Gioff ~ Harry's Paintings Cause Uproar Downunder
PK
Tribes have used Lizards in their art forms for many centuries--- to
think that any ONE Nation has a monopoly on a lizard is waaay too
silly , IMO.
Lizards are international!!
Harry paints his way into outback row
Prince accused of stealing Aboriginal motifs in his art
Peter Shadbolt in Sydney and Peter Collins in Perth
Tuesday August 19, 2003
The Guardian
The Prince and the contentious artwork: 'At best quaint but
misinformed, at worst it's really quite regrettable.' Photo: PA
In terms of cultural distances, they don't come much greater than
Buckingham Palace and the deserts of Western Australia. But Prince
Harry has unwittingly put the two worlds on a collision course with
his Aboriginal-inspired A-level artworks, unveiled earlier this year
as part of his 18th birthday portraits.
The images flew around the world. They may have sparked admiration at
home, but by the time they reached the Aboriginal communities that had
inspired them, that admiration had turned to anger. With a sense of
cultural understanding worthy of his grandfather, the Duke of
Edinburgh, Prince Harry - due to spend his gap year in Australia later
this year - has offended Aboriginal people before he has set foot in
the country.
Some of Australia's best-known Aboriginal artists have recently become
aware of the prince's paintings of lizard motifs and claim he has
stolen their culture. That the artworks have been valued at £15,000
each has compounded the insult to poor desert communities.
"He needs to get down here and see where it [the lizard symbol] came
from," said Julie Dowling, who is among the top five contemporary
urban Aboriginal artists. "He needs to figure out where that image
came from, he needs to follow it back," she added, saying the lizard
symbol had totemic significance in at least seven Aboriginal regions
and many clans.
"What he has to realise is that when he does that, he's ripping off
another family. His grandmother is the head of his church, he should
show respect for other people's religions."
Prince Harry has wandered into one of the most contentious new issues
in Aboriginal communities - the problem of intellectual property
rights over cultural works sold in an unregulated market.
Buckingham Palace said the paintings do not "purport to be an
aboriginal piece of work. We haven't received any formal complaints
and it's never been the intention of the prince to cause any offence."
Downing pointed to the work of Turkey Tolson, who sold a painting for
$2,000 (then around £750) just before he died in 2001. The work was
resold in 2002 for $500,000. "We're talking about an amazing piece of
cultural heritage - it was a complex piece that said a lot of things -
that just went overseas," Dowling said.
Such stories have sparked a new kind of Aboriginal activism, with
Robert Eggington, of the Dumbartung Aboriginal Corporation,
investigating alleged cases of cultural exploitation.
"When we see our symbols - important symbols for us that represent
lightning, stars and waterways and other important religious entities
- being used on underwear or toilet seat covers, it can be very
disappointing. The only thing we've got left is our culture and when
we see this it strips our work of its integrity and its dignity," he
said.
"There is a world demand for Aboriginal art but unfortunately people
sometimes buy works to go with their carpets or curtains. When you see
people mimicking our culture, for instance people playing a didgeridoo
as if it were a toy, it's very offensive."
Mr Eggington took elders from his Bardi clan, based in Western
Australia, to Hollywood to confront author Marlo Morgan, who claimed
to have gone walkabout in the outback with a primitive tribe, but
whose book was later relabelled as fiction.
The book, Mutant Messages Down Under, a pastiche of Aboriginal lore
that paid scant heed to anthropological veracity, became a hit in the
late 1990s, rocketing on to the bestseller list with the endorsement
of media stars such as Oprah Winfrey.
Mr Eggington travelled across the outback but could not find
Aboriginal people who could corroborate Morgan's story.
Anne Loxley, a Sydney-based curator specialising in Aboriginal art,
said she expects a large test case about indigenous intellectual
property in the near future.
"With the law going the way it is, even Prince Harry could spark
something off," she said, adding that the prince had made the fatal
error of appreciating the aboriginal works for their aesthetic value
alone.
"You might be able to defend him on the grounds that he was copying
one of the great masters and brushing up his technique. But there's no
way you can do that with the abstractions of contemporary Aboriginal
art.
"At best his work is quaint but misinformed, at worst it's really
quite regrettable. Considering how well known Aboriginal art is, and
the presence it has on the modern art scene, you'd hope that one of
the world's most prestigious schools would have better informed art
teachers." End of article
There's Nothing at ALL contemporary about Lizards, nothing at all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1021575,00.html
Karen Martin
Gioffreydo di '
=========
Sorry PK I didn't see your post till now and already answered Tara's
which should explain the situation a bit. (Have to use google for
some reason). He's not on his own in being trouble for this. One of
the Durak family members (an old Australian pastoral family) got into
heaps of trouble for creating works of art (aboriginal) under and
assumed indiginous name and selling them for great amounts of money.
In today's Herald-Sun the interviewee, someone Dillon, chastises the
Prince but is a bit more understanding than the woman in the article
above, saying that while it was an afront, he is young blah, blah.
