Translate

Showing posts with label indigenous art theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label indigenous art theory. Show all posts

03 October 2014

Shedding Skin: Reconstructing Our Relationship to Art

On September 20th, the Museum of Contemporary Native Arts (MoCNA) hosted a daylong symposium, Shedding Skin: Reconstructing our Relationship to Art, developed by a recent IAIA graduate Alicia Rencountre-Da Silva and current IAIA student Charles Rencountre and funded in part by the New Mexico Humanities Council. Fifteen months in the planning, the Rencountres wanted to create an open forum in which artists felt comfortable speaking freely about their identity and their relation to the art world.

The questions were not the usual fare, and the line up of speakers was eclectic. I was impressed that leading Native scholars Jolene Rickard and heather ahtone (Chickasaw-Choctaw) flew in for the event, from New York and Oklahoma respectively.

Keynote Address: Jolene Rickard, PhD (Tuscarora) 
Jolene Rickard, Associate Professor and Director of the American Indian Program at Cornell University, gave the morning keynote address. Jolene has been traveling extensively and is developing an academic journal for Indigenous aesthetics. She stressed the increasingly global awareness of both Indigenous peoples and the art world. Colleges who sponsored hemispheric perspective, i.e. South and North American, towards Indigenous Americans found language translation to be the biggest challenge. An example she gave of the art world shifting away from Eurocentricism to globalism is the Venice Biennial steadily loosing its edge to the Asian biennials.

Candice Hopkins and heather ahtone
Jolene pointed out that the World Conference on Indigenous peoples at United Nations was this weekend. The Six Nations have long been international in scope, crossing borders or the “medicine line”—the US–Canadian Border, and have historically engaged the United Nations. In 1977 they delivered “A Basic Call to Consciousness: The Haudenosaunee Address to the Western World” to the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. This built on the past diplomacy of Chief Deskaheh (Cayuga-Oneida), who addressed the League of Nations in 1924.*

“Our knowledge is embodied,” says Jolene, discussion Indigenous governance. Objects contain information; knowledgeable people have to enactment this knowledge. “Wampum belts,” she points out, “are both political and aesthetic documents,” hinting at the greater meaner art can serve our communities today. She feels that the time between 1925 and 1977 for Native Americans is unexamined history—ripe for college students to research the copious photographic and written records.

John Mohawk (Seneca) popularized the term “autochthonic,” but Jolene wonders, “When did we start to use the term ‘sovereignty’?”

Jolene present beautiful images from the “gold wall” that she and Paul Chaat Smith (Comanche) co-curated, which became the most criticized inaugural exhibit at NMAI DC. These gold artifacts, decontextualized from their cultures, histories, and meanings, uncomfortably reference European lust for gold that resulted in so many murders and removals of Indian peoples. It was loosely arranged like the sun, the gold. Some Central Americas tribes use smelting gold to offer up prayers. Ironically, the display was also the most popular for posed photographs in social media.

 She also shared images from Te Tihi, the gathering of Indigenous artists in Aotearoa (New Zealand). New Zealand has dual language laws; English, Māori and English are the official languages. She realized during her trip that hosting protocols required gifting. Her travels have been inspiration; however, she noted that it is getting more challenging in the US to find funds for travel. The Ford Foundation and Hemispheric Institute fund travel, but typically, Canada is more willing to assist artists in traveling. Reaching her conclusion, Jolene mused, “It’s easier for people to think about the end of the world than it is to think about the end of capitalism.” The current state of affairs reveals, “Just how dangerous we are as Indigenous people.” As a final thought, she stated, “If Indigenous artists don’t feel they need to know our history, they are missing a major opportunity.” The floor was opened to questions, and a woman asked Jolene if globalization meant cultural genocide. Jolene responded that in international law “Human rights” trump “Indigenous rights.” Working with Africa she learned that the people there don’t want to label groups in Africa as “Indigenous” due to the term’s baggage. Instead they are exploring “community-based knowledge” in Africa. Another question led Jolene to observed that, “Most people don’t have the privilege of living with their community. Traditions are anchored in place. Theory is meant to be transportable.” She sees art as experiments that create dialogue. “Creativity now is at the heart of it,” Jolene say, not law, which is usually celebrated in Native American studies programs. For our morning panel, moderated by Charles Rencountre, was supposed to “discuss the concept of a manifesto that describes the policies, goals, opinions and potential of a new contemporary Native American Arts movement.”

* “Deskaheh's trip to the League of Nations in 1923-24 nonetheless marks the first attempt by North American First Nations to take their claims for sovereignty to an international forum,” writes Donald B. Smith in Deskaheh’s entry in The Dictionary of Canadian Biography.

Morning Panel: Indigenous Art Manifesto 

America Meredith (Cherokee Nation)

The questions I was asked were:
  1. Is it time for a Native American Arts Manifesto? 
  2. Are their unnamed signs of this already happening that you see? 
  3. Do you think that we are ready to organize and rename what is and who we are as artists collectively?
My answers were no, no, and if you want to, go for it. Some stray artists still write manifestos, but they are largely ignored. In Art After the End of Art, philosopher and art critic Arthur C. Danto (1924–2013) described the modern era as a series of art movements using art as a vehicle for exploring the definition of art. Critics, notably Clement Greenberg, viewed art history as a linear progression. Danto saw Andy Warhol’s 1964 Brillo Box as ushering in a new era. Art could now be anything; art no longer had to define “art,” and could focus on other topics, which spelled the end of the linear progression in art history.

Another perspective is that Feminist Art ended the modern era in art, by radically changing the scope of art world to include previously marginalized groups—women, the GLBTQI communities, people of color—basically the majority of the planet. Our new pluralistic, global art world is confusing but a more honest reflection of humanity. Feminist artists entered the art world with their own values, and Native artists should also actively participate in the global art world with their values intact.

“Art for art’s sake” is a Northern European concept, put forth during the Enlightenment notably by German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Native American peoples never collectively ascribed to this separation of art from daily or ceremonial life. While the term “holistic” is worn threadbare by overuse, it is an apt description to an Indigenous approach to art. I suggested “integrated” might be a good alternative phrase.

To the question of “What is Indian art,” I believe T. C. Cannon and IAIA answered that back in the 1960s: “Indian art is art made by an Indian.” The next question would be, “What is an Indian?” My working definition of an Indigenous American is a person with Indigenous American ancestors who is recognized as Indigenous by their community.

Using the example of the Pan-American Indian Humanities Center, all the wisdom is at the tribal level—it’s encased in our own tribal languages: worldview, philosophy, logic, diplomatics. Our tribes ground us in the free-for-all contemporary art world.

http://www.firstamericanartmagazine.com
I shared my PSA about terminology. Neither “contemporary” nor “traditional” are bad words, but paring them together creates a false dichotomy; one term is time-based and one is values-based. The opposite of “traditional” is not the “new”; it is “assimilated.” To actively participate in the contemporary time, the 21st century, we can still retain our tribal values.

Basically I don’t believe we can speak for all Indigenous American artists. We need a common forum so that artists can speak for themselves, and we can then identify common causes and concerns. Not everyone can attend art school, Native conferences, or every major Native art show. So to foster wider understanding and dialogue, we should turn to writing, to provide a lasting record of our art and thinking. By writing down information and sharing it widely, we can stop repeating the same conversations. To this end I founded First American Art Magazine.

Stephen Wall (White Earth Ojibwe-Seneca)
Steve Wall is the Chair of the Indigenous Liberal Studies Department, an artist, and a former tribal judge. Addressing the question, “Are you an Indian or an artist first,” Wall says he is an “artist first,” because we are born as artists or “creative animals.” He is concerned about ghettoization that “Indian art is put off in the corner.” There is tension between the local and the global. The marketplace tends to ask the questions. To achieve recognition as an artist, one typical has to engage the art market, which is a capitalist system. The Western Mind is reductivist; the world is categorized. Steve succinctly pointed out that the distinction between so-called “fine art” and “craft” is that of class divisions. Wealthy European and later European American men could create “fine art;” poor people made “craft.” This carries over to colonialism, in which the “mother country” believes the colonized has nothing to offer it. Cultural is a one-way movement from the civilized mother country to the uncivilized colony. As recently as 2007, Steve was told that, “There is no such thing as American art history,” since the United States was a colony of England and “American art history” would only be a subset of European art history.

“The marketplace is based on Native absence,” he said; the “terminal creed” that Natives are all going to disappear and the privileging of historical art over contemporary art.” He pointed out the completely arbitrary and widespread practice of museums combining “Arts of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas.” Steve does support a Native artists’ manifesto, which would be, “Our art will reflect an Indigenous presence.”

Tony Abeyta (Navajo)
Tony earned by MFA from New York University and was asked to define “success.” He feels artists are all distinct individuals. He listed influential role models, including Allan Houser, who he had as a young student in Santa Fe. His father Narciso Abeyta, a Studio-style artist, and his contemporaries built the momentum in expanding the Native art world into what we have today. He talks to younger artists and feels they are in a defensive mode, which a focus on rejecting stereotypes and the identities the non-Native world places upon them. Watching the marketplace, he’s noticed that Latin American art has exploded in value on the secondary market and wonders why Native American art has not? Tony said ultimately he didn’t care about how he was defined; he was focused on making art.

