(Interesting comments on African art): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/African_Arts/message/4719
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > One problem has been to lump all the cultures of Africa together and call > them > African. There are so many different cultures and so may different uses of > objects -- sometimes quite similar objects share no functions across the > cultures -- lie masks. Some ritual objects are/were not religious either > but > served varied purposes. Oddly, except for tourist sculpture, little of the > so-called art of African cultures is/was called art or otherwise > distinguished > from everydayness except being well made. The Western fascination for > "African" > art began in museums where it was displayed as art. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 9:32:14 PM > Subject: Re: "...The impulse to use one's own culture to interpret the > customs > of others...our need for fixed points of reference." > > Ever hear of doing research - rather than being empirical or pragmatic - > for > instance we have this thing called african art because we neither wanted to > acknowledge that the things we had confiscated were religious objects and > because they were exotic should be viewed aesthetically - this did hundreds > of > years of damage to our understanding of continental africa's various > cultures, > while allowing us to envision the peoples of that continent as being > primitive > and therefore incapable of ruling themselves or being left to their > determination > > > On 12/5/10 10:17 PM, "Michael Brady" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The MSNBC story was utterly inane, and it reeked of a high-tone version of > "Just look at what those artists are doing" credulity while nonetheless > countenancing it withal. > > The premise of the excerpt given in the subject line is ludicrous, or > should > I > say, the implication of the excerpt is ludicrous, namely, that one should > NOT > interpret the customs of others from one's own culture. Well, pray tell, > how > else is one to even apprehend the artifacts of another culture but only by > starting from one's own understanding of things? And why the condescension > of > "our need for fixed points of reference"? > > Everything --- every thing --- that we encounter undergoes our > interpretation > in our own terms, and this begins with the first other we meet, namely, > you, > the other person, the not-me person. Every other person is radically > not-me. > Many many people conduct their interactions with each other and with me by > use > of American cultural artifacts, so that their habits are familiar. Other > people conduct their affairs by using other cultural artifacts. Eventually, > these artifacts and practices are sufficiently different that one finds it > necessary to correlate them to known, familiar experiences so as to get an > idea of how these practices fit into the lives of others. That's the > interpreting that the article refers to, and the familiar things that we > correlate the strange things with are the fixed points that the article > seems > to denigrate. > > FWIW, any collection of items removed from their everyday circumstances > confers on them the dual status of "strange" (by being selected and > isolated) > and "knowable" (by being chaperoned, as it were, in the collection). They > are > zoos, these collections of things. We have art zoos and science zoos, air > and > space zoos and history zoos, and we also have wild animal museums and > aquatic > museums of living specimens. Don't we have to interpret them? and don't we > gladly fulfill our "need for fixed points of reference" when we look at > animals that come from Australia or Polynesia? > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > > > > --
