders. Hence, the dots provided the function of concealment, which later led to the use of dots for design.
Post a Comment