Jim Rivera (Pascua Yaqui)
Jim, a painter and comic artist, was asked, “How do you shed the identities that don’t fit?” He relayed how as a child in Arizona he was placed in special education programs because he spoke his tribal language. In graduate school, a classmate asked, “Are you Native American? Well, you don’t look like one. […] Well, you have all this material to use,” such as suicide on reservations and a string of other stereotypes. So Jim asked that classmate, “Are you American?” Then why don’t you paint about worshiping the dollar, and other American stereotypes? Then student said, he just wanted to do his art. And Jim pointed out that he did as well. In one series, he painted his grandmother at boarding school, then later in life.

He described a series of portraits of his grandmother: how she appeared in boarding school photos and she wanted to appear on her own terms. Jim’s teachers asked why in her self-representational piece, he had put his grandmother’s painted canvas on rectangular stretcher bards. That was simply the way he had been taught to present paintings, but when he removed the canvas and hung it without the bars, the piece was liberated. He also described a performance piece in which he placed mask after mask on his face, but they kept falling off.

“I want you guys to have your voice,” is what Jim says to emerging artists. “You don’t have to ask permission anymore.”

Alicia Marie Rencountre-Da Silva (Muisca descent)
“What is Native American contemporary art?” asked recent IAIA alumna Alicia Rencountre-Da Silva. She feels it must be, “Inclusive.” She was required to take Western art history, after taking several classes in Native American art history. She noticed the deliberate influencing by non-Natives upon Natives in the arts—“40 years of patronizing influence on the arts” during the mid-20th century. This pattern was broken by artists such as Oscar Howe, who demanded the right to create their own art.

When the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was proposed, 184 countries signed on immediately, while the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada were the last four to sign.

Alicia is focused on where “Art meets life,” which includes the iconic photographic that Ossie Michelin took with his cell phone of Amanda Polchies and holding up a eagle feather before a solid blue wall of RCMP at a Mi’kmaq anti-fracking demonstrations in Elsipogtog, New Brunswick.

Washington, DC-based artist Gregg Deal (Pyramid Lake Paiute) made Michelin’s photograph into a popular anti-fracking poster. Alicia also shared Gregg’s anticolonialism mural, comparing colonialism to a can of spray paint. She shared images of Ponca people planting sacred corn in the pathway of the Keystone pipeline in Nebraska, and discussed Honor the Treaties and the Cowboy Indian Alliance as examples of cross-cultural collaboration. Alicia was also inspired by We Honor: The Art of Activism, an exhibit curated by Nani Chacon.

Follow-Up Questions
In the discussion that followed, Charles Rencountre suggested, “Native American art is the mainstream.” An question from the audience followed up with the notion of being “an Indian” or “an artist” first. Jim said, “You are Native no matter what.” Steve suggested that “transcendence” was a more useful term “integration” and said, “The marketplace will define you.” I suggested these artificial binaries (fine art/craft, Indian/artist, contemporary/traditional) stem from the fact that we are conversing in English, which has in intrinsic logic based on paired opposites, as the physician and author Edward de Bono suggests. Whenever someone presents you with a dilemma, search for alternatives. As an artists, Charles Rencountre pointed out that with his surname, he could easily pass as French. “We’re humans first,” said Charles, and he pointed out that if one’s CDIB says they are ¼ Indian, then they are ¾ something else, and shouldn’t that side be important as well?

A man in the audience asked about spirituality. Tony responded that a universal force was involved in art making; that some might call “the muse.” I pointed out that some Native American artists are atheists and their perspective should be respected. Charles relayed how he used to carve pipes out of pipestone for sale, until he learned much more about the sacred nature of pipestone, and realized he could sculpt other things out of other materials and that would be acceptable.

Afternoon Panel: Creativity Is (Still) Our Tradition

Candice Hopkins (Carcross-Tagish)
Candice Hopkins is currently serving as the interim chief curator at the MoCNA. She discussed wanting to activate the space between the terms “creativity” and “tradition.” She shared the work of Brian Jungen, also from Port St. John, British Columbia, like herself. He sculptures out of commercially available goods are “speculative, deliberately opened-ended.” He constructed 20- to 40-foot long whale skeletons from Monobloc chairs. The plastic in the lawn chairs is a petroleum product. His work in Sakahàn, which Candice co-curated, consisted of orange plastic gas cans—ubiquitous in his region—punched with patterns from small holes to resemble beadwork designs of local poisonous plants and venomous insects. She see art as a potential mediator between cultures.

heather ahtone (Chickasaw-Choctaw)
heather ahtone, Assistant Curator of Native American and Non-Western Art for the Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art, earned her BFA from IAIA and MFA from OU. Since first publishing her interdisciplinary methodology of critiquing Native art from a Native perspective in 2009, heather has refined it. Now she identifies for key factions of assessing Indigenous art:
  • Materiality
  • Metaphor/symbolism
  • Kincentricity—accountability
  • Temporality.
Currently museums don’t reflect the knowledge embedded in the Native American art objects, so her methodology is a means of recuperating their content. First she showed an Upper Mogollon black-on-white pot, made by members an ancestral culture of the Acoma, Hopi, and Zuni. She explained how the imagery diagramed the entire local hydrologic system: from clouds, precipitation, water on surface, and water underground. The significance is this pot can teach us about earth sciences even today. The iconography of Pueblo pottery is seen as preliterate writing system. “Our cultures are not exclusively oral,” said heather. heather continued sharing interpretations of other pottery symbols—how two interlocking frets represented Tuwapongtumsi, Sand Altar Woman in Hopi pottery. She shared work by Barbara Cerro (Acoma-Hopi), Joe Cerro (Acoma), and Rainy Naha (Hopi). A child working a ball of clay reflects the roundness of Earth; when she or he makes an indention in clay with thumb, which reconnects to Hopi emergence. By using the symbols for their intended purpose, instead of disrupting or otherwise contradicting the meaning, these artists were “not appropriating but perpetuating” their tribes’ iconography. These artists are also careful to alter the designs slightly to remove ceremonial references out of respect. heather shared glass sculpture by Tammy Garcia (Santa Clara). The artist is taking the symbolic language into a new media—expanding it.

heather then shared Southeastern basketry patterns, which also share a symbolic language, much of which she learned from Ollin Williams (Choctaw).. The diamond and cross pattern on Choctaw basket references stickball. Eastern Band Cherokee weaver Nancy Bradley’s 1941 rivercane burden basket displays a fylfot, which heather interprets as a whirlwind. “Baskets are stories,” said heather. Shan Goshorn (Eastern Band Cherokee) creates double-woven paper baskets. In her Educational Genocide, she is “literately deconstructing history and reweaving it.” From 1879–1918, 12,000 American Indian children from 140 tribes attended Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania. Shan incorporated their photos and signatures in her basket. heather also show the work of Gail Tremblay (Mi’kmaq-Onondaga) and Sarah Sense (Chitimacha-Choctaw) as further examples of living artists pushing forward the language of Eastern Woodland basketry.


Nanibah Chacon (Diné-Xicana)
Nani Chacon, originally from Chinle now in Albuquerque, first started painting at age 16 as a graffiti artist. “My interest in art came from a very urban experience.” She said representational figurative painting as “classical” and is “technically challenged by the figure;” however she wants her figurative subjects to tell as deeper story.

Her painting The Origin overlays a Navajo basket design with a woman. Although she had the design pictured in her head, she couldn’t grid out the painting. Finally she began painting from the center of the basket, known as the “origin” and spiraled outward. “It all finally worked,” and reinforced the metaphors of the basket—a common origin that binds people together.

This series of Navajo women and textile designs explores Navajo philosophy “and how much it is not about the past.” Nani said. Her 100-foot-long mural, She Taught Us to Weave, in Albuquerque shows Spiderwoman, who taught Navajo people how to weave. A raven represents “cunning behavior.” The whole mural addresses issues of new technologies and how we will use them. The word “hózhó” appears in the mural and is broadcast via radio frequencies—the question being will we choose to use new technologies in a way that incorporates hózhó—beauty, balance, and harmony?

“I know our ancestors did not create these philosophies to be relics,” Nani said. “They are maps and guides to the future.”

Her grandmother was a weaver, and Navajo “rugs speak to the region they come from.” Likewise, Nani makes all her mural site-specific. For the Allan Houser sculpture garden at the MoCNA, she was inspired by the sand and painted Manifestations of the Glittering World, which shows a woman emerging form the sand and letting sand stream out of her hand. Glass is made from sand. In the glittering word, our world, “We live in the world of lights. We live in the world of glass.” The strep-fret represents mountains, the cross-symbols works on innumerable levels—stars, four directions, the Christian cross, rifle-scopes. “I loved the cross pattern because it’s so loaded,” she says. “It is a symbol to divide.”

At the Navajo Nation Museum in Window Rock, Arizona, Nani painted Against the Storm She Gathers Her Thoughts. The storm pattern is in the rug designs, and hair is the extension of thoughts, so tying up hair composes thoughts.


