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.
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.
