What Counts as “Indian Art?”
by Guest Contributor Gwen, originally published at Sociological Images
In the opening essay to the book Shared Visions: Native American Painters and Sculptors in the Twentieth Century, Rennard Strickland and Margaret Archuleta write,
J.J. Brody in his classic study, Indian Painters & White Patrons, identified the colonial nature of a patronage system that narrowly defined and dictated what was “Indian art”…It seems almost as if definitionally…that paintings by Indians can be considered only in a primitive, aboriginal context. (p. 9)
They discuss Oscar Howe:
…[he was] thwarted in developing new directions in painting and striving to break away from the old stereotypes limiting Indian art…one of Howe’s Cubist style paintings was rejected from the 1959 Indian Artists Annual because it was “non-Indian” and embodied a “non-traditional Indian style.” (p. 9)
Strickland and Archuleta quote a letter from Howe to a friend:
“There is much more to Indian Art, than pretty, stylized pictures…Are we to be held back forever with one phase of Indian painting…?” (p. 10)
One of Howe’s Cubist paintings:
What Strickland, Archuleta, and Howe (as well as other contributors to Shared Visions) are discussing is the pressure American Indian artists have often faced to create a certain type of art. This pressure may come from other Indians or from non-Indians. Non-Indians have often had significant power over Indian artists because of their role as benefactors (providing money for artists to attend The Studio at the Santa Fe Indian School, for instance) and because non-Indians are the majority of buyers of art created by American Indian artists. And benefactors and art collectors often have a certain idea of what “Indian art” is, which includes assumptions about both themes and styles. Specifically, they want “traditional” images that depict Native Americans in a pre-modern world, often including images of animals.
I couldn’t help but think of that book when I recently picked up a tourist-oriented guide to Taos, New Mexico. Some images from advertisements for local galleries:
Now, don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying there is anything necessarily wrong with any of these particular art pieces (or with “traditional” type Indian art more broadly). I’m also not claiming these particular artists feel their artistic expression is limited by preconceived notions of what counts as “Indian art.”
What struck me was just the homogeneity of the images found in the guide (I lost the front cover somewhere along the way so I don’t know the name of it), which seemed to more or less fit the mold of the stereotypical idea of “Indian art.” It brings up the question: what is Indian art? Is it any art made by an American Indian? Or does it only count if it fits in with non-Indians’ preferences for what Indian art should look like? What if a White person, say, masters the “traditional” style–is it Indian art then? Over the years a number of American Indian artists have created art to intentionally challenge the idea of the romanticized 19th-century Indian as well as what Indian art can be. For instance, Fritz Scholder painted “Indian Wrapped in Flag” in 1976, in an attempt to deconstruct images of Native Americans (p. 16 of Shared Visions):
Apparently both Indians and non-Indians picketed some of Scholder’s shows in protest.
Similarly, T.C. Cannon painted “Osage with Van Gogh” (I’ve also seen it titled “Collector #5″; from around 1980), which reverses our idea of who collects or appreciates which type of art by showing a Native American collecting a European artist’s work:
“When Coyote Leaves the Reservation (a portrait of the artist as a young Coyote)”, by Harry Fonseca (1980):
(All images other than the ones from the travel guide found here.)
So are those pieces Indian art? Does it count as “Indian art” only if it contains specific styles and themes? In which case, does it remain a sub-genre of art–part of “ethnic” art, as opposed to the neutral, non-marked mainstream art world? Are Indians who paint or sculpt or play music in ways that don’t fit the existing idea of Indian art not “authentic” Indian artists? If we accept that premise, “Indian art” is, as Howe said, “held back forever,” with themes and styles frozen in time and artists discouraged from experimenting or innovating in their work, as Howe learned so clearly. This tendency is apparent in other elements of U.S. culture, of course: movies like “Dances with Wolves,” books about “noble savages,” and conflicts over what types of technologies American Indians can use when spear fishing (with non-Indians arguing Indians should only be able to use the methods that their tribes used in the 1800s) all indicate a wider perception that “authentic” Indians should inhabit a time-warp universe in which their cultures and lifestyles have remained basically unchanged since the late 1800s or early 1900s, a requirement we don’t ask of other groups.
For more evidence that Indians are represented, and expected to represent themselves, anachronistically, see this post.