Teri Greeves (Kiowa-Comanche-Italian)

Teri Greeves learned how to bead in her mother’s trading post on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. To her, beadwork is a “vehicle to speak.” In her first Indian Market, beadwork didn’t have its own category, so Teri entered her beaded shoes as sculpture. Later she entered in the “diverse arts” category. “I don’t feel limited by an object," she said. When people ask her what she does, “The first answer I always give is, ‘I’m a beadworker.' " People are typically confused, then she identifies herself as an artist, for which they have a context. “The media and materials I use are valid means of expression.” She creates pictorial narrative work, which traditional Plains men do. She’s also inspired by hand-illuminated manuscripts and the notion of a visual language. Teri shared images of her work, including of the Sun Boys, immortals born of the Sun and a human woman.

In 2006 during the Iraq War, she was asking herself, “Why?’’ She created Prayer Blanket, which explored the Kiowas’ identity as a military people. “I’m a maker and I need to create with my hands—that’s how I process,” she said. Two soldiers are accompanied by dancers, who are escorting them to the Milky Way, “where our dead go.” The piece is divided in the sky world and earth world. The deerhide had scars and even bloodstains, but instead of hiding these, Teri incorporated them into the artwork.

To address the outside world’s debate between “fine art” and “craft,” Teri beaded NDN Art in 2008, a stereotypical Native man with a Fauvist palette and a word balloon proclaiming the piece, “Art.”

“Are you an Indian or are you an artist?” Teri answers, “I’m both. I cannot not be Indian. Just like I cannot not be Italian. I cannot not be the whole of my being.”

Trying a new direction in 2011, Teri created large scale beadwork appliqués on silk and vinyl that resembled mosaics. She beaded with four to six millimeter Czech cut glass and crystal pony beads. A major collector responded to the new work: “I couldn’t believe you used such big beads.” The collector simply couldn’t see the content.

One of these works was Wa-ho: The First Song After the Flood, of a woman singing an old lullaby to her baby. Teri framed the mother and child in an arch to reference the Christian Madonna and child. “Beads are not Indian,” Teri acknowledged, “but it doesn’t matter because we made them Indian.”

Abstraction was a major breakthrough in American Modernist art; however, the American Modernists were inspired by Indigenous artists, and Abstract, geometric designs are the domain of women. “Abstraction in American came from Indian women,” Teri stated.

Jason Garcia (Santa Clara Pueblo)
Jason Garcia, whose name Okuu Pin means “Turtle Mountain,” first shared his many artistic inspirations. “My art is inspired by my own participation in Santa Clara dances,” he says, which include deer dances and dances at the August feast of St. Clare of Assisi, who happens to be the patron saint of television. Jason shared his inspirations, which included Santa Clara polychrome, which his pueblo was known for prior to its blackware, and comics, such as Joe Kubert of DC comics and the Hernandez brothers’ Love and Rockets. Pablita Velarde, the Santa Clara pueblo painter, was also a genre painter, and Jason pointed out specific details in her work that speak to daily life in the pueblo. Potters who have influenced him include his grandmother Severa Tafoya and his aunt Lois Gutierrez.

In 2002 Jason made his first graphic tile. His series Tewa Tales of Suspense with images from the Pueblo Revolution. One deals with the revolutions that continued through 1696. These comic book cover-inspired artworks are a way Jason teaches children and the rest of the public about the history of his people. For examples, Tanos (the Hopi-Tewa) were hired as mercenaries by the Hopi, since the Hopi were peaceful people.

One of Garcia’s Tewa Tales of Suspense shows an image of a woman warrior. A Hopi katsina portrays a woman with her hair half-done, remembering Tano woman warriors, interrupted in their daily activities to fight against an attacking army. Garcia’s Corn Maiden series shows young Pueblo women using technology or thinking of corporate logos. He’s interested in the “maker’s mark,” the artist’s hand on the work, inspired by the centuries-old potsherds he’s found that still have the artist’s fingerprints embedded in the clay. At graduate school at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Garcia was inspired by Bucky Badger, since the badger is also an important animal to Pueblo people. In school, he has been experimenting more with printmaking techniques, such as aquatint and etching.

Layli Longsoldier (Oglala Lakota)
Layli Longsoldier lives in Tsaile, Arizona, and teaches at Diné College. She earned her MFA from Bard College in New York. She primarily writes but sometimes creates visual art as well. Her father Daniel Longsoldier, an alumnus of IAIA, attended school with Joy Harjo back in 1968. The Longsoldiers are from Pine Ridge. Growing up, she wished her father was “more adventurous with his painting” but came to understand, through his attention to tribally-specific regalia and other details, “When people see his work, it reinforces something of themselves.” One of her installation involves a herd of buffalo made from wire mesh. “We still understand ourselves as buffalo people.” She studied book arts at the University of Wisconsin. After President Obama very quietly signed an apology to Native American peoples in 2009—on a weekend with no tribal leaders present and with two disclaimers—Longsoldier wrote a cycle of 29 poems responding to this “apology.” Wanting to hear the communities’ perspective, she co-curated an art show at the Red Cloud Heritage Center, Whereas We Respond with Mary Bordeaux (Sicangu Lakota). Copies of the government’s resolution were distributed and visitors draw their responses on the walls of the Heritage Center. Afterward the community came and whitewashed the exhibit. She shared a poem inspired by her desire to transmit her culture to her daughter.

Diane R. Karp—Closing Remarks
Diane Karp, Executive Director of the Santa Fe Art Institute and former Director of New Observations Magazine shared a synopsis of the discussion and closing remarks. She wondered if the same questions linger due to insecurity on the part of individual artists or the Native art community. She mentioned how the feminist movement shifted the maxim, “The political is personal” to “The personal is political.” The floor was open to comments. I asked Teri Greeves if the audience at Crystal Bridges commented on her tribal heritage. She said, no—State of the Art features “people of all genders and all ethnicities. [The artists’ ethnicities] were a part of the conversation by our presence.” Teri concluded, “While I keep an audience in mind, I want to speak to human beings.”

Jolene mentioned how Steve McQueen, a black British filmmaker famous for 12 Years a Slave, produced Hunger, a film about Irish prison hunger strike. While one would hope the critics and the public would view the content and not focus on the producer’s cultural background, yet Jolene suggests artists view that “less of an imposition and more of a strength. Our deep history is part of the discussions.” Charles Rencountre brought up the idea of a manifesto, asking, “Should artists come together to organize and have a voice?” Jolene discussed Atlatl, who had their first exhibition in 1981 and organized Who Stole the Tee Pee? in 2000. “The US is behind” other countries in the Americas in representing their Indigenous artists, pointed out Stephen Wall. A discussion of the relation between the local and international ensured. Jolene Rickard pointed out that success art uses the local as an entry point but has a power that “transcends as connects to a larger audience.” She asks if there are “discrete Indigenous aesthetics” and feels it is good to “let people struggle to understand the symbolism in our art.”

“Shedding Skins” felt difference that the usual museum artists’ talk. The Rencoutres seemed genuinely curious about the panelists’ views. An estimated 60 to 100 people came and went throughout the day, a good turnout considering how early on a Saturday the symposium started. People felt comfortable in speaking honestly and directly and even disagreeing at points. Such free dialogue is rare. There was collective agreement that many conversation-killing questions or phrases needed to put to rest. When conversation turned towards how to disseminate information more broadly to me the answer seems obvious—write it down in a public forum, hence my posting these notes online. Only so many people attend Native art conferences and only so many people attend museum talks. To move the conservation forward, we need to record what we say and share it. Maybe only so many people have a genuine interest in issues surrounding Native American art, but these people can’t be at all places at all times, so we need written forums—online and in print.

Instead of trying to speak for Native American artists, we should let the artists and art writers share their ideas freely. We need more raw material from which to glean the shared undercurrents of thought. We need a record of our thoughts that can be reexamined years later. We need to record, interpret, contextualize, and disseminate the Native American thinking of our times. The necessary link in moving this dialogue forward is Indigenous art writers!

01 May 2013

First American Art Magazine Is Online!

First American Art Magazine, the new magazine dedicated to serious coverage of arts of Indigenous peoples of the Americas, North and South, is now available for free online at www.firstamericanartmagazine.com.

High quality, glossy print versions of the magazine are available online as well. This pilot issue profiles:
  • Orlando Dugi
    Diné beadwork artist and fashion designer
  • Anita Fields
    Osage-Muscogee Creek ceramic artist
  • Tom Jones Jr.
    Ho-Chunk photographer and conceptual artist
  • Erin Shaw
    Chickasaw–Choctaw painter and mixed media artist.
Feature articles include "More Than Just a Trend: Rethinking the 'Native' in Native Fashion," by Dr. Jessica R. Metcalfe (Turtle Mountain Chippewa); "Northern Lights: Greenlandic Art in the 21st Century," by America Meredith (Cherokee Nation), and "Something Imperialistic Happened on the Way to the Louvre: Delegation Amérindienne 2012, An Artist's Perspective," by Roy Boney Jr. (Cherokee Nation). Departments include book and art show reviews, a graphic design column by Neebinnaukzhik Southall (Rama First Nation Chippewa), literature by Dr. Reid Gómez (Navajo), art news, classified ads, memorial articles, and much more.