If it makes it any easier to understand, we are not allowed to borrow
from the style, ie dots etc, either! It's one part of the aboriginal
tragedy I have trouble with - personally - and I feel like (should I
ever be PM!) making it against the law for indiginous people to
draw/paint anything of western influencce!(Which would, of course,
sound just as ridiculous!)
Gioff
PK
I'm quite happy to see your open-mindedness..rather expected it of a
gentleman =)
We just can't be putting patents on the basic designs of Earth....I
wonder if the aboriginal people know how much their style resembles
that of the Polynesians and the America Indians?? It almost looks like
the 'borrowed' elements of other cultures.
I wrote letters to some of the people who spoke out against Harry's
talent. As a very caring young man he would be alarmed to upset
ANYONE..and quite sorry as well...they're being unfair to him and they
should listen to other opinions.
The example you gave is Brill!!
Karen Martin
SEAN
"PK" <p...@e-garfield.com> wrote in message
news:779e0422.03081...@posting.google.com...
> gioffr...@yahoo.com.au (Gioffreydo di ') wrote in message
snip.
> I'm quite happy to see your open-mindedness..rather expected it of a
> gentleman =)
> We just can't be putting patents on the basic designs of Earth....I
> wonder if the aboriginal people know how much their style resembles
> that of the Polynesians and the America Indians??
Just to clarify, American Indians and Poyynesians are aboriginal peoples. By
definition aboriginal means something that is Native to a region.
According to Webster's:
First; original; indigenous; primitive; native; as, the aboriginal tribes
of America.
Their "style" is similar partly because they are animists.
Sean.~
It almost looks like
> the 'borrowed' elements of other cultures.
It isn't borrowed. They, like the aboriginal people of the Americans, are
animists.
snip.
> Karen Martin
Gioffreydo di '
> "PK" <p...@e-garfield.com> wrote in message
> news:779e0422.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > gioffr...@yahoo.com.au (Gioffreydo di ') wrote in message
>
> snip.
>
> > I'm quite happy to see your open-mindedness..rather expected it of a
> > gentleman =)
> > We just can't be putting patents on the basic designs of Earth....I
> > wonder if the aboriginal people know how much their style resembles
> > that of the Polynesians and the America Indians??
>
> Just to clarify, American Indians and Poyynesians are aboriginal peoples. By
> definition aboriginal means something that is Native to a region.
>
you like, as a definition. Are US & Candadian Indians referred to, or
do they refer to themselves as aboriginals?
Gioff
SEAN
"Gioffreydo di '" <gioffr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:a5212806.03081...@posting.google.com...
> "SEAN" <seann...@here.com> wrote in message
news:<M%A0b.2747$Jf3....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
> > "PK" <p...@e-garfield.com> wrote in message
> > news:779e0422.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > > gioffr...@yahoo.com.au (Gioffreydo di ') wrote in message
> >
> > snip.
> >
> > > I'm quite happy to see your open-mindedness..rather expected it of a
> > > gentleman =)
> > > We just can't be putting patents on the basic designs of Earth....I
> > > wonder if the aboriginal people know how much their style resembles
> > > that of the Polynesians and the America Indians??
> >
> > Just to clarify, American Indians and Poyynesians are aboriginal
peoples. By
> > definition aboriginal means something that is Native to a region.
> >
> Very true. But I think the here that the term has been hijacked, if
> you like, as a definition. Are US & Candadian Indians referred to, or
> do they refer to themselves as aboriginals?
Most often they are referred to as aboriginal or First Nations, although the
federal government still has the "Indian Act".
Sean.~
SEAN
"Gioffreydo di '" <gioffr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:a5212806.03081...@posting.google.com...
Hi Gioff,
I've been thinking about your above comments. I understand what you're
saying, and I agree with you to a certain extent. However, I'm also trying
to look at this from a different perspective.
More specifically, Western culture and "influence" are dominant in
Australia and throughout much of the world. There is little chance of
extinction. So even if you outlawed aboriginal people from using Western
inspired images, chances are that those images won't be lost. Conversely,
many of the aboriginal peoples and cultures of the various settler countries
have been erased (in North America several First Nations are now extinct),
or have come close to being erased. Perhaps the aforementioned prohibition
is a way of preserving what is left. After all, as I stated up-thread, it
provides them with a sense of identity. Thus it should be preserved for
*them* and hopefully and *their* future generations. They have already lost
so much of their history and dignity and this is the little that they have
left. Once you open something so fragile to non-aboriginals, and once they
start "borrowing", the art form becomes prone to fusion. Soon it becomes
part of Western culture. Consequently, (albeit perhaps gradually) the
indigenous form is lost.
I hope I'm making *some* sense.
christine morrow
> Tribes have used Lizards in their art forms for many centuries--- to
> think that any ONE Nation has a monopoly on a lizard is waaay too
> silly , IMO.
> Lizards are international!!
