[Baren} the mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking Baren Digest Sunday, 4 June 2000 Volume 11 : Number 1033 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gary Luedtke Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:36:14 -0400 Subject: [Baren 9916] Lasers, computers, appropriation, etc. Greg wrote, > This is because art is not fundamentally about methods, tools, materials >or techniques -- or even about certain themes or subject matter. Greg, I might alter your first sentence somewhat. While "art is not fundamentally about methods, tools..." to become an artist one must learn how to handle the medium in which you hope to express your artistic inspiration. That, like learning a language before you can express you r ideas in it, is essential. Once learned, however, it is then appropria te to open new doors, try new things, change directions, and generally add t o the scope of options available to you as an artist to express your ideas. That's not to say that someone may not whimsically or spontaneously open a new door without having learned the background first. That happens too. But it is generally others who have, who can recognize the potential there. It seems "artists" fall into two classes. Those who just do what expresses their creative urge, and others who emulate their way into art. These last are the ones who must have rules to follow. The first type o f artist has become successful in his own right, the follower, trying to emulate that successs, tries the analyze the qualities of the first, and sets up rules which if followed, may lead to the same success. The greater part of Baren posts seem to deal with this aspect, learning the rules. I don't think great artists "break" the rules, they just don't pay attention to them, because they are not trying to emulate someone else's work, they are trying to express their own. This is not to degrade those people that emulate their way into art. One person started Impressionism, for example, and look at the others who followed and created their own masterpieces within the confines of that style. Someone started Ukiyo-e, and look at the others who followed and the epic qualities of some of their work. Somebody started Rock and Roll , and look where others took it to. Someone opens a new door, and others step through it to open further new vistas. Nothing wrong there. There comes a time when old styles and traditions will be abandoned in pursuit of something new. When it's a style or tradition we are fond of , we of course don't want to see that happen. But all things are temporar y, all things change away, and it's inevitable. It's sad to see the old go , but it can also be invigorating to see the new come. As artists, we ar e actually the promoters of that change. We look to express something different, in our own way, and that gradually shifts art away from whatev er it was before. Maybe the way to look at it is that something done can be archived, and adding something new to that, expands the scope of our archives. Archives are our history, and to look back over that history can be very rewarding and instructional. So, press on! Gary ------------------------------ From: "john ryrie" Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:22:47 +1000 Subject: [Baren 9917] appropriation I just wanted to say something about the subject of appropriation as it applies to Australian Aboriginal imagery. When you use an Aboriginal image you are not stealing so much from the culture as from an individual person. In this culture a dreaming is past down to an individual. (This is a very simplified explanation of a very complex spiritual tradition) but a dreaming is a story relating to that individuals relation-ship to their society, the land they belong to, a part of the creation story.....etc. It is the responsibility of that individual to preserve that story though dance, song storytelling, ceremony and visual images. Appropriating such imagery is unacceptable not only for non native Australians but to all but that custodian. There are also images that can not be seen by uninitiated members of a tribe. T There are images that come from sacred men's business, which can't be seen by women and images from sacred women's business that can't be seen by men. There are also paintings that contain magic imagery that can only be viewed by shaman. Copyright as it applies to Aboriginal art has been an ongoing debate hear in the courts over the past few decades and as a resolute it has got better copy-right protection for all artists in Australia. P.S. Q: Why do African Elephants have big ears? A: Because Noddy wouldn't pay the ransom. John Melbourne Australia http://wwwigeocities,com/laddertree jryrie@one.net.au ------------------------------ From: Catherine Hockings & Gerald Soworka Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:36:10 +1000 Subject: [Baren 9918] Re: appropriation > Dave wrote: > > Can one 'steal' a cultural tradition though? In the case of something > physical like the _land_ itself, of course this point is most valid - You are right. you can't "steal" a visual image, but you can effectively steal it's meaning or divorce it from the meaning that is important to the culture it comes from. This is what happens when the image moves into the field of the more dominant culture. Also now when aboriginal things are fashionable the culture and iconography are sometimes the only things of value that small, dispossessed groups have to exploit and you said you acknowledge such things as intellectual property rights e.g. copyright. (For the record I don't feel that artists shouldn't necessarily appropriate anything, but they should be aware of and sympathetic to the consequences of their actions. Along with the privileges of our positions go the responsibilities.) PS Sorry about all the HTML code last time folks! Gerald ------------------------------ From: "Horacio" Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:37:02 -0300 Subject: [Baren 9919] Re: Starving artists and appropriation Phipip worte: >Horacio,....To imitate is the highest form of praise,..... >And you know I haven't heard anyone say the name Bill Haley,...for Yes Philip I agree, Bill Haley and his Comets playing Rock Around the Clock and Elvis singing Hound Dog, Blue Swede Shoes, Heartbreak Hotel etc were some of the favorite songs of my youth.. In fact, my post was a joke, I don't mean Vincent apropriate Hiroshige and Stones, Muddy Waters. What I want to say is that I consider this discussion about what art is, appropriation, editionig, if digital prints are or not fine arts (Barbara Patera digital paintings and drawings are sensational), the deathly sin of using a laser or any other modern tool ( I admire and respect Dimitris work) etc, a delightful waste of time. Thanks. Hor E1cio Rio / Brazil www.analisevital.com.br/xilograv.htm horacio@centroin.com.br ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:03:42 -0700 Subject: [Baren 9920] Re: Lasers, computers, appropriation, etc. Kampala, 3 June 2000 wrote..... >Great artists seem to break the rules regarding methods, >tools, materials and techniques not because true artists are particularly I would take this one step further..... Great artists break the rules in order to redefine the rules. and create a work that is unique and work that is a risk. Graham/Victoria BC An Island in the Pacific ------------------------------ From: Jack Reisland Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 23:46:32 -1000 Subject: [Baren 9921] Re: appropriation john ryrie wrote: > When you use an Aboriginal image you are not stealing so much from the > culture as from an individual person... It is often similar in Native American imagery. The images on a Totem pole, such as Graham mentioned, are owned by the family, who's history and ancestry the images spell out. In many cases, certain objects or images in Native American iconography are related to individual visions, and are owned by individuals, or families, or clans, and cannot be used by other members of the tribe. There is often very strong proscriptions against the misuse of images within the tribe, so it is even more of a transgression for it to be misused outside of the tribe. I think that perhaps some of the transcultural misunderstanding stems from differing views of images. To our culture, images are used everywhere, in advertising, entertainment, etc., and are pretty freely appropriated. In many other cultures, images can still be considered sacred, to hold power in themselves. It is important to realize that this is not power of the image as a representation of something, but that a certain image itself can be regarded as a prayer, or a talisman, if you will, that can have power over events and lives. That's power in Art!, which I'm afraid we in the "advanced" world may never recapture. It requires an understanding between the artist and his audience, that we discarded some time ago. Jack Aiea, Hawaii ------------------------------ End of Baren Digest V11 #1033 *****************************