The First American Art Magazine website has calendar listings for upcoming Native American art events and calls for entries, grants, fellowships, and other opportunities.

24 April 2013

Terminology

Makah basketry-covered lightbulb, ca. 1900, Red cedar bark, bear
grass, commercial dyes, over a lightbulb, Seattle Art Museum
I would like to propose taking one term away from you and giving you another.

"Ethnographic art" is the one I'd like to remove. In art, context is everything; however, did the people who created the works of art that end up in ethnographic museums think of themselves as "ethnographic artists"? Absolutely not. This term smacks of internalized racism—that somehow our relatives that made the baskets, masks, fish traps, or house posts are "less" than artists that work in Western genres. We have our own genres of art; we don't need some 18th–century European to tell us what's important and what isn't.

The word I would like to share with you is "ᏚᏳᎪᏛ duyugotv." I asked Ryan Mackey about the concept of the "harmony ethnic," and he did imply that that anthropological term was inadequate. Superficially the word "ᏚᏳᎪᏛ duyugotv" means in English "justice" or "truth," but more specifically "equity with gentle correction." My father said "balance" is a mathematical concept and is inappropriate to express human relations; so "harmony" is more resonate for the complex relationship between art, individuals, and society. "ᏚᏳᎪᏛ duyugotv" conveys the more subtle nuances of a community working together.

Several times I've observed conversations about terminology for Indigenous art revolve around the inadequacies of English for expressing concepts near and dear to our hearts; however, once a term in a specific Indigenous language is proposed, the conversation stops. We're tribal people, so I understand that we feel uncomfortable crossing tribal boundaries. However, I think we can span these boundaries to grasp concepts that we can all relate to. The Diné term "Hózhǫ́" is absolutely a powerful, relevant concept that we all study. I would like to propose that the Kalaallisut term "Eqqumiitsuliorneq" is also very compelling. It means "art" but more specifically it means "to create something strange," which harnesses the power of the uncanny to throw us out of our usual mindset and reassess the world around us in a fresh new way.

Why should we only embrace the words of our colonizers? We have much to teach each other.

14 January 2013

Coming Soon: First American Art Magazine

Live paint at Standing Buffalo Gallery, Norman, OK
Exciting, vibrant art is being created by Indigenous peoples throughout the Americas. Native peoples are curating shows and writing new art books. More tribes are opening up their own cultural centers and museums. So how does someone keep up with these changing and developments in the Native American art world?

Introducing First American Art Magazine, a publication dedicated to covering the art of Indigenous peoples of the Americas—north and south. America Meredith (Cherokee Nation), a working artist, edits this magazine due of the clear need for critical, in-depth analysis of Indigenous American art, written in a way that is accessible to the general public—to both Native and non-Native communities.

FAAM will profile artists, both established and emerging. The magazine will feature art show and art book reviews by Indigenous writers. Features will cover current issues in Native artists, new discoveries in Indigenous art history, and profiles of Native arts communities—rural and urban. We’ll also showcase graphic arts, literature, news, and editorials.

Our introductory issue #0 will be published in the Spring in print and online. Issue #1 will come out this August. Our website, www.firstamericanartmagazine.com, is up and has a calendar of events and calls for entries. Our blog, at firstamericanart.blogspot.com will share news, opinions, and art profiles. Through print and the web, First American Art Magazine will connect different communities—bridging the gap between academia and the general public and Native and non-Native art worlds. We will provide a platform for honest, open dialogue and in-depth analysis. FAAM will discuss the human condition through the lens of Indigenous art.

30 September 2012

Cultivating Vocabulary: An Ongoing Process

Ah Tz'ib, a Mayan word referring to painters and writers
While it’s clear that we need new vocabulary to discuss Indigenous art; the effort to find new words seems to be stymied. One problem is, especially here in the southwest, there’s an incredible volume of writing about Native art, but it’s dominated by the language of marketing and hyperbole and seldom written by people with both a background in arts and Native cultures. 

The first obvious challenge is that much of the dialogue takes place in the English language, whose grammar is hardwired for antonyms, that is binary opposites, such as black/white, hot/cold, or right/wrong. In the language, these opposites seem clear cut and logical. However, in reality, couldn’t transparent be the opposite of black or morally relative between the opposite of both right and wrong? The pairing of concepts as binary opposites is rife with unspoken assumptions that steer the ensuing dialogue in a predetermined direction. That’s why I have tried in the past to write about the futility of any discussion positioning traditional in opposition to contemporary or craft against fine art. The racism at the core of these pairings is inexcusable—the notion that tribally specific art or art informed by tribal values is old fading away before the Western-sanctioned new or that artists using non-Western forms have no content or message to convey but are only repeating decorative utilitarian forms.

Traditional is not a bad word at all, but everyone has her or his own definition of it. As Scott Ennis (Cherokee Nation) once said, “Tradition is like cornbread; everyone has their own recipe, but it’s still cornbread.” Personally, I view traditional as being ceremonially involved in one’s tribe, speaking one’s language, reflecting and living one’s tribal worldview, which is all completely positive and something to aspire to. Locally, some Pueblo people see traditional art as following procedures and artistic prescribed collectively for a reason. Whether tradition describes what’s in a person’s heart or in techniques and aesthetics (or both), it’s a term grounded in an Indigenous community. If an artist is creating video art of their tribal members using their own language, wouldn’t that be traditional?

A place to reject the word traditional is how it is used in marketing transitional Native art forms. A great deal stays the same in the Native art world because vast quantities of money is invested in keeping things the same. Because certain art forms were marketed in a certain way in the early 20th century, other dealers want to keep artists in their ascribed categories. For instance, the notion that overlay silver working technique is Hopi. The overlay style was developed and promoted by Hopi artists such as Fred Kabotie and Paul Saufkie for veterans returning from World War II (Byrne et al. 191–192). The fact that people initially resisted Charles Loloma’s use of gold in jewelry boggles my mind, when Hopi jewelers only adopted silverwork in the late 19th century. That’s on par with Oscar Howe’s 1958 rejection from the Philbrook since he didn’t paint Flatstyle, which was developed in the 1910s to 1930s. That drive, usually by non-Natives, to freeze art in time should has nothing to with the Indigenous perspective of tradition and should be actively resisted.

From a modernist Western perspective, integration within one's community hasn’t necessarily been the ideal in art; individual self-expression has been celebrated—even fetishized in the romantic vision of a lone genius struggling in a studio. The primacy of community versus the individual could be a potential fault line between Native and non-Native art; however, I believe the best of post-modern Western art is in the process of evolving back toward the community in the arts. Especially since so many historical art stars have had innumerable people working with them to fabricate their art.

And historically, “innovation” has been celebrated in Western art over “tradition”, in the sense of recreating pre-existing forms or designs; however, it’s easy to argue that there’s nothing new under the sun and a great deal of “innovation” is just appropriation. Appropriation, or the reuse or reference of early artworks, is the earmark of the contemporary art world. An excellent example of this is the work of Sherrie Levine, who in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, photographed or recreated famous pieces of art, shifting their context. In 1982, Levin rephotographed the Great Depression-era social realist photographs of Walker Evans (Owens 114). How do the artworks change, now they are by a woman in the 1980s instead of a man in the 1930s? I would argue that there also incredibly potent conceptual possibilities behind a 2010s Odawa basket weaver weaving a black ash basket — how has the environment shifted, how do pesticides and invasive species come into play, what range of technologies are employed, how has societies’ perception of basketry shifted and changed, what actions is the basket weaver performing that have no English words but can be described in the Odawa language?

Appropriation with a complete disregard for the earlier work's cultural context or meaning would be misappropriation — or a banal or commercial use of sacred imagery. That could be another point of departure between Western and Native art since the brunt of Western art is forcefully secular.

“Derivative” doesn’t get used much in Native art but it should, since it implies a copying that doesn’t renew or add to meaning but rather produces a weaker copy, akin to cloning plants. An artist who copies but doesn’t acknowledge the source would be derivative, and an artist using symbols without understanding or at least striving to understand their meanings might also be described this way.

Obviously, these are just stray thoughts on an ongoing major discussion, but I have observed that discourse improves when more precise terms are substituted for worn out, catchall terms. What the hell is authenticity? Why not discuss honesty? Is an artwork traditional or is it historical, tribally specific, customary, or using non-Western media?


While it can be a challenge to make the leap from English to tribal languages, the wisdom is stored within the languages. I just learned an amazing word, Eqqumiitsuliorneq, which is the Greenland Inuit word for art and more literately translates to mean “odds products, something artificial” (Arke 5).  The Cherokee word for art, ᏗᏟᎶᏍᏙᏗ or ditlilosdodi, refers to making an imitation of reality. The Muscogee Creek word for art is nakvkakv and their word for artist is nakvjayv (Martin and Mauldin 193). A Minnesota Ojibwe word for artist is mazinibii’igewinini (Nichols and Nyholm 80). The Mayan word uj uxul literately means “he of the burnishing/scratching” and is also the title of the royal sculptor (Montgomery).


