![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
joexnzComments Please - haven't handed it in yet, so you feedback may be used!!
though not expecting any
Explore the different ways in which pos-colonial artists have reworked ideas and images from the colonial period. Include in your answer close reference to specific works by three of the following
Gavin jantjes
Yinka Shonibare
Sonia Boyce
Gani Odutokun
Rasheed Araeen
Introduction
Post-colonial theory asks the question of ‘what is the place of non-western arts in the canon?’.
The canon of great art and artists is a western concept. It begins with the greeks, was resurrected by the Renaissance and carries on to the present day. The art and culture listed in it is by white males in Europe and Northern America. This definition of the canon is a single strand narrative, automatically excluding art by women, non-westerners and in certain forms of media. So the answer to the question is ‘there is no place for non-western arts in the canon’.
The dialogue could end here, but someone always feels the urge to ask the next question ‘why?’. There were a certain set of ideas and assumptions used by the west when studying the art of the non-west during the colonial period. By asking the question ‘why?’ these ideas become clearer.
Difference
At the most basic level the colonial period idea was that non-western was different from western and therefore inferior. Difference was a value judgement. By saying something is different, you are defining what it is in relation to yourself. This is not asking the something what it is or how it sees itself. You’re defining it by the ideas of your culture and not by the ideas of the culture it belongs to. Imperialism used this definition as away of defining themselves as superior. As superiors they could enforce their political, legal and commercial interests on to those who were inferior.
Power – centre and periphery.
The introduction of the superior and correct political, legal and cultural systems to countries outside of Europe meant that the source of power was Europe. The power structure ignored local forms of systems and placed Europe at the centre. Power flowed one way, from the centre to the periphery. Cultural ideas came from Europe into the colonies. For the centre to be influenced by the periphery was to be inspired, to enrich. For the periphery to be influenced by the centre was to copy, to dilute.
Other
When you define a difference, ‘you are not like me in these ways’. You construct the ‘Other’, with yourself as the ‘one’. Binary oppositions made up much of the colonial world, civilised/uncivilised, progressive/decadent, advanced/primitive. The other/one construct allows all these oppositions to be constructed into a cultural identity. The other being decadent, primitive, inferior and stagnating. Whilst the one is civilised, advanced, progressive and superior, by being these things you have the moral authority to speak for the other, as they are clearly not able to do so themselves.
During the colonial period these ideas were implicit in the imperial system that allowed Europe to feel it had the right to control other peoples. Post colonial examination has highlighted these ideas. Further discussion has the ideas have come down the individual level, we are all different from each other, we are all our own One. Therefore the centre/periphery power structure has broken down as we all our own centres and everyone else’s periphery.
This has allowed theorists and artists to re-examine the past and reach other conclusions. Conclusions in which the role of western ideas being used to explain non western cultures is questioned and explored. The ideas defined above are acknowledged as inaccurate as they do not allow for equality amongst different cultures and the reality of cross cultural exchange. Post-colonial theory introduces other ideas that more accurately reflect cultural interaction.
Hybridity.
By defining a culture as other, and ours as one we have to explore this other culture to see where they are different. The transmission of power from centre to periphery opens conduits through which there is a backwash from the periphery. No culture is uninfluenced by this process, elements are passed between them. The terms used to describe this process are discussed in the definition of centre/periphery. The outcome is that a hybrid culture is formed, an overlap of culture a meeting place which is neither one culture or the other. It is a combination of both and dependent on both
Syncretic
Whilst the text book, defines these concepts as the same thing. I define them separately, for me there is a difference between the changes made upon meeting and the creation of a whole new culture. Syncretic is the ‘gathering together from different sources of similar elements or concepts to create new systems or concepts’ . For me a syncretic culture is one that is independent of the cultures which formed it, having its own identity and creating its own history.
To return to the question of why there is no place for non-western arts in the canon. The ideas used in colonial theory have been highlighted and there consequences in defining the canon being explored. Most nations to a greater or lesser extent have achieved independence from their colonizers. Does the canon now include non-western artists?. In keeping with the multiplicity of difference that post colonial theory generates, there is a multitude of answers to this question. In the text book both Rasheed Araeen and Gavin Jantjes speak of moving to Europe and being expected to produce African not modern art. Within the old colonial centre there is still a framework of ideas designed to keep the power in the centre and difference is still a division. In what was the colonial periphery there is a different response, here both hybrid and syncretic frameworks are emerging.
Whilst post colonial theorists write verbose and dense texts to explain who they are and were they stand in the world. Artists generate a visual record that requires the audience to stand in relation to them, in front of this work our interpretation is our own, not defined by words.
Yinka Shonibare
Untitled, 1977, p15, Views of Difference
How does a girl like you, get to be a girl like you
Gavin Jantjes
Untitled, 1989, p18, Views of Difference
Rasheed Araeen
Sculpture Number Two, Plate 168 (p239), Views of Difference
The Golden Verses, 1990, Plate 183, (p251), Views of Difference.
