Dr. Stephen Fadden's quote: "Native American Indian art is about values; not valuables."
So, this might seem like it's heading in a different direction, but I'll start from here:
Ancient Native American art has a sort of magic, a kind of poetic history that speaks to us as the last sparks of ancient sacredness left in these objects and are passed on in the lives of contemporary indigenous people. Values embedded in indigenous art are created as silent messages, passing through the artist's mind and hands into the art; these are physical metaphors that are sacred to the artist and their culture. These are valuable illuminations to those who desire to understand Native American Indigenous culture and thus should not be dissolved into a seemingly meaningless modern version of worth, right? There is a dilemma in which I'm getting feedback from many fellow Native Americans, they think that non-native modern folk are to blame for the Native American Indian value in our art mutating into a "white culture" valuable...in other words, our art is only bought as an object and not for the sentiment within the art that pertains to the individual artist's cultural background. Perhaps we could use wampum to get a meal.
Who is to blame for the theoretical diminishing traditional and historic value of Native American Indian art?
Values vs Valuables, Today:
Could we not say: "f*#$ you collectors! We're going to do it the traditional way and keep our best art for ourselves in our ancestor's names."
But....our clairvoyant ancestors said something like this a while back: "I'm sorry for all those fuckers in the future I will later blame for not understanding my art. And I'm sorry I'm not satisfied that only the curious will know the meaning or the symbolism of my people's art and culture. I'll just behave like I was never taught to forgive or to create beauty in this world, and I will remain an angry hypocrite."
We are perhaps diluting our traditional values when we sell our values off as valuables (art for $). Adapting is key to survival, and selling our art is alright, we all need to eat, but we shouldn't be pointing fingers at who is to blame for our choices. After all, we are the new generation of indigenous artists living with incredible modern convenience that most of us know nothing about the origins and developments of. Most of us are lost in a confusing whorl of our past and present values, making the decision to strike down or to perpetuate our growing value in a world where cultures are dying.
We should not discriminate "non-natives" for their curiosity in us, our art....blaming non-native folk for the value depletion valuable increasing society. And what are we actually fighting for if we are not personally living up to our own ideal of the moral appreciator of art? We are baking the bread for the hungry. We are feeding the market.
New doctrines of values are forming in relation to indigenous art, ancient Native American values are being somewhat diluted in contemporary art, and we too often look beyond ourselves for the culprit.
Analyzing the relationship between the Native American and non-native "westernized" view of VALUE in Native American Indian art.
So, this might seem like it's heading in a different direction, but I'll start from here:
Ancient Native American art has a sort of magic, a kind of poetic history that speaks to us as the last sparks of ancient sacredness left in these objects and are passed on in the lives of contemporary indigenous people. Values embedded in indigenous art are created as silent messages, passing through the artist's mind and hands into the art; these are physical metaphors that are sacred to the artist and their culture. These are valuable illuminations to those who desire to understand Native American Indigenous culture and thus should not be dissolved into a seemingly meaningless modern version of worth, right? There is a dilemma in which I'm getting feedback from many fellow Native Americans, they think that non-native modern folk are to blame for the Native American Indian value in our art mutating into a "white culture" valuable...in other words, our art is only bought as an object and not for the sentiment within the art that pertains to the individual artist's cultural background. Perhaps we could use wampum to get a meal.
Who is to blame for the theoretical diminishing traditional and historic value of Native American Indian art?
Values vs Valuables, Today:
Many non-native westernized people who are collector's of Native American art desire to be educated about the traditional value in the Native American Indian art they are viewing, buying, or experiencing. They want to see a value beyond their "money's worth" in the art before them, differentiating the prejudice view that all or most non-natives just see indigenous art as an object without sentiment, as though these are objects created for the sole purpose of being in one's collection and gaining monetary value whilst collecting dust in trophy cases or walls void of holiness. Just mere ignorant and biased perspective coming from the "native" community, when after all, we live in the developed world with the same luxuries most people here have. We participate in these luxurious opportunities, for example, we purchase things without giving a shit what they mean to the inventor/creators of said object.
Now, if we say that all Native American art is sacred, then perhaps some contemporary native artists have adopted a new form of sacredness. I know it is traditional for people in the past to barter, but then would not the goods from the barter most likely be distributed among the whole tribe?