Not every tribe has a word for “art,” as we are so often informed, but related words are also potent. The Navajo word, hózhó, has had a widespread impact on art discussion. Extrapolating from Harry Walters’ definition, author Mary Lawlor writes, “The sense of beauty invoked in the term is clearly not synonymous with Western concepts that emphasize an exclusively visual appeal based on limited aesthetic criteria. Hózhó implies harmony as well as ethical and moral strength, which derived from a fluent relationship between the one who is hózhó and other beings in a social or spiritual environment” (Lawlor 68).

I’m extremely curious to hear other people’s “forbidden words” they would like stricken from Native art discourse and to hear more Indigenous words for art.

Lane stitch on Arapaho moccasin, 1880s
Addendum: An example of improving terminology is using the term "lane stitch" for the technique of sewing parallel lines of beadwork with single stitches at each end. This stitch was once known as "lazy squaw stitch," an utterly insulting term, then it became known as "lazy stitch." For anyone who's tried their hand at beadwork, there's nothing "lazy" about it. The current term, "lane stitch" is both neutral and actually describes the nature of the stitch.
  • Arke, Pia. “Act 5: Ethno-Aesthetics.” Re-Thinking Nordic Colonialism. 2006. Web.
  • Lawlor, Mary. Public Native America: Tribal Self-Representations in Museums, Powwows, and Casinos. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006. Web.
  • Martin, Jack B. and Margaret McKane Mauldin. A Dictionary of Creek/Muskogee. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004. Print.
  • Montgomery, John. “AJ u-xu-[lu]. Dictionary of Maya Hieroglyphs. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies.
  • Nichols, John D. and Earl Nyholm. A Concise Dictionary of Minnesota Ojibwe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995. Web.
  • Owens, Craig. Beyond Recognition: Representation, Power, and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Web.

09 July 2012

Heather Ahtone Reads Beneath the Surface

Parking Lot, Joe Feddersen (Colville), glass, 2003
In her 2009 essay, “Designed to Last,” Choctaw-Chickasaw artist, writer, and curator heather ahtone proposed a means of critiquing Indigenous American art based on Indigenous art theory. In her essay “Reading Beneath the Surface: Joe Feddersen’s Parking Lot,” presented at the College Art Association Conference and published earlier this year in Wicazo Sa Review, she puts her ideas into action by critiquing a sculpture by Joe Feddersen using Indigenous methodologies.

Her introduction lets us know exactly what's at stake. “Every time an Indigenous artist creates an object that reflects concepts rooted within her culture this same artists is perpetuating the culture one more day as an act of self-determination,” Ahtone writes at the opening of the essay. She continues, “While every effort of political and religious assault has been made historically to subdue these same cultures, their survival can be partially attributed to the continued production of visual and performance arts” (Ahtone 73).

Ahtone writes that Indigenous epistemology—“ways of knowing”—differs fundamentally from Western ways of knowing (74). While this is relatively obvious to most readers, she further points out that Indigenous learning is not “parallel or perpendicular” (74); that is, Indigenous knowledge is not the Other or opposite of Western knowledge. Indigenous knowledge is not universal but instead must be grounded in local tribal cultures and worldviews. To critique an artwork based on Indigenous values, Ahtone examines materiality, metaphor and symbolism, and cultural reciprocity (74).

Joe Feddersen, whose glass sculpture is critiqued here, is Okanagan and an enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington State. He earned his MFA at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and was a printmaker and basket weaver before moving into glass art. Using textures from Plateau textiles that symbolize aspects of the natural environment, Feddersen creates a dialogue about the shifting environment and the impact of human development in the Columbia Basin (Askren).

Collaborating with Tlingit artist Preston Singletary, Feddersen embarked on an Urban Indian series. In 2003, he created Parking Lot, a 14 inch tall blown and sandblasted glass sculpture. The translucent, milky-white surface carries the texture of …, which is overlaid with an olive green rim and structures of perpendicular black lines.

Ahtone sees the overall cylindrical form as being reminiscent of a “sally bag,” a flexible basket common throughout the Plateau region (76). The materiality of the piece juxtaposes the implied basket’s soft and pliable surface with the rigidity of glass. Navajo-Wasco artist and author Elizabeth Woody wrote, “Feddersen’s use of glass speaks of our human fragility” and of his choice of the color white, Woody writes “the shell of the basket with the ephemeral density of a cloud” (78).

Feddersen’s use of metaphor and symbolism is overt and deliberate. A metaphor directly substitutes on concept or object for another, while a symbol implies something else. The symbol might be a much more simplistic shorthand for the concept it references. The Plateau weaving designs that Feddersen has incorporating into his printmaking, weaving, and glasswork are extremely spare, abstract geometric designs, and yet they are symbolic and inspired by elements seen in daily life, such as snake tracks on the ground (Askren). The textured surface of Parking Lot has four repeating patterns of chevrons etched on its surface. Feddersen explains that the chevrons “are actually the designs for woman in Plateau culture, kind of like an hourglass design, kind of a winding vase” (79). He learned traditional symbolism from Okanagan weavers but an elder pointed out that the meanings of the widespread symbols change from community to communities (79). By using this symbol, Feddersen “invigorates it as a continued part of the cultural dialogue and… contemporizes the language in its usage” (79).

Vessels themselves are commonly allegories for women. In the Okanagan worldview, “woman is a living metaphor for the earth” (79). The art audience can automatically juxtapose this view with the European-American view of woman as earth, and therefore, ripe for domination. Dynamical tension is conjured between these two referenced worldviews. Okanagan oral history describes the earth “as a woman ‘who gives birth to life forms’” who was once a human being and is still alive (79-80). The etched basket surface suggested grass, which is seen as the hair of the living female earth (80).

Then the black lines on the vessel are diagrams for parking lots, invented in the late 1920s. Ahtone sees these as referencing contemporary migration patterns, which “form the basis of how most Americans relate to the earth—through a mediated system of transit routes…” (80).

Cultural reciprocity is the third lens in which Ahtone critiques Indigenous art and is “an act of gratitude by an artist for their culture heritage” (81). Feddersen is keenly aware of place-based culture, and he incorporates landmarks, or “vital signs,” such as electric lines and railroad tracks into his expression of evolving Okanagan culture (81). “By using the traditional signs,” Feddersen says, “we talk about what the meaning is and they become part of our visual vocabulary rather than something that is purely historical” (82).

Looking at the artwork from a strict formalist approach, that is, looking only at visual aesthetic qualities of the work—an approach espoused by mid-20th century art critics—would completely miss the content of a work such as Parking Lot. Feddersen deliberately uses contemporary imagery and symbols to bring his cultural traditions into the present. Ahtone’s critique brings the content forward in a manner that could be understood by Native and non-Native readers alike. Personally, I’m well acquainted with the mental wall that some non-Native art audiences reach when viewing Indigenous artwork. Facing the situation of having to understand the cultural contexts of hundreds of different tribes seems overwhelming to fully understand Native art; however, it’s not a matter of getting cultural background to then get the works’ content. The cultural background is much the works’ content, and further understanding the worldview enhances the audience’s understanding of being Human.
  • heather ahtone, “Reading Beneath the Surface: Joe Feddersen’s Parking Lot,” Wicazo Sa Review, 27, no. 1 (Spring 2012), 73–84.
  • Mique’l.Askren,  “Joe Feddersen,” IAIA Museum of Contemporary Native Arts: Vision Project. Web.

23 June 2012

Changing Hands CONNECTIONS: We Are Here, Monday, June 25th

Ironworker Cradleboard, Donald "Babe" Hemlock, maple, pine, ash, painter, fur, hide, instestines, 2011
Last in a series of cutting-edge contemporary Native art exhibitions, the newest Changing Hands exhibition will feature Eastern Woodlands art. The National Museum of the American Indian Heye center in New York City will host a series of lectures and discussions on Monday, June 25th. The event is free and open to the public.

 Changing Hands CONNECTIONS: We Are Here
Monday, June 25th: 11 AM–6 PM
This one-day program explores contemporary art from an indigenous perspective—aesthetics, ideas, contexts and contrasts—with leading artists, curators, and critical thinkers. Work by artists featured in We Are Here, Eiteljorg Contemporary Art Fellowship, and Changing Hands: Art Without Reservation, Part 3, the final exhibition in the groundbreaking series surveying cutting edge contemporary Native art, organized by the Museum of Arts and Design, will serve as the launching point for this continuing discourse.

CONNECTIONS: The Curators and the Artists, a Conversation
11 AM–12 noon
Diker Pavilion, Ground Floor
NMAI in New York
1 Bowling Green

Ellen Taubman, Curator, Changing Hands: Art Without Reservation (2002–present) Jennifer McNutt, Curator, Eiteljorg Fellowship for Contemporary Art (1999–present) Marie Watt, Artist and former Eiteljorg Fellow Barry Ace, Artist and Changing Hands participating artist

CONNECTIONS: Contemporary Native Art in Context, a Panel
3:30–6 PM
Theatre, Lower Level
Museum of Arts and Design
2 Columbus Circle

Artists: Jeffrey Gibson, Robert Houle, George Longfish, Kent Monkman, Sarah Sense, and Skawennati

Moderators: Kate Morris, Santa Clara University, Judith Rodenbeck, Sarah Lawrence College
Limited seating. Please RSVP by June 11th for both events at: ChangingHands3@madmuseum.org.
For more information, click here.