UPDATE: Commenter Camilla points out a documentary that asks similar questions about “African” art:
Christopher B. Steiner produced a fantastic anthropological documentary about the market for “African” art that addressed many of these same issues. It’s called “In and Out of Africa”…It explores the issue of how ideas such as “authenticity” and “tradition” are socially constructed phenomena. It also questions why particular types of “ethnic” art are successful in Western markets, while others are not.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
sandeep wrote:
is it useful to classify art by race? i can’t really see it.
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 10:09 am ¶
spice wrote:
I went to the National Art Gallery in Ottawa, Ontario a few years ago, and had a very strange experience. I took the tour, and when we got to the Native Canadian section, I was surprised that the oldest art work was from the 1800’s. I had expected that since there were Native Canadians here long before that, the gallery would have some representation of the artwork they created before colonizers completely took over. So I asked the docent, and was informed “The Native Canadians did not create art work until the Europeans gave them materials” (almost his exact words). I was so shocked, I didn’t know how to respond – I knew he was wrong, but don’t know enough about art or Native Canadian history to counter something like that unexpectedly. I’m sad to say that I didn’t get the docent’s name or talk to the Gallery about it… I guess the point of this story is just to say that there’s still a lot of misinformation out there.
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 10:34 am ¶
Yonah wrote:
I don’t have a deep comment – just want to say that “Coyote Leaves the Reservation” is so powerful. Wow.
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 10:51 am ¶
Matt wrote:
Many ideologies and implementations of multiculturalism rely on fossilized and essentialist notions of the multiple cultures to be accommodated. I wonder if there aren’t also leftovers of the liberal bigotries directed at Native Americans (boarding schools to “civilize” or appreciation of the “noble savage”) at work, but this seems emblematic of the failures of multiculturalism.
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 11:23 am ¶
Luis wrote:
What’s funny about these “traditional” ethnic styles of painting is that they were invented in the last 100 years. They’re purely products of the modern era, and are no more or less authentically Indian than anything else created by by an Native American/Canadian artist.
Unsurprisingly, there is similar tension among Latino/Latin American artists selling in the United States and Europe, though there is much more freedom in this case.
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 1:26 pm ¶
bulaklak wrote:
James Luna is a fantastic Native American artist who addresses many of these issues in his work (most pointedly in his performance piece “The Last Indian” which is about the performance of race, among other things).
http://www.jamesluna.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Luna
Kade L. Twist is a Native American artist working innovatively in new media to critique the effects of colonization and displacement.
http://nativelabs.com/
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 1:41 pm ¶
Coco wrote:
sandeep – I would ask you to define your terms. What do you mean by “useful” and who is doing the “classifying”? Many contemporary artists make work utilising their culture’s creative traditions both in themes and methods. In this way it’s important to acknowledge the artist’s cultural heritage as a part of their process and output, not to mention that many Aboriginal artists deal with issues of heritage and race in their work. I don’t really know how we talk about art dealing with race and racism without “classifying it by race”.
Similarly, the point was raised in this post that an artist from a different culture could potentially employ the artisitic methods of what is traditionally Native (or any other) art. I think it’s extremely important to in those cases to acknowledge the distinction, particularly as we tread into appropriative territory.
Just for everyone’s viewing pleasure, these are a few of my favourite Aboriginal artists:
Brian Jungen
http://www.catrionajeffries.com/b_b_jungen_works.html
Terrance Houle
http://www.nativenetworks.si.edu/Eng/rose/houle_t.htm
Jude Norris
http://www.bruntmag.com/issue3/jude-norris.html
Adrian Stimson
http://www.canadianart.ca/art/features/2007/06/01/buffalo_boy/
Lori Blondeau
http://www.arts.usask.ca/art/faculty/pages/l_blondeau.html
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 4:05 pm ¶
jeff wrote:
The cubist painting is brilliant. I can see how it is not “traditional” indian art. It is cubist art which happens to have been done by an indian who happened to choose an indian theme.
although I agree with sandeep. Its not really useful to classify non traditional arts by race. The cubist painting is brilliant and would be equally brilliant no matter who had created it.
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 4:45 pm ¶
Jenny wrote:
I think it’s important to look at an artist’s cultural background to see how it informs the piece, but we can’t let tradition stifle creativity. It’s ridiculous to assert that traditional painting styles are the only way for non-whites to explore their cultural background. We certainly don’t insist that all Italians paint like Renaissance artists.
In general, I think art should be classified as “Indian” (or African or Jewish or Chinese or whatever) art only if it specifically references aspects of Indian culture, background, or experience. All of my work is not “feminist” art, nor is it all “Jewish” art, even though I’m both a woman and a Jew.
