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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that as you said ‘a quintessential example of indigenous artifacts displayed as artworks‘ was the Te Maori exhibition, which traveled to New York in 1984. Even though the artifacts of this exhibition were treated and accompanies by Maori leaders which insured that the works were kept to Maaori protocol by being blessed it seems that the artifacts would of been quite out of place. They would have lacked their connection to Papatuuaanuku and Rangi, which are essential to the stories and culture of Maaori people. This exhibition shows the fetishism the west has with other parts of the world, and the dominance these countries feel they have, which is shown by the artifacts in their museums. Your example of Te Maaori is a good local one.
ReplyDelete