|
Why is the Customer Right?
Miranda Belarde-Lewis
Printer-friendly version
*(As an employee of the National Museum of
the American Indian (NMAI) I have been exposed to a different viewpoint
regarding certain subjects below. It should not be assumed at any
time that the following discussion is the position of the NMAI.
The thoughts and opinions are my own and should be regarded as such.
That being noted, it is my hope that the reader will formulate further
opinions, discussion and research, as this subject certainly warrants
all of the above.)
The artist does not control the art market; patrons
with money control and drive the market. This simple statement is
true for the art market in general. So why then, does the Native
art market deserve special attention?
The Native art market is the subject here because
art is a tangible, visible and physical means of sustaining a culture
and its values. Natives have proven to be some of the most elastic
and adaptable of people. Our cultural adaptability in the face of
drastic change  stems
from the continuing practices of our ceremonies, lifeways and art.
Imbedded within our artistic works are symbols and iconography that
represent our unique individual communities, as well as imagery
that resonates with other indigenous communities such as rain, land,
water, animals and spirits. The process of creating Native art is
also influenced by Native cosmologies, world view, and life philosophies.
Native art contains oral traditions, represented in a visual format.
Native artists are influenced by major movements
and mainstream trends in art as much as they are influenced by the
traditional designs created by our predecessors. However, the market
is not usually as receptive to Native artists creating non-traditionally
styled Native art. When I refer to ''art,'' I am referring to the
contemporary creations of Native artisans; when I refer to ''the
market,'' I am referring to the patrons with money. These patrons
can take the form of collectors, dealers and traders, and they have
considerable power in deciding what representations of Native art
will be viewed by a larger audience, based on sales and potential
sales. What artists and styles will be promoted with their gallery
space and museum exhibitions is determined by a larger aesthetic,
influenced by mainstream trends and sales potential.
Below, I will briefly explore some of the reasons
why the relationship between Native artists and the patrons of Native
art is more unbalanced than the ordinary artist/patron relationship.
I will also examine the implications of the word ''art'' and how
it has recently (in the last 30-40 years) been confused with ''artifact''
and how museums are helping to contribute to that confusion. Finally,
I will illustrate how some patrons of Native art and artifacts have
achieved some measure of balance and reciprocity with the communities
they've spent decades (and millions) studying and collecting from,
and how they might serve as a model for others.
On Sensitive Ground
A codependency has been building since relations
were first established between the colonizers and the Natives of
the Americas. Regalia, ceremonial and utilitarian objects of Native
workmanship were traded for food, metal products, cloth and beads,
and Natives eagerly traded for the new technologies. The thirst
for Native material culture was established early; Victorian notions
of ''the Noble Savage'' and the need to preserve the artifacts of
a vanishing race helped fuel the salvage archeological expeditions
into Indian Country in an attempt to document the endangered Native
cultures. Many of these items now comprise the collections of both
museums and individuals. It is these historic works that are helping
to recreate older designs and regalia, yet these same pieces help
to influence the stereotypes we fight even to this day. We deal
with these stereotypes on many different levels, one of which is
the definition of Native art.
If it holds true that the majority of artists
create pieces that are invoked and inspired by their surroundings,
personal experience and world view, then the art produced by Native
artists is more likely to reflect the values, stories, lifeways
and iconography of their Native communities and life experiences.
Thus, the market surrounding contemporary Native artisans is especially
assailable for several reasons.
The first reason is blood quantum. Being able
to prove Native descendancy in the United States and First Nations
Status in Canada is a major issue for both Natives and non-Natives.
Artists lacking the proper ''Indian documents'' do not enjoy the
same attention and favoritism shown to Natives who can prove indigenous
family origins. Being acutely aware of the issues of authenticity
generated by blood quantum leads to a hypersensitivity in ensuring
that Natives are in fact Native. Blood quantum is a false security
measure in determining if someone, and subsequently their art, is
Indian enough. Stereotypes of what ''good Indian art'' is are a
direct result of notions such as blood quantum and subsequently
affect the sales of nontraditional pieces of Native art.
The second reason is percentages. According to
the 2000 Census, approximately two million American Indian/Alaska
Natives live in the United States. If we account for only 2% of
the population, then the impact of our successes and failures is
proportionately greater than any other racial group in the U.S.
The failure of a Native artist choosing to share their culture through
their art affects the entire home community. We come from ''at-risk''
communities; elevated levels of addiction, illness and poverty are
a part of our daily lives. One reason our communities are at risk
is because our internal means for economic sustainability have not
yet been developed in a manner that would support all of our tribal
members who choose to live and work in the town in which they were
born. The machine of capitalism dictates that a disenfranchised
community is ripe for outside sources to assert capital strength
and creative direction, as the community cannot look to itself for
financial strength. These outside sources come in the form of traders
and dealers, only two of the many forms the patrons of art can take.
The third reason the Native art market is vulnerable
is misinterpretation. Although an exotic and fascinating subculture
in the new world since European contact was made in the late 1400's,
the material culture of the host populations were considered rudimentary,
unsophisticated and simple—reflections of the childlike peoples
who made them. While interesting as novelties, our creations were
viewed as only that. In recent decades, these novelties have come
close to meaning as much–monetarily–to collectors as
they do–spiritually and culturally– to the people who
made them.
|