On that note, the thing that struck me about all of these pieces is how clear it was that they all had similar influences, even the “non-traditional” (cubist and coyote) pieces. Each piece had similar color schemes, shapes, patterns, and line qualities. In that respect, I think that all of these pieces work as examples of Indian art. They were clearly influenced by the Indian experience and aesthetic tradition.
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 7:44 pm ¶
Sugabelly wrote:
It’s pretty much the same case with African art. I’m Nigerian and I was once doing some research on pre-colonial African art and ALL of the HUNDREDS of books that I found had the word ‘primitive’ somewhere in their titles. It didn’t matter what language they were in. It was all Primitive, or Primitif, or Primitivo, etc.
The annoying thing is a lot of African art is far more complex and stunningly and masterfully detailed than anything that bloody Michelangelo ever did and yet Michelangelo’s work get called masterpieces while the work of my ancestors gets called primitive.
Usually when I question this tag I am told that they are called primitive because of the considerable age of most of the African artwork that is on display in museums today.
If age is a factor then isn’t Michelangelo someone’s ancestor too? He lived a couple hundred years ago and as far as I can tell that’s a long time. Why isn’t his and other artists of his time’s work called primitive?
I also don’t see them affix that label to Egypt. Oh no, Egypt is the perennial darling of Europeans everywhere, nothing about Egypt could ever be called primitive!
I give up. I came to realise a long time ago that the rest of the world might just never see us the way we see ourselves, and even if we try to make them see, they just don’t care.
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 8:11 pm ¶
firefey wrote:
@jeff: i’m not sure that piece would be moving, or even totally possible, without it having been created as indian art. i don’t doubt it’s brilliance, in fact i usually don’t care for cubist art but i really like this piece. but the context of a piece of art is a good third of understanding it. that the figure is both ecstatic and constrained, that the figure is blindfolded, that they are kneeling and bowed back fist to the sky… these elements are all part and parcel to this being a distinctly indian piece. the modern style with the traditional imagry, imagry i can pick out and point to only because of all the other pieces out there, is just so evocative.
i’m finding myself hard pressed to articulate more on this subject woithout it being all me me me and how i relate to this art. so i’ll step back into lurk mode and keep listening.
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 9:55 pm ¶
m. wrote:
I was just about to mention James Luna! Anyone who is not already familiar with his work should make sure to check him out at the links left above by bulaklak. Edgar Heap Of Birds is also worth checking out, as is Bunky Echo-Hawk. Bunky tackles the stereotyping us 21st Century Skins face on the daily in a lot of his work.
I want to point out that these days, a lot of potters and silversmiths – though both mediums are classified as ‘traditional’ arts – are anything *but* ‘traditional’ and incorporate many different ideas and varied imagery into their work. Another thing that many white and non-Native people don’t realize is that what *they* deem ‘traditional’ may not be, and is either a product of pan-Indianism, cultural exchange or the artist being mixed (not racially, but ethnically/culturally – for example, an artist whose ______ Pueblo-style pottery features Navajo religious figures). I remember my uncle constantly struggling as a result of his “non-traditional” approach to his medium (painting) while my other uncle (an illustrator) had more success in a local, Southwestern scene due to his “traditional” imagery (albeit, very stylized).
Many authors and poets have struggled with white/non-Native peoples’ preconceived notions about us as a race/people, as well. Though there are other writers out there that I wish non-Native people would find out about, I’m happy that Sherman Alexie has gained such a large white/non-Native following. He kind of introduced many of these readers to issues such as assimilation and displacement, as well as the fact that we don’t all live on the rez or, if urban/ized, not always in poverty. (Upwardly-mobile Indian professionals?! Holy shit! Hahaha.)
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 10:18 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
Native American culture has changed so much that I would feel almost offended to see some of these images being the only images allowed to be called “Indian art.” If I were a young Native American Indian, living in today’s world, why should I feel pressured to make art that does not necessarily speak to what I choose to express? Are Native Americans not allowed to feel or convey something other than their ancestry?
Posted 07 Jul 2009 at 1:34 am ¶
Alden Habacon wrote:
There’s something unique to “Indian Art” (or as we would say in Canada, “Aboriginal Art”) beyond just the aesthetics. In making reference to aboriginal icons, mythology, imagery, language, etc., regardless of how fused with contemporary styles, there’s an inherent re-affirmaton of a cultural heritage and language, an identity, that Europeans historically and systematically attempted to wipe of the face of the earth. This is what sets aboriginal or First Nations art apart of all other forms of ethnically-informed art. Many aboriginal languages still run the risk of becoming extinct. At the same time, perhaps these labels and categories are not so relevant in our current context of “Diversity 2.0″ — where most of us are informed by our ethno-cultural heritage, but NOT defined by it. In the same way, there is value in acknowledging what has informed our creative work, but perhaps its no longer necessary to categorize the art as being “this ethnic” or “that race” when most urbanites live very culturally blended lives. What’s powerful about this art in particular is the expression of the complexity of being an “Aboriginal Person” in North America today.
