A small essay on the discomfort between art, colonialism and climate activism.

As an artist and an environmentalist, with an ongoing strong interest in indigenous rights (ever since I ventured to Australia as a naïve British teenager with a wad of cash from stacking shelves at M&S that I wanted to spend on beers at Bondi beach and bungee jumps – I quickly changed my outlook once I got there), I have always wondered how best to mesh these concerns and practices together to live a considerate lifestyle and to send a message using the one thing I feel at peace with and can’t stop doing – making art in my studio.

Initially, the first barrier is to question if I am being selfish in choosing to make art – does the world need more essentially pointless decoration and niche academia? I would initially say no, probably because my work isn’t particularly academic as much as it is emotive and fantastical. I find very niche academia (such as the concept of the object etc etc) interesting but in danger of being a little too removed from real life when there's so much rubbish to clear up!

But I’ve come round to an idea of thinking – yes: make what you like – if you can speak to just one person about something and be inclusive that way, then go for it. BUT there are three things we ought to look out for when placing ourselves in the art world (whether as an artist, curator, critic, educator…)

–      Don’t make people feel left out for not being ‘academic’ or ‘arty’ enough; who is anyone to say that someone is less creative and less interesting than anyone else?

–      Don’t waste physical or financial resources on making something that is really just in your own interest. i.e don’t fuel a segregated art and culture scene where only other learned people can engage. By all means create/engage in a locality surrounding your work, but don’t withhold resources from others in doing so.

–      And this is the MOST important…. Don’t forget how curated culture began. I’m kind of speaking to UK/USA/Australian first-worlders here) – It began as way to exoticise and preserve ‘prizes’ from the colonised world. That is how museums and galleries began. And museums and galleries are still assuming to speak on behalf of indigenous communities. It’s still a show. A colonial performance.

So – now that I have made known my issues with the way some people and institutions operate, I can relate this to the environment and indigenous rights.

We all know that much of public culture is sponsored by oil. For example, BP sponsors the British Museum, Total and Eni sponsor Le Louvre, and Shell, along with three major airlines are corporate partners with the BFI… to name just a few. Every large culture institution you can think of is pretty much sponsored by fossil fuels companies, banks that invest in fossil fuels, or companies linked with poor workers rights or unsustainable palm oil production (resulting in deforestation).

If you did not know that, read more here.

http://www.artnotoil.org.uk/institutions

All artists ought to know this by now (even if they don’t care) otherwise they can consider themselves disconnected with mainstream life, and borderline irrelevant to the future. If you are an artist you need to know how your potential career may be funded, and also the responsibility to which you must be held in your awareness of the dirty, oily, disrespectful ‘pinnacle’ of the art world. Art is a free world (theoretically) but its infrastructure and financial system is shady and imprisoned by climate change and a legacy of human rights abuse.

So I want to look at a few different things

- How creativity and meaning may be altered or undermined once a cultural institution is involved in its production or display.

- The danger of viewing art in the context of a gallery.

- A type of approach to racially inclusive art practices.

So…Firstly: ‘how creativity and meaning may be altered or undermined once a cultural institution is involved in its production or display’

The explorers of Colonialism brought us back many rare and interesting curiosities; ritual objects, traditional dress, foreign art. Imperial artists were commissioned to paint representations of foreign lands and wildlife. Public galleries and museums were opened to show everyone how clever the Empire was, how fast it was expanding. They showed the power of the Empire, and how rich it was becoming due to the expanding trade routes and the exotic products we were gaining access to. Money and power were so glorious! And that’s how it has stayed ever since. Power may have relocated to an academic and ‘knowledge’ based currency, but Imperial money is still what keeps these museums and galleries going. And Imperial money comes from Colonialism. Colonialism met the Industrial age and issued a brutal demand for natural resources such as coal, oil and gas. Colonialism bought about the slave trade, displacement of indigenous people, theft and destruction of their homelands and indeed their health and dignity, elimination of their religions and spirituality, and all for the sake of power and money. And the power and money is something we still possess and can’t surrender. Our empire is still very much alive, but it’s now a Coca-cola Empire, A Shell Empire, A Nestlé Empire…

So the very fact that culture is funded by dirty money changes the meaning and our ‘knowledge’ of both history and culture. It changes the meaning of creativity when viewed with this in mind. The sponsors don’t want certain things to get out about their past, and indeed their present. Culture, if you like, is a way to sneakily fulfil corporate social responsibility. And if you push that to the back of your mind, you’re frankly saying you’re ‘ok’ to the fact that slavery, theft and destruction allowed culture to flourish.

