Aboriginal Art Diagnostic Reflection

Reading the Aboriginal Art Diagnostic in the June 2011 Contemporary Visual Art + Culture Broadsheet by Adam Hill and Adam Geczy, I found honest and at times a bit confronting as to the opinions and thoughts being stated. However, I did feel that Hill and Geczy used a very clever technique of stating 'keywords' and definitions as they apply to Aboriginal art positioned today to explore their main topic. This being, from what I took away from the article, the 'authenticity' and success of Aboriginal art in a culture that is primarily EuroAmerican, and it's position in Australia for a global art market. There are some very good points which made me reflect on this, especially because of my position as a 'white' Anglo-Australian studying Indigenous art and culture.

The main points being for me were:
".....Aboriginal art lives out a contradiction: it has been a constructive means by which Aboriginal cultures have stated their claim within Australian culture and yet it is only within culture qua culture that they are able to serve."
"The Western response has been to embrace this identity with a desire to correct former colonialist injustices, only on the unspoken condition that the 'Other' never forgoes his or her 'Otherness'."
How I felt about these points were that they are quiet correct from where I stand looking at the position of Aboriginal art. Whether we like it or not the fact is, as stated in this diagnostic, that yes Indigenous people were told in the early 1970's that their 'art and culture' was in fact an 'art and culture', and not just of the anthropological category. And also that the success of Aboriginal art today does have a lot to do with a Western culture that deems it's 'authenticity' and 'difference' as a way of giving it this successful status as part of an Australian identity. To study, critique or collect Aboriginal art as a non-indigenous person is to promote this situation, and may still pivot on this idea of 'fashionability' and 'progressiveness' that comes to establish the art world. I think the acknowledgement and purchasing of Aboriginal art may also still have undertones of 'charity' and 'anxiety' attached to it as well, whether it's selling for millions and considered a 'masterpiece' or work selling for hundreds in a small rural or inner-city gallery. I began to wonder to what extent and to what criteria our culture deems a work done by an Indigenous artists as 'successful' or worth a certain amount of money? Does this have anything to do with or give it more or less meaning and understanding when an Indigenous person makes it or looks at it? How much of a say and position do Indigenous people have when it comes to what is 'good' art?

Whilst I do agree with most of the arguments made in the diagnostic, that's not to say I think that a contemporary Australian culture and society would be better if we looked the other way to Indigenous art and culture. Although it was originally one culture telling the other what was and wasn't art, and today it is primarily still white Anglo-Australian's behind this, at least we are able to see it, buy it and make the effort to understand and appreciate it whether we are in the correct position to do so or not. There are many Indigenous or part-Indigenous Australian critiques, theorists, educators and curators like Hetti Perkins, Brenda Croft and Franchesca Cubillo that do have a say in what is what in the art world.

It is quite confronting and honest what Hill and Geczy have done in this diagnostic by stating the words  like 'authentic', 'dog', 'nepotism' 'prison', 'leech', etc., and giving them a meaning based on how they 'really' applied to Aboriginal art and how its positioned represented today. However I think they are quite correct in this respect, and at the end of the day it is another opinion or theory about art which is inescapable for artists and people in the industry. I'm still glad that Indigenous art and and culture is part of Australian culture at large no matter the issues, positions and opinions that have constituted it.


References:

•     Adam Hill and Adam Geczy, "Aboriginal Art Diagnostic", Contemporary Visual Art + Culture Broadsheet 40.2 (June 2011): 133-35

Spirit In The Land

This week I visited Spirit In The Land, an Australian art exhibition curated by Robert Lindsay held in the Sate Library of South Australia from the 27th of August to the 23rd of October 2011. The exhibition has put together the work of 11 well-respected Australian Indigenous and non-Indegenous artists, to explore this idea of how the Australian landscape has played an important role in the history of Australian art. The range of work that I encountered that all played tribute to this theme I found really interesting, especially because the Indigenous work was mixed within the non-Indigenous. I thought it was interesting to compare how the two cultures approached the same country and it's various landscapes.

The works Narrbongs by Indigenous artist Lorraine Cownelly really stood out to me beacuse of it's raw and contemporary take on this idea of the Australian land. The work presents a series of baskets made out of found materials like pressed rusted tin, fencing and barbed wire, fly-wire gauze, burnt roof guttering, mesh and even a bag with a saw blade for a handle. I thought it was really clever the way she translated the traditional method of aboriginal weaving, which uses natural elements like grass roots, to present a more contemporary representation of the land using urban/industial found materials that have aged and been left amougst the environment. The rusted, stained and warped forms the metals took on I think present a really nice testament to the harsh landscapes Australia is made from, but keeping a live an old craft.

