Errington

Errington’s article is very interesting because it really points out and categorizes what to me is perceived about “art.” This is difficult to see because I am from a Western culture where these criteria is understood and then learned. After reading this, it makes me realize our preconceived notions about what art “is” and “isn’t” are built subconsciously within us to some extent. This is true even of the public, for when you enter a museum containing “art,” everything in this space is framed and displayed, adding to the preciousness of it. These things often do fall into the “five fine arts” categories: painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and dance—the first two being the most popular and “precious” forms of high art, if such a thing exists.

What saddens me, no matter how idealistic or romantic, is that pieces from other cultures have to fit a certain criteria for it to be collected and displayed. Primitive art needs to fit into our western notion of what art is in order for it be considered art. Masks were accepted and collected because they were 3D objects that could be displayed, like that of European sculpture.

The requirement for it is to be portable and durable, and therefore consumable as a commodity by collectors and museums is also slightly disturbing. These objects were considered to be primitive art as long as they were authentic, i.e. used in a ritual or in a ceremony, built by hand, and used in everyday life. It had to qualify as art by appropriation, which are pieces that are deemed as “art” by museums, not as art by intention, which are pieces that are made to be framed, displayed, and collected. After being deemed authentic, the pieces need to be portable in order for it to be sold, collected, and displayed.

These pieces, after meeting these two requirements, have to then be made of durable materials. If they are made of all soft materials, which in turn deteriorate and do not last over time, do become considered art at all and are not really even considered. Those made of both soft and hard materials are considered art after the soft materials have been removed. This process sometimes makes the pieces lose their meaning, especially those used in ritual, and become something else entirely to us. They are therefore not really representing this culture accurately to outside audiences, like the western museum-goers.

What really is disturbing me most though is that behind all this, and more broadly Western culture, especially the United States, is the need for it to be consumable and for it to have value. This need for it to be authentically used in that culture not for art’s sake is preposterous in some sense. The criteria that have been created makes sense in a consumer-driven society, like many in Western culture, but yet completely nonsensical. For us to only be able to deem these pieces, essentially “low art” in western views, art worthy of being displayed in Western museums, high art, is back-handed racism. This art is in authentic when consumed in this manner, it is not to appreciate the other culture and often its meaning is compromised when “becoming art.” That’s why the business of making art by intention to pass off as art by appropriation in Africa like that of what we saw in the film we watched last class has evolved. They have played by our rules in a sense to make money. Now the question is who really has the power in controlling and deeming what is art? The collectors and museum curators or those from primitive culture?