According to James Clifford’s definition of culture as that which is ‘elevated, sensitive, and precious –most uncommon – in society’(1), New Zealand can boast a truly rich and diverse cultural heritage. Levi Strauss’ observations of New York as an anthropological chronotope(2), pale in light of Aotearoa as a cultural Petri dish.
New Zealand art and artifacts literally embody the discourse illustrated in Clifford’s diagram, The Art-Culture System, Machine for Making Authenticity(3). The cross-fertilization of ethnographic objects into the ‘elevated’ status of Fine Arts objects is frequently seen in the exhibition of cultural artifacts in Art Gallery Environments.
The quintessential example of indigenous artifacts displayed as artworks was seen in the highly controversial exhibition Te Maori, which traveled from New Zealand to New York in 1984(4). The organizers of Te Maori ensured extremely thorough and rigorous observations of Maori protocol surrounding the objects was maintained throughout the duration of the exhibition. Maori representatives were consulted regarding the presentation of objects. A significant Maori presence accompanied the exhibition to New York ensuring traditional Maori blessings and ceremonies were observed for the opening of the exhibition. The exhibition recognized the richness of a cultural legacy, which, in this instance, was willingly shared by Maori tangata whenua.
New Zealand society represents an increasing amalgamation of cultures. Cultural diversity has become generic. Subsequently, having a creative practice in Aotearoa is essentially unfettered by cultural constraint. Essentially a creative practitioner in New Zealand can present art from any cultural lineage provided a nominal percentage of applicable blood, or a significant ‘other’ of some description (be it partner, spouse or friend) is traceable to verify investigations and commentary with some authority.
At the risk of sounding overly utopian, art practices within New Zealand are becoming increasingly culturally diverse. There is a sense of permission among practitioners to express cultural particularities freely and largely without contestation, take for example works by renowned artists such as Michael Parakowhai, Reuben Paterson, Yuk kin Tan and Shane Cotton. Each artist works within a cultural affiliation albeit implicit or explicit. Perhaps inevitably New Zealand art is to be the catalyst for the cultural acceptance and recognition sought and desired by the likes of Tze Ming Mok (5).
1 - James Clifford, “On Collecting Art and Culture”, in The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1988, pp. 215-251. P 234.
2 - Ibid P 241.
3 - Ibid P 224.
4 - http://www.aucklandartgallery.govt.nz/exhibitions/0706temaorianniversary.asp. 26/05/09
5 - Tze Ming Mok, "Race You There", Landfall 208, Dunedin: Otago University Press, 2004, pp. 18-26.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Reading 4: What does it mean to have a creative practice here in Aotearoa New Zealand?
Site specificity is the essential alliance between an art object and the specific site in which it is placed or performed. To borrow Meyer’s term, literal site encompasses an artwork that by its nature is dependent upon the site in which it is situated. An archetypal example of a literal site-specific work is Richard Serra Tilted Arc, located in Federation Square, New York. Serra explains, “the specificity of site-oriented works mean they are conceived for, dependent upon, and inseparable from their location”[1]. In comparison functional site-specific works are not dependent on a physical place to inform their meaning. A functional site is an ephemeral, transitional space it is not fixed but transient.
In his essay Theatre Country, Geoff Park recalls the progressive objectification of landscape culminating in its recognition as an autonomous painting genre. Through the invention of the Claude Glass and later the camera, the surveyor of landscape was empowered to minimize and contain a personalized image of nature. Pre-eminent literary scholars such as the poet Thomas Gray championed the re-contextualization of nature into image. Gray once wrote of the view witnessed through his Claude Glass, “I saw in my glass, a picture that if I could transmit it to you, and fix it in all the softness of its living colours, would fairly sell for one thousand pounds,”[2] thus the commodification of landscape as genre began.
The Claude Glass simultaneously reduced the uncontainable image of immense landscape into a quantifiable, consummerable whole. Government, politics and tourism all contributed to the commercialization of land as a vista to be owned. Images of a place encountered proved the presence of the spectator, which in turn attested to the actual experience of a particular scene. In its broadest sense the genre of landscape painting relates most directly to the precepts of site-specificity. Landscape painting could theoretically be linked to literal site-specificity given its specific relationship to the site depicted. Conversely landscape painting is not contingent on its placement within a particular environment to be understood. In this sense it is more closely aligned with the categorization of functional site-specificity.
Notions of site-specificity in relation to landscape are particularly prevalent in New Zealand art. The population to land ratio in New Zealand, combined with the particularly exotic landscape, presupposes a strong affiliation between New Zealanders and their surrounding environment. The relationship between people and place is expressed by artists in various guises, often references made to land and culture are shamelessly explicit and thus deemed National.
Issues surrounding National identity within New Zealand art are often highly contentious. Creative New Zealand, the governmental funding agency for the Arts in Aotearoa New Zealand, has strict guidelines underpinning it Strategic Priorities to aid in ascertaining National identity within various artistic genres [3]. However, in an increasingly globalized world, the nature of a ‘National identity’ is becoming more ambiguous. Subsequently the categorization of (often ephemeral) art practices as ‘National’ becomes exceedingly problematic. A highly controversial example of the inherent dilemma of National identity in art provoked national outrage when The Fundamental Practice, an installation by Et Al was presented at the Venice Biennale in 2005 [4].