06 December 2011

Review | Manifestations: New Native Art Criticism, Part 2

Manifestations: New Native Art Criticism features four essays by Nancy Marie Mithlo, Stephen Fadden and Stephen Wall, Sherry Farrell Racette, and Mario A. Caro. These alone are worth the price of the book.

The First Wave… This Time Around

In “The First Wave… This Time Around,” Nancy Marie Mithlo discusses the Vision Project in terms of the current state of affairs in Native contemporary art. She sees mainstream art critics being impatient with Native artists’ insistence on referencing their tribal communities and histories, but “Indian people continue to insist on being Indian” (Mithlo 18). “Why,” she asks, “when it would be so much easier to simply seek out hybrid, transnational, post-Indian or some such trendy association, do we insist on claiming our identities as Native peoples?” (19).

Mithlo asks the compelling question, “Is there bad Indian art?” (21), but doesn’t answer it, instead pointing out that markets and artists institutions make qualitative evaluations of indigenous art, as does the “intellectual capital” an artwork earns, through art writing. Most of the writing about Native art comes from the non-scholarly, “light press” (21). That’s especially evident here in Santa Fe, where local newspapers and magazines repeat each other’s same factual errors. She writes, “non-intellectual sources are guiding the assessment of contemporary American Indian arts, and that this casual, cultural art-of-the-week variety of arts writing has exerted a harmful influence on the development of a more serious field of inquiry” (21). She concludes that “[t]he ability to represent ourselves as Native peoples—intact and collectively—is a human right, too frequently ignored” (27).

“Indigenous curatorial methodologies” Mithlo says are defined “by four criteria: it is long-term, reciprocal, mutually-meaningful, and includes mentorship” (24-5). To art critics that question the need for self-defined indigenous criteria, she writes, “A dismissal of the logic and strategies of Native nations (and their artists) to move forward with their own communities intact mirrors the logical colonialism” (25).

Invisible Forces of Change:
United States Indian Policy and American Indian Art

Steve Fadden and Stephen Wall, both professors in IAIA’s Indigenous Liberal Studies Department, co-wrote “Invisible Forces of Changes: United States Indian Policy and American Indian Art.” They share US Indian history 101 and put forward three examples of artists that exemplify major eras in Indian policy. David Cusick, a founder of the Iroquois Realist School, illustrates the Formative Era of 1776–1810 when tribes were relatively as strong as the fledgling United States (29-30). Angel DeCora, whose life and work is defined by Indian boarding schools, defined the Allotment Era of 1880-1932, when assimilation into European-American society was the government’s mission (32, 34). Allan Houser, the first Chiricahua Apache born outside of captivity since 1886, is part of the Indian Reorganization Era of the 1930s and 1940s. Houser directed benefited from the Indian New Deal reforms allowing tribal governance, education, and self-expression in the arts (34-35).

As destructive and capricious as US Indian policy has been, Fadden and Wall argue, it’s impossible to ignore its role in Native art history. They do not describe any of the three artist’s work. Is familiarity with Cusick and DeCora’s art a given for the general readership? It’s curious that they do not reference Rennard Strickland and Margaret Archuleta’s Shared Visions: Native American Painters and Sculptors in the Twentieth Century, which also traces the influence of US federal Indian policy on Native arts.

Encoded Knowledge: Memory and Object in Contemporary Native American Art

While pointing out the dangers of generalization about Native art, Sherry Farrell Racette puts forward some of the underpinnings of indigenous art theory, which takes a great deal of bravery. She does so in a lyrical manner, showing respect for the subject matter—cherished belief systems and values—which, in print, have most commonly been written in print in the cold, reductionist language of Western anthropologists. Racette quotes the Traditional Care Committee of NMAI: “Objects are alive and must be handled with respect” (Mithlo 41). Contemporary mainstream Western art tends towards the nonreligious, but for indigenous art, an animist reading is appropriate and should be explored further, because that quote is literately true.

“Oral traditions were never solely oral,” Racette writes (41), as many artworks are mnemonic devices with their own visual language. Through examples, she illustrates the need of living Native peoples to engage with Native art for meanings to be activated and realized. The challenges of writing about traditional knowledge is the vulnerability of sharing long held beliefs with the public and that, in my personal opinion, all Native artists and writers have a gate-keeping role—determining what is appropriate to share with the public and what is not.

Continuity is a guiding principle in comparing Native art throughout time. “New objects become the storied object,” Racette writes (43). The one aspect of Native art theory that seems most agreed upon is the narrative quality of the art.

In the section “To Make It Correctly” (43-45), Racette points out that process and materials can have meaning and significance beyond simply being a means to an end. Technique has been exalted in the Native art world; however, Racette writes that the attitude and energy of the process has its own importance (45).

Artists, such as Diego Romero and Nicholas Galanin, use “strategies of deconstruction and contradiction” to explore and disrupt colonial attitudes and racism (50). Because what is familiar to a Natives can be jarring and challenging to a non-Natives, artists have to be conscious of the multiple audiences for their work.

“Many objects are a form of visual literacy,” Racette concludes, “not only in terms of the symbols coded on their surface or the actions and gestures that provide their human context, but for the words, prayers, tears and fervent hopes that are spoken into them at the moment of their creation and over their lifetime” (52).

Owning the Image: Indigenous Arts since 1990

In his overview of developments in the last twenty years of Native arts, Mario A. Caro covers a lot of ground in a short space. He sees “a vibrant field with every-increasing participation by … Native practitioners involved in determining how Native art is contextualized” (56). He chose 1990 as a starting point, since that is when NAGPRA and the American Indian Arts and Crafts Act were both passed into legislation, rapidly followed by the 1992 Columbus quincentenary (57).

In the 1990s, identity politics figured largely in the mainstream art world, when James Luna participated in the Whitney Biennial and later collaborated with outspoken Latina/o artists Coco Fusco and Guillermo Gómez-Peña.

Art history and anthropology have guided Native art writing, often with damaging effects, leading to their reassessment. Caro sees Native Art History finally emerging as a coherent discipline, and “it is the entry of Native scholars into the field that advanced theoretical frameworks based on paradigms of thought originating from within their communities” (60). The exoticism, objectification, and general “Other-ing” of Native art are cut through by self-representation.

Jolene Rickard’s doctoral thesis states “that Native art is, and has always been, a form a knowledge production informed by Native perspectives” (60). This might seem obvious but it is anything but, especially in light of the abundance of narcissistic 20th-century writing by European-Americans suggesting Native art was created and controlled by European-American institutions for a European-American audience.

The increasing corpus of Native art writing is rich in exhibition catalogs and anthologies, but still lacking general art surveys and scholarly art criticism (61). What surveys exist do not begin to cover the last several decades of artist production. Monographs are slowly increasing in numbers. Writing about individual might go against the collectivist impulse of Native scholars but are opportunities for in-depth investigation and analysis often lacking in Native art writing.

Museums have been primary sources of information about Native art, and the increase of tribal museums founded on indigenous perspectives, as well as the establishment of NMAI in DC, has drastically changed the institutional landscape of the indigenous art world (63). NMAI and indigenous curators participating in major biennial art fairs creates an international presence for indigenous arts of the Americas (64). Museum collections have influenced the market value of art.

The gallery system is not as strong, and prominent contemporary Native art galleries are located away from major art centers such as New York or London. Indian art markets have increased dramatically in number; however, these compete against themselves.

A lack of support network and infrastructure hampers the growth of many indigenous artists; however, community-based non-profit centers have increased and provide some mentorship (66-7).

Thoughts

Perusing the footnotes, one can see the impact of the internet in fostering dialogue. Personal interviews and correspondence directly with the artists is common. One of the draws of Native art, for natives and non-natives, is that most of the artists are accessible and willing to communicate to the public.

While certainly valuable for a collective updating of contemporary art for the general readership, is Manifestations really art criticism? W. H. Auden (Anglo-American, 1907-1973) is quoted in A Short Guide to Writing About Art defining what functions a critic can provide:
  1. Introduce me to authors or works of which I was hitherto unaware.
  2. Convince me that I have undervalued an author or a work because I have not read them carefully enough.
  3. Show me relations between works of different ages and cultures which I could never have seen for myself because I do not know enough and never shall.
  4. Give a “reading” of a work which increases my understanding of it.
  5. Throw light upon the process of artistic “Making”
  6. Throw light upon the relation of art to life, to science, economics, ethics, religion, etc. (Barnet 8).
Seen in this light, Manifestations is a success. Evaluation is only one aspect of art criticism and not the most vital. Introducing and mapping the artists’ perspective backgrounds and philosophical perspectives as well as their cultural contexts is invaluable. The book lets the public know that the Native American art world is building firm ground on which to stand.

So far the book is only available through the MOCNA gift shop. Their website is "under construction," but their phone number is 1-888-922-4242. It's finally available on Amazon.com, at a good discount too.