Lorraine Connelly-Northey, Narrbong (string bag),
ring-lock wire mesh, 124 x 95 x 66cm

After hearing about contemporary Indigenous artist Lin Onus in this weeks lecture on 'Urban Based' Indigenous Artists, it was good to see some his work at the exhibition His piece Ginger and my Third Wife Approach the Roundabout (1914), depicts a very surreal scene of sting-rays floating above the dirt ground and a half-buried roundabout sign. Although the scene looks western in it's photorealist painting style, the back of the sting-rays painted with rarrk present the inclusion of aboriginal techniques and understanding in painting with their tradition of representing animal motifs. The 14 trips Onus has made to Maningrida region to learn the traditional painting style of their Indigenous people comes across very strongly and skilfully in this way, communicating this dedication and understanding Onus has taken on over his career. Whilst I appreciate how Onus has bravely experimented with this combination of art practices and cultures, personally I felt disconnected to the piece and to me I think it felt a little too forced and discreet. Part of the reason I felt this was was because I much preferred his approach in his other painting in the exhibition, Jimmy's Billabong (1988), that overlays a traditional aboriginal pattern similar to rarrk over the top of a realistically depicted landscape painting of an Australian billabong. The overall effect is quite significant where the direct aesthetic combination of the two painting methods results in a striking and almost 'pixelated' or 'digitally-enhanced' appearance of the scene. I think the result of a simple method like this creating this visually strong effect was quite beautiful and something I could appreciate and personally admire more. For me it raises questions of cultural ownership and marking the land natural sites in Australia.

Lin Onus, Jimmy's billabong, 1988,
synthetic polymer paint on canvas 114.0 h x 235.0 w cm 

Apart from the beautiful work by the other included artists like Rover Thomas and Emily Kame, I found Dorothy Napangardi's paintings of a more traditional Indigenous approach really powerful and inspiring. Her work Sandhills of Mina Mina (2000) presents an aerial view of the sand dune patterns of the salt lakes of Tanami in a dot pattern of yellows, greys and crimson hues. It was truly perplexing to me how much depth, form and shape was created just through this pattern which could only have been represented by someone who truly understands the nature of the landscape. Through this understanding Napangardi can show it's natural cycle and stages presenting sand ridges, erosion and, crystalline cracking and water rivulets all through the same technique and pattern. Dorothy Napangardi's other piece Karntakurlangu Jakurrpa (2000) also stood out for me, especially because it represents the digging stick possessing dreaming, or Karnta-kurlangu Jukurrpa, instructed in the ritual known as 'Woman's Dreaming'. This reminded me of the Djan'kawu Sisters dreaming story of Northeast Arnhem land that also involved digging sticks. I remember how fascinating it was seeing this ceremony of this dreaming carried out and how important the 'Yirindidi ' stripe painting was, as it was used across the artwork of the area and throughout many elements of the ceremony including being painted on participants bodies. Through the Yirindidi stripes the fascinating dreaming story of the formation of the Northeast Arnhmen land coastline is communicated. Going back to Dorothy Napangardi's painting, reading about how this other digging stick possessing dreaming forms the basis of a lot of her work, I felt I had a greater appreciation of how important this would be to her as part of her heritage. Whilst what I really liked about the painting was it's aesthetic quality of the painstakingly detailed and intricate pattern, I felt more appreciative of the painting because of how much more understanding and information it must possess for the artist and Indigenous people familiar with that dreaming.

Dorothy Napangardi, Sandhills of Mina Mina, 2000
synthetic polymer paint on canvas, 198.0 x 122.0 cm
National Gallery of Australia, Canberra

Overall the exhibition, whilst smaller than I originally expected, was surprisingly diverse in it's selection of Indigenous artwork, giving me enough of a diversity to see the different modern and traditional approaches the Australian land. Each artists has his or her own way of showing what the country they live in means or evokes for them, and was a great reflecting point for me to think about how this could become represented in my work, and what it means for me.