Arguably Et Al’s installation was not accessible, nor understood by the majority public of New Zealand. Ironically the project was largely funded by taxpayer money enabling New Zealand presence at a highly esteemed international art event. Much of the furor generated by Et Al provoked issues pertaining to the definition of National identity. How was a multi-media installation indicative of native New Zealand?
Does an artwork have to incorporate a recognizable component of place or culture to be considered National? Take Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst for example, both have attained superstar status within the art world, yet even the supposedly art illiterate public could place Warhol as American and Hirst as British. Likewise excellence in sporting achievements often positions a sporting hero within a national context. The identity of a nation is contingent on the quality of its representation. A poorly rendered image of a Tui in a Pohutakawa tree is no more national than the exquisite surface treatment of a Stephen Bambury icon. Surely national identity should be assessed according to the superiority of the work produced rather than the country it reflects.
1 - James Meyer, “The Functional Site; or, The Transformation of Site-Specificity,” in Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art, ed. Erika Suderberg, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000, 23-37. P 24.
2 - Geoff Park “Theatre Country”, in Theatre Country: Essays on Landscape and Whenua, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2006, pp. 113-127. P 116.
3 - Refer to Creative New Zealand Strategic Plan: http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/WhatWeDo/StrategicPlan/tabid/4771/language/en-NZ/Default.aspx. 6/05/09
4 - Refer to Et Al Venice Biennale: http://www.e-flux.com/shows/view/1673. 6/05/09
In his essay Theatre Country, Geoff Park recalls the progressive objectification of landscape culminating in its recognition as an autonomous painting genre. Through the invention of the Claude Glass and later the camera, the surveyor of landscape was empowered to minimize and contain a personalized image of nature. Pre-eminent literary scholars such as the poet Thomas Gray championed the re-contextualization of nature into image. Gray once wrote of the view witnessed through his Claude Glass, “I saw in my glass, a picture that if I could transmit it to you, and fix it in all the softness of its living colours, would fairly sell for one thousand pounds,”[2] thus the commodification of landscape as genre began.
The Claude Glass simultaneously reduced the uncontainable image of immense landscape into a quantifiable, consummerable whole. Government, politics and tourism all contributed to the commercialization of land as a vista to be owned. Images of a place encountered proved the presence of the spectator, which in turn attested to the actual experience of a particular scene. In its broadest sense the genre of landscape painting relates most directly to the precepts of site-specificity. Landscape painting could theoretically be linked to literal site-specificity given its specific relationship to the site depicted. Conversely landscape painting is not contingent on its placement within a particular environment to be understood. In this sense it is more closely aligned with the categorization of functional site-specificity.
Notions of site-specificity in relation to landscape are particularly prevalent in New Zealand art. The population to land ratio in New Zealand, combined with the particularly exotic landscape, presupposes a strong affiliation between New Zealanders and their surrounding environment. The relationship between people and place is expressed by artists in various guises, often references made to land and culture are shamelessly explicit and thus deemed National.
Issues surrounding National identity within New Zealand art are often highly contentious. Creative New Zealand, the governmental funding agency for the Arts in Aotearoa New Zealand, has strict guidelines underpinning it Strategic Priorities to aid in ascertaining National identity within various artistic genres [3]. However, in an increasingly globalized world, the nature of a ‘National identity’ is becoming more ambiguous. Subsequently the categorization of (often ephemeral) art practices as ‘National’ becomes exceedingly problematic. A highly controversial example of the inherent dilemma of National identity in art provoked national outrage when The Fundamental Practice, an installation by Et Al was presented at the Venice Biennale in 2005 [4].
Arguably Et Al’s installation was not accessible, nor understood by the majority public of New Zealand. Ironically the project was largely funded by taxpayer money enabling New Zealand presence at a highly esteemed international art event. Much of the furor generated by Et Al provoked issues pertaining to the definition of National identity. How was a multi-media installation indicative of native New Zealand?
Does an artwork have to incorporate a recognizable component of place or culture to be considered National? Take Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst for example, both have attained superstar status within the art world, yet even the supposedly art illiterate public could place Warhol as American and Hirst as British. Likewise excellence in sporting achievements often positions a sporting hero within a national context. The identity of a nation is contingent on the quality of its representation. A poorly rendered image of a Tui in a Pohutakawa tree is no more national than the exquisite surface treatment of a Stephen Bambury icon. Surely national identity should be assessed according to the superiority of the work produced rather than the country it reflects.
1 - James Meyer, “The Functional Site; or, The Transformation of Site-Specificity,” in Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art, ed. Erika Suderberg, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000, 23-37. P 24.
2 - Geoff Park “Theatre Country”, in Theatre Country: Essays on Landscape and Whenua, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2006, pp. 113-127. P 116.
3 - Refer to Creative New Zealand Strategic Plan: http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/WhatWeDo/StrategicPlan/tabid/4771/language/en-NZ/Default.aspx. 6/05/09
4 - Refer to Et Al Venice Biennale: http://www.e-flux.com/shows/view/1673. 6/05/09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)