Posted 07 Jul 2009 at 4:51 am ¶
Raj wrote:
Isn’ it time to drop Indian when referring to the native Americans? It is confusing for Indian like me!As to the ‘Indian Art’ there is nothing Indian about it!
Posted 07 Jul 2009 at 9:01 am ¶
karak wrote:
We had an entire class at my college dedicated to 20th century American Indian art, and I came to realize that Indian Art meant any of the following things:
Art made by someone raised in a Native culture, although they, themselves, may not be genetically Native (such as anthropologists using an art form).
Pictures, movies, or photos taken by a non-Native designed to somehow record Native culture (there was a hugely famous white photographer in the 1930s who did this).
Art using Native designs, techniques, and inspirations, done by someone that MIGHT be kinda native, and they are using techniques taken from a dead society (a lot of Mexican artists kind of fall into this).
Art made a person with Native ancestors (but may not “look Indian”).
Art with Native inspiration made by a person with Native ancestors.
Even some of the “Native art” is questionable, though–I remember one girl in class did a project on a Pueblo woman who was making Hopi and Apache-inspired art pieces, for a great “BUH?” moment.
Posted 07 Jul 2009 at 10:06 pm ¶
ktrujillo wrote:
I recently read an intersting book called, ” From Greenwich Village to Taos; Primitivism and Place at Mabel Dodge Luhan’s” which examines the Native American and Nuevomexicano experience in the context of ‘primitivism’ as it unfolded in Dodge’s salon in the 1920’s and explores the modernist idea of the primitive and how it informed Anglos seeking “authentic” material and how this affected Native American, Nuevomexicano and African American artists/writers of the time. White folk are interested in ‘primitive/tribal/ native’ art that reinforces their ideas concerning ‘the primitive man’ and his ‘authenticity’ and a ‘returning to the source’ . When people of color depart from the script the work is automatically diminished since it no longer perpetuates white fantasies concerning ‘otherness’.
Posted 07 Jul 2009 at 10:33 pm ¶
Elle8 wrote:
In scanning through these responses, I noticed several repeated assumptions. First, that it’s appropriate to classify American Indian art as one sweeping entity. There are thousands of distinct indigenous groups in the United States, Canada, Mexico and beyond, and diversity seems to me a more remarkable factor than commonality. Navajo/Dine aesthetics (both traditional and contemporary) are, as a group, distinct from Hopi, Nez Perce, Tlingit, Iroquois, Tohono O’otham, Zuni, and other tribal expressions, and each artist’s vision and style is singular within the “nesting eggs” of ethnicity, tribe, family, and individual consciousness.
Of course talking about race is important to accessing meaning, just as political leanings and family circumstance help us decipher the intentions of any artist.
Also, many of these entries envision “traditionalism” as a burden imposed on Native artists. It might be useful to the discussion to recognize that working within established traditions can both honor family members and communities and strengthen cultures whose languages, religions, and traditional lifeways have suffered a corrosive onslaught for centuries. In Western circles, unfortunately, we’ve come to regard art as self-conscious and individual rather than communal and familial.
A friend once told me that to make a pot the old way was not just about having a pot; it was about learning patience, remembering the person who taught you and all those before her, paying attention to the earth in your hands, recognizing a woman’s shape in the shape of the clay. . . you get the picture.
Some of today’s most exciting Native art both honors the past (in technique, materials, and/or form) and takes ownership of modernity and individual vision. Check out some of these artists: Rose Simpson, Steven Yazzie, Tony Jojola, Elizabeth Wallace, Dylan Poblano, Susan Folwell, Pat Pruitt; and, while you’re at it, check out Remix, a show curated jointly by the Smithsonian’s NMAI and the Heard Museum in Phoenix.
Posted 10 Jul 2009 at 8:06 pm ¶
urbia wrote:
By pigeonholing artists of colour and racializing their art, white artists can ensure they have monopoly over variety of style and substance in the art market. *tongue in cheek* Way to sabotage your competition!
Posted 11 Jul 2009 at 2:40 am ¶