</ lj-cut>
though not expecting any
Explore the different ways in which pos-colonial artists have reworked ideas and images from the colonial period. Include in your answer close reference to specific works by three of the following
Gavin jantjes
Yinka Shonibare
Sonia Boyce
Gani Odutokun
Rasheed Araeen
Introduction
Post-colonial theory asks the question of ‘what is the place of non-western arts in the canon?’.
The canon of great art and artists is a western concept. It begins with the greeks, was resurrected by the Renaissance and carries on to the present day. The art and culture listed in it is by white males in Europe and Northern America. This definition of the canon is a single strand narrative, automatically excluding art by women, non-westerners and in certain forms of media. So the answer to the question is ‘there is no place for non-western arts in the canon’.
The dialogue could end here, but someone always feels the urge to ask the next question ‘why?’. There were a certain set of ideas and assumptions used by the west when studying the art of the non-west during the colonial period. By asking the question ‘why?’ these ideas become clearer.
Difference
At the most basic level the colonial period idea was that non-western was different from western and therefore inferior. Difference was a value judgement. By saying something is different, you are defining what it is in relation to yourself. This is not asking the something what it is or how it sees itself. You’re defining it by the ideas of your culture and not by the ideas of the culture it belongs to. Imperialism used this definition as away of defining themselves as superior. As superiors they could enforce their political, legal and commercial interests on to those who were inferior.
Power – centre and periphery.
The introduction of the superior and correct political, legal and cultural systems to countries outside of Europe meant that the source of power was Europe. The power structure ignored local forms of systems and placed Europe at the centre. Power flowed one way, from the centre to the periphery. Cultural ideas came from Europe into the colonies. For the centre to be influenced by the periphery was to be inspired, to enrich. For the periphery to be influenced by the centre was to copy, to dilute.
Other
When you define a difference, ‘you are not like me in these ways’. You construct the ‘Other’, with yourself as the ‘one’. Binary oppositions made up much of the colonial world, civilised/uncivilised, progressive/decadent, advanced/primitive. The other/one construct allows all these oppositions to be constructed into a cultural identity. The other being decadent, primitive, inferior and stagnating. Whilst the one is civilised, advanced, progressive and superior, by being these things you have the moral authority to speak for the other, as they are clearly not able to do so themselves.
During the colonial period these ideas were implicit in the imperial system that allowed Europe to feel it had the right to control other peoples. Post colonial examination has highlighted these ideas. Further discussion has the ideas have come down the individual level, we are all different from each other, we are all our own One. Therefore the centre/periphery power structure has broken down as we all our own centres and everyone else’s periphery.
This has allowed theorists and artists to re-examine the past and reach other conclusions. Conclusions in which the role of western ideas being used to explain non western cultures is questioned and explored. The ideas defined above are acknowledged as inaccurate as they do not allow for equality amongst different cultures and the reality of cross cultural exchange. Post-colonial theory introduces other ideas that more accurately reflect cultural interaction.
Hybridity.
By defining a culture as other, and ours as one we have to explore this other culture to see where they are different. The transmission of power from centre to periphery opens conduits through which there is a backwash from the periphery. No culture is uninfluenced by this process, elements are passed between them. The terms used to describe this process are discussed in the definition of centre/periphery. The outcome is that a hybrid culture is formed, an overlap of culture a meeting place which is neither one culture or the other. It is a combination of both and dependent on both
Syncretic
Whilst the text book, defines these concepts as the same thing. I define them separately, for me there is a difference between the changes made upon meeting and the creation of a whole new culture. Syncretic is the ‘gathering together from different sources of similar elements or concepts to create new systems or concepts’ . For me a syncretic culture is one that is independent of the cultures which formed it, having its own identity and creating its own history.
To return to the question of why there is no place for non-western arts in the canon. The ideas used in colonial theory have been highlighted and there consequences in defining the canon being explored. Most nations to a greater or lesser extent have achieved independence from their colonizers. Does the canon now include non-western artists?. In keeping with the multiplicity of difference that post colonial theory generates, there is a multitude of answers to this question. In the text book both Rasheed Araeen and Gavin Jantjes speak of moving to Europe and being expected to produce African not modern art. Within the old colonial centre there is still a framework of ideas designed to keep the power in the centre and difference is still a division. In what was the colonial periphery there is a different response, here both hybrid and syncretic frameworks are emerging.
Whilst post colonial theorists write verbose and dense texts to explain who they are and were they stand in the world. Artists generate a visual record that requires the audience to stand in relation to them, in front of this work our interpretation is our own, not defined by words.
Yinka Shonibare
Untitled, 1977, p15, Views of Difference
How does a girl like you, get to be a girl like you
Gavin Jantjes
Untitled, 1989, p18, Views of Difference
Rasheed Araeen
Sculpture Number Two, Plate 168 (p239), Views of Difference
The Golden Verses, 1990, Plate 183, (p251), Views of Difference.
</ lj-cut>
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 03:12 am (UTC)I agree
Date: 2004-08-15 02:29 pm (UTC)The canon in this case has already been defined (the course is trying to point out a number of ways reading its construction and why alternative canons are being created) and is very much the four turtles (Michelanglo etc) onwards as displayed in the National Gallery.