In class today we had to reflect on an article by Susan McCulloch. In the opening line of her preface she says; "The revitalisation of Australian Aboriginal Art has been one of the great success stories modern art."
From this statement we had to either agree or disagree with statement and what does it mean?
This is somewhat of a hard question to answer. I don't agree that Aboriginal Art has been revitalised at any moment in time. I agree that Aboriginal art is one of the great success stories for Australian art but to say that Aboriginal art has been revitalised to make Australian Art better, is not right. Maybe non-indigenous people have utilized Aboriginal art better ( i.e exploitation?)
This brings me onto another topic Aborginal art is now fuelling itself from what has become a large industry where indigenous communites and non-indigenous people benefit from. However, some would say that non indigenous people benefit more. In Richard Bell's article, Aboriginal Art "its a white thing" he states that Aboriginal art is purely made to benefit White demographic. Do Aborginal artists make art to tell their stories and reflect on dreamings? or do they make art to sell to non indigenous people so it will benefit their community.
This requires more investigation:
the link below is for Richard Bell's "It's a white thing" article: http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/great/art/bell.html
No comments:
Post a Comment