Shelly Errington interestingly distinguishes between "art by intention" and "art by appropriation". It's understand that the definition of "art" is wide, varied and mostly subjective. Yet in our current societies there are clearly museums, galleries, auction houses that label art with certain classifications and value. When we consider primitive societies, free from Western influences, what context would they have had to create objects for art by intention. Having not considered all the filters that Errington poses, I know feel somewhat duped.
Considering how some basic logistical issues, such as portability and durability, contributed to the selection of artifacts to be highlighted as "art" makes total practical sense. Yet, I now consider the objects contrived or censored in some way -- I am now doubtful about their originality. The idea that dealers felt it within their purview to strip or omit components of an artifact for ease or durability makes you wonder what other choices were made in manipulating objects. Is the manipulation only at the level of the objects or does that extend to the context? Errington questions the terms being used in artifact descriptions to provide a back story. She suggests that words such as "ceremonial" "sacrificial" an "ritual" were applied to artifact labels to add a transcendental element, so as not to confuse the "art" with more of a "craft". I interpret her to suggest this language was used by docents, collectors and others as more of a strategy than authentic verification. Yet another example of manipulation, this time in the words or terms relevant to primitive art.
I'm left feeling like the Primitive Art collections on display are more fabricated than I had ever previously considered. The lure of providing objects as a commodity seems to have played a heavy hand in what we know today as Primitive Art.
No comments:
Post a Comment