>
It's not the lizards that are the problem. It is the technique of painting
them. Look at the paintings and they are clearly an attempt at painting
using the Aboriginal technique used in this country for 1000s of years. Had
he painted the lizards using another technique their would not be a problem
with the Aboriginal peoples.
christine morrow
> > >
> > > Just to clarify, American Indians and Poyynesians are aboriginal
> peoples. By
> > > definition aboriginal means something that is Native to a region.
> > >
> > Very true. But I think the here that the term has been hijacked, if
> > you like, as a definition. Are US & Candadian Indians referred to, or
> > do they refer to themselves as aboriginals?
>
The difference is, I think, that the Australian Aborigines are referred to
as a race by using the capital "A". The word does mesn original
inhabitants, which they were down here, but whereas the natives of North
America were called "Indians" the natives here were simply called
"Aborigines" and that is now the general term used to describe their race.
G-B
SEAN wrote:
====
It does and it's very level headed, which is more than I probably was. If I
sounded red necked, I apologize. Simply put, I really *don't* know what to
think about the subject and it is one that most of us from settled countries
find ourselves in. I have thought the same argument as you put forward and I
don't disagree with it - it's a very valid point that their identity could be
lost and become part of the 'Borg' West. It's also possible that given current
lifestyle and health trends, they as a people could disappear - or at least the
Aboriginal of the old Australia we picture in our heads, living on and with the
land. I think however that there a good number of highly educated and aware
indigenous people who devote their lives to making sure this doesn't happen.
There are a lot of European Australians however who are very interested in the
culture and even more who feel a great bond to the land and in that, share at
least one common bond with the Aboriginals even if they're not directly
influenced by the art etc. I would have though it poignant enough that Harry's
paintings even being compared to Aboriginal art was indication enough that most
of the world recognizes the style rather than referring to it as, 'A royal
version of primitive art' etc. etc. etc. What about mosaics? Batik? I am no
expert on the subject but from memory all of their art depicts certain stories
from their culture rather than just being a portrait of a goanna or a kangaroo
and I think this is probably the crux as to why there is such importance placed
on the cultural value of their art form. I don't know whether Harry has studied
much on the Dreamtime but I seem to recall he took some interest in Aboriginal
culture. I just think that rather than coming on strong to an eighteen year
old, an invitation for him to come and *really* learn about the culture would
have been more constructive. Being interested in a particular subject is a
major step in understanding and interests of a public figure like Harry attracts
more of the same in others.
Perhaps one could limit sale of such works to that by aboriginal artists, so
that all pieces on the market are the 'real' but I think it a great shame that
those with a keen interest can't legally experience it first hand..
Gioff
SEAN
"G-B" <tarn...@lexicon.net> wrote in message
news:3F43629B...@lexicon.net...
>
>
> SEAN wrote:
snip.
For the record, I'm not against Harry painting what he wants (selling,
however, is another story). I was just trying to put forth an argument about
the prohibition you had mentioned.
PK
> "SEAN" <seann...@here.com> wrote in message news:<M%A0b.2747$Jf3....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
> > "PK" <p...@e-garfield.com> wrote in message
> > news:779e0422.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > > gioffr...@yahoo.com.au (Gioffreydo di ') wrote in message
> >
> > snip.
> >
> > > I'm quite happy to see your open-mindedness..rather expected it of a
> > > gentleman =)
> > > We just can't be putting patents on the basic designs of Earth....I
> > > wonder if the aboriginal people know how much their style resembles
> > > that of the Polynesians and the America Indians??
> >
> > Just to clarify, American Indians and Poyynesians are aboriginal peoples. By
> > definition aboriginal means something that is Native to a region.
The natives in Australia refer to themselves strictly as
Aboriginals.....no other classification. Peroples who are indiginous
to an area often have specific designations...but not the Australian
natives.
> >
> Very true. But I think the here that the term has been hijacked, if
> you like, as a definition. Are US & Candadian Indians referred to, or
> do they refer to themselves as aboriginals?
>
> Gioff
Never in the United States do the American Indians call themselves
Aboriginals..nor does any one else. They are ALWAYS called either
Native Americans or American Indians...then their various Tribes may
be indicated...those number in the 1000s
Snipo
>
> > It almost looks like
> > > the 'borrowed' elements of other cultures.
> >
> > It isn't borrowed. They, like the aboriginal people of the Americans, are
> > animists.
Of course the animal symbols aren't 'borrowed' ...That is why the
word is in Italics....it is in reference to THEIR claim that Harry had
stolen some of THIER symbols which he had not.
Karen Martin
PK
Absolutely .. very well-said, Christine.
Karen Martin
PK
I must say the manner is which the Lizards are painted is also Native
American...so you see the Style is universal....
The woman who was belittling Harry in the newspaper report asserted he
should not use ANY of the symbols the Aborgines employ...including the
stars, moon et al...Though what YOU say makes more sense...she didn't
qualify the colouring or shape et al...she flatly said any use of
those elements was theft.
Karen Martin