05 December 2011

Review | Manifestations: New Native Art Criticism, Part 1

Manifestations: New Native Art Criticism, the culmination of three years’ work, is finally available. This book is part of the Institute of American Indian Arts’ “Vision Project,” an effort to showcase Native American art writers and new artists, through discussions, writing, and a series of solo exhibits at the Museum of Contemporary Arts (former IAIA Museum). The project involved 21 Native art writers and 60 artists.

What I witnessed of the process of the Vision Project was painful to watch, but, nonetheless, the results are inspiring. A committee chose the artists, selecting living artists, established, mid-career, and some emerging artists, who were active last three decades.

Only artists from Canada and United States, including Hawaii, were chosen. Why? Perhaps it’s an Anglophone bias, one certainly found in Canadian and United States academia but one that doesn’t conceptually hold any water. James Luna (Luiseño/Mexican), Mario Martinez (Yaqui), and Jennifer Vigil (Diné/Latina) represent the Americas south of the Rio Grande, and hopefully future projects of this nature will be hemispheric in scope, since innumerable cultural exchanges have taken place from South to North.

The writers were limited to only 500–word essays on each artist; somewhat hamstringing any attempt at in-depth analysis. On the plus side, given such a limited space, the writers chose their words carefully, resulting in beautifully written biographies of contemporary artists. Many of the artists are also writers and vice versa, so meeting and collaborating on this project will no doubt spark future collaborations. Magazine and book editors now have a showcase of talented Native art writers—with many more accomplished Native writers who were not part of this project. The Vision Project shows the world that Native art writers more than up to the task to write about Native art.

How does this differ from projects such as American Indian Art Magazine’s selection of 35 Native artists’ profiles for their 35th anniversary issue? In fact eight artists (Marcus Amerman, Arthur Ammiotte, David Bradley, Bob Haozous, Shelley Niro, Preston Singletary, Roxanne Swentzell, and Denise Wallace) were included in both projects. The immediately difference is that the magazine primarily chose non-Native authors.

Diane Pardue’s profile of Denise Wallace uses more marketing-inspired adjectives, “graceful,” “enchanting and engaging,” (AIA 73) and discusses technique in great detail, while Barry Ace goes more into the context of art in tribal society (Mithlo 186), but the profiles are astonishingly similar. Jennifer Vigil discusses Roxanne Swentzell’s art about women’s body issues (Mithlo 174-5) while Zena Pearlstone doesn’t even touch on the subject but does mention Swentzell’s work in permaculture (AIA 70). Both Mary Jan Lenz and Mique’l Icesis Askren describe Preston Singletary’s being raised away from his culture and his initial pursuit of music; however, Askren, the Manifestations author, looks at the irony of European techniques reconnecting Singletary with his people and that his glass sculptures take become kinetic, when illuminated by light. Ryan Rice touches on Shelley Niro’s “multi-nationality” but gives more straightforward resume information (awards, collections, degrees) than Zena Pearlstone does in her essay, which describes a range of Niro’s works (Mithlo 148-9, AIA 61). And so on it goes.

Trust me, I desperately want to see wide disparities between the two publications approached to art writing; however, the differences are subtle. Over time, the subtleties add up—aesthetics and techniques or content? Tribal ethnologies or contemporary tribal political realities? Some Manifestations art writers make a more dramatic departure. Overall the Vision Project's selection of artists lean towards the more conceptual, more difficult, and not always aesthetically pleasing artwork and there’s more space to discuss harsh realities. But as Nancy Mithlo points out, "the presence of contemporary Native art made from the broken legacy of America's attempt to destroy our communities is powerfully compelling, stark and well, I'll just say it, beautiful" (Mithlo 19).

In this project, women writers were able to analyze women artists and discuss women’s issues, which upon reflection, is not all that common. My personal observation has been that women artists are much better represented in the Native art world than in the mainstream art world; however, gender inequalities do exist. Of the 60 artists, 24 are women. 40% is a positive sign.

It so good to see the focus of Native art writing on content for a change. Thanks to Nancy Mithlo, Manifestations editor; Stephen Wall; Will Wilson, Vision Project manager; Sarah Sense, former Vision Project Director; and everyone else who made this project and publication possible. So far the book is only available through the MOCNA gift shop. Their website is "under construction," but their phone number is 1-888-922-4242.

20 July 2011

“Right to Difference”—Museo del Barro, Paraguay

Temporary exhibit, photo by Alessandra Celauro

Occasionally art writers voice a nostalgia for the 1950s, the height of the Modern Era, when artists belonged to discreet art movements, galleries and museums were finite, and art critics were major power brokers who articulated art theory and cleaved good from bad art. Today’s post-modern art world is bewildering in its diversity, accelerated by the global reach of the Internet. Theoretically, at least, artists from all backgrounds, genders, races, ages, and ethnicities can claim a piece of the post-modern art world.

So how to make sense of the tens—or hundreds—of thousands of artists active in the world, especially with no powerful art critics to arbitrate, and with the illusion of linear progression shattered? Major art fairs, usually biennials, are experiencing unprecedented growth. Museums and other institution operate as gatekeepers. Curators, art historians, and writers advocate for their chosen artists and art communities.

While artists might try to resist labels, auction houses, appraisers, museums, curators, and others label art to make sense of and to ascribe value to it. Borderlines are drawn. The mainstream art world remains staunchly hierarchical and Eurocentric. Even as anthropology and other human sciences try to overcome their historical Western biases and institutional racism, the mainstream art world lags behind. Non-Western artists are still labeled as “Ethnic.” “Tribal art” or “Indigenous art” is seen as being in opposition to “contemporary art,” as if tribes and Indigenous peoples live outside of the sphere of time — dwelling in the unchanging ethnographic present instead of participating in the 21st century. Even NMAI, theoretically our museum, labels its historic collections as "ethnographic."

Yet some few institutions reject Western art hierarchies and divisions. The Museo del Barro in Asunción, Paraguay, is such a place. In fact, in 1989, the United Nations recognized the museum for “as an institution organized around non-Western principles and subjects” (Legrás 188). Chilean art critic and curator Justo Pastor Mellado wrote about the museum for the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie, headquartered in Karlsruhe, Germany, and the ZKM later featured the museum as their "MoCA of the Month" (ZKM).

What’s so special about the Museo del Barro? It crosses those boundaries entrenched in the mainstream art world. In the words of Justo Pastor Mellado, an art critic and curator from Santiago, the Museo del Barro features “a collection where frontiers between Indigenous art, popular art and contemporary art had never been established” (Mellado 310) and this fluid approach to curating reflects an “expanded adaptability, without trauma” (Mellado 312). The Museo del Barro is a conscious effort to expose very different communities to each others’ art without comprising or disguising the artists’ personal visions or cultural backgrounds.

In truth, the Museo del Barro is several institutions combined in one and housed together in the capital city of Paraguay. Museo del Barro features pre-Columbian, historical, and contemporary Indigenous art, alongside contemporary ceramic art, and contemporary conceptual art. The art collections from various communities are represented in sufficiently large numbers as to avoid tokenism.

Paraguay

The Paraguayan government conducted a census of its Indigenous population in 2002 and concluded that only 1.7% of its population is Indigenous (CIA), which, with high birth rates, is estimated to be 100,000 people today. To qualify as being Indigenous in Latin American requires one to have little to no European blood, live in an Indigenous community, and/or speak one’s tribal language. Criteria are much stricter than in the United States. Meanwhile, a full 95% of the Paraguayan population is mestizo—that is, of mixed Indian and Spanish descent—though they typically don’t identify as being Indigenous (CIA). So 96.7% of the country has Native ancestry, and Guaraní, an Indigenous language, is the national language along with Spanish.

Paraguay, a landlocked country in the center of South America, was ruled by the dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner from 1954 to 1989 (Fraser). Under the dictatorship, opportunities for artists were limited, but Grupo Arte Nuevo, founded by artist Olga Binder in 1953 created modern art exhibits in the streets or shop windows of Asunción (Fraser). Paraguayan modern artists drew upon Indigenous art forms, such as petroglyphs, as inspiration for abstract art (Fraser). During the dictatorship, the painter, author, and architect Carlos Colombino challenged authority through coded messages in his art (Fraser). It was “artists, rather than writers, [who] played a leading role in the democratic consolidation after the Stroessner dictatorship" (Legrás 187). Mellado writes that, "Museums are the ideological cement from which nations are built" (Mellado 209), and in Paraguay’s case, this is absolutely true.