References:

• Art Almanac, (July 2009), "Gallery Listings", http://www.art-almanac.com.au/page.php?page=100, (accessed: 15/9/2011)
• National Gallery of Australia, (2010), "Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Art: Lin Onus",  http://artsearch.nga.gov.au/Detail-LRG.cfm?IRN=86644&View=LRG, (accessed: 15/9/2011)
• NETS Victoria, (2009), "Dorothy Napangardi: Sandhills of Mira Mira", http://www.netsvictoria.org.au/sandhills-of-mina-mina?PHPSESSID=bde7f3122e71649a08a1c02c51e52197, (accessed: 15/9/2011)
• Robert Lindsay., "Spirit In The Land" (Exhibition media release digital form released August 11th, 2011), Flinders University: Art Museum, http://www.flinders.edu.au/artmuseum/documents/Media-SpiritintheLand.pdf, (accessed: 15/9/2011)

Lecture 5: Felicity Fenner reading and 'Aboriginal Modernism'

After the debate in tutorial this week over the statement: "Appreciation of Aboriginal art by non-Aboriginal people is pointless because they can never know the true meaning of the work.". I think the debate began to raise serious questions and issues about the validity of our appreciation of art and our understanding of its 'true meaning'. The debate was centred around felicity Fenner's essay which points out that our collection and showcasing of Indigenous artwork is still questionable and has political and philanthropic undertones. Supporting this argument, Fenner outlines the differences between Western art and Indigenous art, where Indigenous artists paint to keep a culture and tradition alive in contrast to western art where the artist is motivated by personal or intellectual motivation. On top of this Fenner argues how this application of Indigenous art and culture into normal Australian culture has been based on unbalanced cross-connections between Indigenous and 'Western-art'. Where non-Indigenous artists who have the luxury of travelling took a Western and modern approach and used Aboriginal painting as an influence, where as Indigenous painters don't have this luxury and in fact have been denied in some cases exposure to contemporary international art.

After thinking about this reading, and tutorial discussion, I came across the essay Designs On Aboriginal Culture by Steve Miller who argues and brings up some very good points that supports that of Fenner's. Miller's main argument being that the modernist art and design of Australia has used and disrupted the work by Indigenous artists in an effort to preserve an Australian culture and heritage. Where the term 'Aboriginal Modernism' is applied but contradicts the tradition and nature of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Art as well as our past colonial encounters with Indigenous people. Miller uses many examples to back this up like the boomerang which was embraced in the Australian modern era by designers because of its geometric form. Amongst these other Indigenous artefacts and handcrafts became re-produced for the tourist trade as a result of Indigenous communities still making initial contact with westerners during a time of change of socio-political awareness of Indigenous people. The manufacturing and fashioning of Indigenous motifs then completely missed the point and was often instead how non-Indigenous designers thought they should be like.

Another example Miller uses is an exhibition held in a david Jones department store in Sydney in 1941 called Australian Aboriginal Art and its Application. In this exhibition artists like Margaret Preston featured work that advocated for the inclusion of Indigenous Symbolism to take presence in a 'National Art' and be recognised. Again this was a naive attempt, as Indigenous curator Hetti Perkin's explained in response to the work: "to aboriginal eyes... reads as a scrambled orthography of vaguely familiar works, or a discordant symphony where the notes don't quite ring true. Preston's passionate attempts, while well intentioned, were doomed to fail ultimately because they are meaningless to Aboriginal people-not unlike the contemptuous government policy of assimilation.".

It's through these examples I am convinced that the initial tutorial question about non-Aboriginal people never knowing the true meaning of the work I think is justified and correct. The result is, as Miller explains, products, artefacts and works that were mainly being made by non-Indegeous Australians during the Australian Modern era as an attempt to make a tribute to Australia's 'natives', but that in fact isn't recognised by Indigenous people and doesn't support why they make art. And in doing so calling Aboriginal art by Aboriginal artists 'modern' or expecting them to be appreciative of it inspiring the work of non-Indigenous artists, as Fenner and Miller state respectively, is I think also inappropriate and does need to be considered. However I feel that to say it's pointless for non-Aboriginal people to 'appreciate' the work is incorrect. Whilst we can't 'appreciate' Aboriginal and Torres Straight islander Art on the same level as an Indigenous person may be able to, that's not to say a non-indigenous person can't make the effort to understand and acknowledge the work. I feel though when it becomes used and made to promote false meanings and suite a kitsch Australian image, a true appreciation becomes lost.

Australian Home Beautiful Magazine article "Stone Age legends in modern design",
showing the 20th century attitudes to Aboriginal culture.

References:

• Felicity Fenner, "Thinking Beyond Abstraction", Contemporary Visual Art + Culture Broadsheet 38.2 (2009): 133
• Steve Miller, "Designs on Aboriginal Culture", in Modern Times: The untold story of Modernism in Australia, ed. by Ann Stephen, Philip Goad and Andrew McNamara, 30 (Sydney: Powerhouse Publishing, 2008)