However goods traded in the past were used, the trades were most likely equal every time something was bartered. Then why is it that I can go to Indian Market and see a $60,000 statue, many statues and other objects in the same price range....where does the money go? Is there a communal pot of money that the whole tribe benefits from? That would be holding on to traditional value. Or...has indigenous art been westernized? There's certainly a market for it, (I'm not just talking about Indian Market, I'm talking about plain old collectors of art, anything). Do we discriminate who purchases our art? Do we make sure they understand the cultural sentiment behind each piece of art? Each stroke a prayer?
Or...do we want to make a quick buck? Do I make too much money off of my art if I make any at all? Have I lost my values if I do not give my money to my brother?
No, well, perhaps not, but I do see a change in every contemporary Native American culture living in the western world with western convenience. Is this so bad? As far as I'm concerned, I love my life and I don't think I want to live the rest of my life in a loin cloth in the jungle, which is what would be traditional. Maybe I can handle it for a week or so, but I kind of dig riding bikes, eating ice cream, and flying in planes (things not so traditional for the Aztec/Maya in the Yucatan) so I'm alright with there being a market for our art. I think value is subjective and we shouldn't be so mentally invested in what non-natives do with the art or consider too deeply how they think about it unless we suspect a positive reaction.
We are being westernized, modernized, changing our value/valuable ratios decade after decade. Maybe they'll just melt together into null. Our we turning our heads from the possibility that we are just racist...believing that everyone is out to get us because they do not come from the same background as us? Really, who's the racist? Maybe the stampede of ignorant haters we saw ahead or behind us is just our own reflection in the heat of the mirage. I say "our own" to generalize.
We have integrated ourselves nicely into a communal culture bearing the same base of barely hanging on to our cultures with words, and claims......slowly letting go of the tradition we have neglected to keep in tact. Alright, history is history. I want to breathe art, intertwine emotion into each piece, etcetera etcetera. I cannot expect anyone else to find the same sentimental value I find in my art. Sure, call it a valuable instead of understanding why one created it, I'm alright with this. My art's probably more culturally significant to being a young woman in the 2000's than it relates to my native background anyway. For most native artist there are personal values and such associated with our own art related to indigenous ancestry, or something else dear to them, just another example of subjective sentiment that also bleeds into the value/valuable argument. Art is personal, if one despises westernized views on art, then should they not do something to change your interactions within the modern world in relation to art? Don't drag the dead horse, it's too far into the future to carry such an old grudge, finding a reason to be angry when you should be painting or sculpting instead.
We have integrated ourselves nicely into a communal culture bearing the same base of barely hanging on to our cultures with words, and claims......slowly letting go of the tradition we have neglected to keep in tact. Alright, history is history. I want to breathe art, intertwine emotion into each piece, etcetera etcetera. I cannot expect anyone else to find the same sentimental value I find in my art. Sure, call it a valuable instead of understanding why one created it, I'm alright with this. My art's probably more culturally significant to being a young woman in the 2000's than it relates to my native background anyway. For most native artist there are personal values and such associated with our own art related to indigenous ancestry, or something else dear to them, just another example of subjective sentiment that also bleeds into the value/valuable argument. Art is personal, if one despises westernized views on art, then should they not do something to change your interactions within the modern world in relation to art? Don't drag the dead horse, it's too far into the future to carry such an old grudge, finding a reason to be angry when you should be painting or sculpting instead.
Could we not say: "f*#$ you collectors! We're going to do it the traditional way and keep our best art for ourselves in our ancestor's names."
But....our clairvoyant ancestors said something like this a while back: "I'm sorry for all those fuckers in the future I will later blame for not understanding my art. And I'm sorry I'm not satisfied that only the curious will know the meaning or the symbolism of my people's art and culture. I'll just behave like I was never taught to forgive or to create beauty in this world, and I will remain an angry hypocrite."
We are perhaps diluting our traditional values when we sell our values off as valuables (art for $). Adapting is key to survival, and selling our art is alright, we all need to eat, but we shouldn't be pointing fingers at who is to blame for our choices. After all, we are the new generation of indigenous artists living with incredible modern convenience that most of us know nothing about the origins and developments of. Most of us are lost in a confusing whorl of our past and present values, making the decision to strike down or to perpetuate our growing value in a world where cultures are dying.
We should not discriminate "non-natives" for their curiosity in us, our art....blaming non-native folk for the value depletion valuable increasing society. And what are we actually fighting for if we are not personally living up to our own ideal of the moral appreciator of art? We are baking the bread for the hungry. We are feeding the market.
New doctrines of values are forming in relation to indigenous art, ancient Native American values are being somewhat diluted in contemporary art, and we too often look beyond ourselves for the culprit.
No comments:
Post a Comment