Founding the museum

The Museo del Barro came together from various grassroots efforts by artists and writers in the 1970s. In 1972, Olga Binder and Carlos Colombino created a circulating collection of 2-D art that they exhibited in various schools and public spaces. Their collection expanded to include sculpture and installations and needed a permanent home (ZKM). Meanwhile Colombino also collaborated with Ticio Escobar, anthropologist, art critic, and dealer, and Ysanne Gayet, a British activist on projects in the city of San Lorenzo.

display of masks, photo by Michele Molinari
Construction began in 1979 on a museum building, which was completed and open for exhibits in 1984 (ZKM). Carlos Colombino, Osvaldo Salerno, and Ysanna Gayet founded the Museo del Barro in 1980, with a collection of 800 ceramic works, including precontact Guaraní pottery. In 1987 the Centro de Artes Visuales was founded, joining the Museo del Barro. A tornado damaged the building in 1993, and the next two and half years were spent raising funds and rebuilding. In the reconstruction, the separated galleries were connected, and when the museum opened in 1995, new exhibits of Indigenous art, curated by Ticio Escobar, were on display (ZKM)

The museum remains active in the international art world. In 2007, Escobar and Mellado submitted "Complejo Museo del Barro/Obra institucional" [The Barro Museum Complex/Institutional Work] to the Bienal de Valencia, Spain. "Our purpose," writes Mellado, "was to demonstrate the existence of ethnical, formal, and political resistance, in a minoritarian curatorial practice" (Mellado 312).

Ticio Escobar

Ticio Escobar, Paraguay’s leading art critic (Fraser), has played a major role in the development of the museum. Author of Una Interpretación de las Artes Visuals en el Paraguay, Escobar is a curator, art writer, anthropologist, and lawyer, who has advocated for the rights of Paraguayan Indians, many of whom live in dire poverty without rights to their land or access to even clean drinking water, much less electricity, education, or healthcare.

Escobar has definite views about “the confused site of art criticism” (Escobar 2). “The art critic confronts the work of art and ventures a reading that, in the best of cases, does nothing more than incite other readings and suggest other possible points of entry,” he writes and then follows with a viable course of action for today’s art critic. “Faced with the urgent presence of the work of art, the critic erects his own reading: for such a task his point of view is necessary. He does not set out to decipher the work of art, to describe it objectively, or judge it; instead his gaze confronts it, intersects it, and seeks to shake it, frame it, and turn it into the focal point of other gazes” (Escobar 2).

The Ishir

Most interesting is Escobar's 2007 book, The Curse of Nemur: The Art, Myth, and Ritual of the Ishir, as well the journey that led to the book.

In 1983, Ticio Escobar and Osvaldo Salerno, director of the Museo del Barro, attended the São Paulo Art Biennial. Seeing the exhibition "Arte Plumária do Brasil" (Feathers Arts of Brazil) there inspired the two men to curate a similar exhibition showcasing Indigenous Paraguayan featherwork. For two years they collected the works that would form the Indigenous collection of the Museo del Barro. Besides the aesthetic and artistic concerns, the show was politically motivated. In Escobar’s words, they wanted to present “the Indigenous peoples not through what they lack (and they lack much, of course), but rather through what they make (which is among the best art produced in Paraguay) as a way to support their right to difference" (Escobar 262).

Over the next two years, the men collected featherwork from all 17 Paraguayan Indigenous ethnic groups except the Ishir, also known as the Chamacoco. The Ishir ceremonies for creating the feather regalia had been all but been wiped out by missionaries. However, one group of Ishir, the Tomáraho, had risked extinction by evading the missionaries and living in an abandoned sawmill in a remote forest (Escobar 6). They continued to hold the annual Debylyby ceremony, in which social pacts are renewed and the tribe collectively mourns (Mellado 312).

Justo Pastor Mellado cites the Debylyby ceremony as an inspiration for his curatorial theory, and he writes, “It is almost as if a myth from the Paraguayan jungle anticipated the theory of the appearance of the museum as a key institution in the construction of the Republic” (Mellado 313).

Featherwork in museum's collection, photo by Michele Moliari
The relationships the curators built with the Tomáraho band of Ishir included assisting them in moving to reserved Ishir territory at Puerto Esperanza (not without its own problems), where the Tomáraho retaught the Debylyby ceremony to members of the Ebytoso, another band of Ishar.

The years working with the Ishir are outlined in Escobar’s The Curse of Nemur, a book of art criticism informed by structuralism and post-structuralism (Escobar xvi). Escobar says that the spheres of “art, myth, and ceremony” can each be examined from the perspectives of “religion, shamantic magic, and history” as art is “the object of plurality of gazes” (Escobar 2). He examines corporal art — body painting and — in the context of Ishir cosmology and oral history and discusses Ishir color theory at great length.

This is huge. Instead of waiting for the Indigenous Paraguayans create art in Western media and exhibit in Western institutions, Escobar traveled to remote Ishir communities and devoted an entire volume of serious art criticism to customary Ishir art forms. Where does this happen in the United States? Our Indigenous art forms are usually dismissed in art circles as "old" or "ethnographic," as if our featherwork, beadwork, textiles, carvings, ceramics, etc. are made by the anthropologists, not the Indigenous artists.

Escobar writes “to underline the value of Indigenous culture and to present it not only as a site of dispossession and marginality but also as a place of creativity and ethnic self-affirmation…” This internationally known art critic devotes his energies to non-Western Ishir artforms because “Indigenous people are not only the most exploited and humiliated inhabitants of this country: they are also great artists and poets, creators of worldviews, inventors of alternative ways of feeling and thinking in this world (Escobar 4).

Ultimately, the museum secured five pieces of Ishir ceremonial regalia from the Debylyby, including feathered masks and textiles (ZKM), but more important are relationships forged.

Museo del Barro Collections and Mission

Currently, the museum has three main divisions, described as the “urban, peasant-popular, and Indigenous” (Legrás 188), which are respectively represented by the Contemporary Art Museum (MPAC), the Museo del Barro (Clay Museum), the Indigenous Art Museum (MAI). The current directors are Osvaldo Salerno (MdB), Lia Colombino (MAI), and Carlos Colombino (CAV) (ZKM).

MPAC focuses on contemporary Latin American and specifically Paraguayan visual art, but also includes Spanish art in its collections of more than 3,000 items (ZKM)

The Museo del Barro has a permanent collection of more than 4,000 art works, including ceremonial and festival masks, retablos, ceramics, woodcarving, works in gold and silver, and ñandutí, exquisite colonial silver and cotton lace dating from the 18th century (ZKM). The campesino art is showcased in a downtown Asunción gallery sponsored by a local bank (Legrás 188, 195).

The Museum of Indigenous Art’s collection now includes more than 2,000 artworks by all 17 Indigenous Paraguayan tribes (Legrás 195) and includes woodcarving, featherwork, beadwork, textiles, baskets, and masks, with 300 pre-Columbian ceramics (ZKM). According to the Paraguay Travel Guide, the precolonial Guaraní pottery is the most population attraction. Ramón Duarte (Guaraní) is an contemporary Native sculptor, whose zoomorphic cedar carvings form part of the collection (ZKM).

“The items were selected with the purpose of enhancing their expressive value and form quality over their ethnographic, historic and technical references, which are normally the only values to be considered by conventional museums and galleries” (ZKM). While much of the collection was gathered by anthropologists, Indigenous people have also donated directly to the museum (ZKM) — a positive step towards community self-representation in the absence of tribal museums.

Additional facets of the museum are the Visual Art Center (CAV) and the Center for Research and Documentation (CDI), devoted to “ the recovery and preservation of Indigenous and peasant art in Paraguay” (Legrás 188). These centers’ mission is “the gathering and diffusion of expressions of the rural and native cultures, always with the purpose of emphasizing the pluricultural nature of the country” (ZKM).

Besides producing exhibitions and publications, the museum hosts workshops, awards prizes, and provides educational opportunities. Mellado says the museum receives little financial support from the Paraguayan government, so it is funded by artists and the international community (Mellado 314). A museum shop for rural popular arts was funded by the Government of Canada from 1993 to 1996 (ZKM). Despite the international assistance, “models evolved by First World institutions are not necessarily replicated in places like Paraguay” (Mellado 314). Instead he is “conceiving of the museum as a house of contemporary myth” (314), one of many potential museums that could “serve as points of resistance as well as of collective memory and the recreation of national narratives” (32).

By dissolving boundaries between Native, non-Native, ancient, historical, and contemporary art, while remaining actively engaged in both rural communities and the international art world, the Museo del Barro exemplifies "institutional flexibility” (Mellado 312). Mellado writes that "in a residual world without frontiers in which Indigenous production is protected, a hybrid form escapes the control that any institution of cultural control could exert" (Mellado 312).

Works Cited
  • CIA. "Paraguay: Ethnic Groups." The World Factbook.
  • Escobar, Ticio. The Curse of Nemur: In Search of the Art, Myth, and Ritual of the Ishir. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 2007. 
  • Fraser, Valerie. "Paraguayan Art in the Twentieth Century." University of Essex Collection of Latin American Art.
  • Legrás, Horacio. Literature and Subjection: The Economy of Writing and Marginality in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2008. 
  • Mellado, Justo Pastor. “Memory in Chile and Paraguay: Two Arts Museum in Latin America.” Hans Belting and Andrea Buddensieg, eds. The Global Art World: Audiences, Markets, and Museums. Ostfildern, Germany: Hatje Catz Verlag, 2009.
  • Paraguay Travel Guide. "The Museo del Barro In Asuncion Paraguay."
  • ZKM. "MoCA of the Month: Centro de Artes Visuales/Museo del Barro. "Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie, Karlsruhe. 2011.
Additional Links
Images reprinted under a Create Commons license.