Secondly - the danger of viewing art in the context of a gallery 

Now we know the narrative of art and culture (exploitation = ‘knowledge’ = power and money) we can’t deny it.

If one goes to the Tate Britain and sees the Artist and Empire exhibition which is now on, one will come away sickened. There is no mention of the actual social functions and the nature of the transactions between the world of art and the British Empire. It is simply a collection of Colonial-era objects and art, mainly from Western Imperial artists as well! We all know about slavery and mining, but even this is barely touched upon let alone examined in relation to how and why we are able to stand in that very room looking at art.

The entire exhibition is a de-contextualised from modernity, and completely subverts the idea that culture = knowledge. They are hiding the facts that allow the exhibition to even take place! They are not giving you the knowledge you went there for.

Viewing art in any gallery, let alone one sponsored by oil (and therefore a gallery that watches its mouth in relation to its Colonial legacy) upholds a dangerous narrative just by the very fact that we are viewing the art in isolation. We’re not considering the social constructs and events that happened to allow the money for the art to be produced, or for the paint pigment to be discovered, or for the oil-derivative sculpture material to be made and distributed, or for the carved wood to be cut and shipped. Last night I saw a panel discussion at the British Library chaired by David A Bailey, who posed the question that the ‘white cube’ art space is out of touch. I agree – it cannot allow art to fulfil its potential for truth, empathy and mobilisation of the public.

My last point is about a type of approach to racially inclusive art practices.

Many of us are aware of our nation’s Colonial past, and are careful to admire rather than use the discoveries about foreign cultures. However, having already had my suspicions about, and felt inherent discomfort about indigenous creativity being separated from white creativity, I attended a talk on Colonialism, Art and Climate change. This took place last weekend at Climate Rising in Euston. My suspicions were confirmed by a panel of artists and activists of colour: Black and brown artists are employed and studied as a representation of trauma and exoticism, and not as a creative human force within their own rights. Coloured artists are curated by white gallerists, curators and critics. Coloured artists are commodified – Western guilt is alleviated and forward-thinking is assumed when coloured artists are publicised or included in shows. White supremacy is still rife, even in the avenues in which we think it is not.

This type of approach is symptomatic of how white supremacy gets in the way of true change.
Oh and as additional reading take a look at this review of a show in the Netherlands that is currently on and displays art by artists from various african countries:
http://www.artslant.com/ams/articles/show/45022

My parting statement shall be:

Colonialism needs to be at the forefront of the climate movement ALWAYS, because the former colony lands are the ones that have suffered the most as a result of climate change (hotter, drier, poorer, wetter etc), and if white people in power dive in again without consulting indigenous populations then were are all back where we started. Indigenous communities such as the aborigines are the ones who know how to live on their land, we do not know how to live on their land. We don’t know their social constructs. We cannot assume to know more about how to help their situation than they do. Total control of their future must be given back t o them, because it should never have been taken away.

However. Although I do care about indigenous rights and climate change affecting them worst of all, I can’t escape the fact that I come across as a guilty white Brit. I cannot claim to know something outside the scope of my own experience. I do however think I am a good person, and empathetic. So I can imagine, and gain unsaturated knowledge by looking to the right sources. But I can’t EVER claim to speak for indigenous people. I just have to try and alert people like me for whom life is easier, to the issues at hand for the planet and indigenous people.

But I do NOT want to be eliminated in my helpfulness because I am white.

I have the advantage of being able to speak on this end of the phone – to the more advantaged people. Everyone has the ability to help, just in different ways.

There’s the saying ‘don’t preach to the converted’: Often human rights and climate issues are only reaching the converted. My aim is to reach the people on the cusp of caring, people who can get on board once they see things a bit clearer. My aim is also to push for giving indigenous people back their platform for freedom of speech and autonomy, by appealing to the background I came from.

***

And here are a few details of some paintings I am working on to represent my 'film' in 'stills' - read back a post or two through my blog if you want to know more. It is a film that is 100% about indigenous rights and the environment and personal aspirations - and how those things often clash.

For extra background check out this amazing lady Suzanne Dhaliwal who I have seen speak twice in the last week, and is so succinct and modern and intelligent. 

Also check out Platform a great organisation that covers all the thinks I've just spoken about, as does SHAKE! who are totally my kind of creative caring people.

I know there aren't many pictures on these last few posts, but I'm really excited about the art i'm starting to make now and I want it to be surprise for my exhibition in June.