Aboriginal art
Garth Foster
"theft" by whites of Aboriginal art techniques, is rather amusing. What
it fails to mention is that the method of dot painting which has enjoyed
such commercial success was taught to Aborigines of the Western Desert
by a white schoolteacher only a few decades ago. You won't find any of
these Aboriginal dot paintings done before WW2!
Another example of Political Correctness.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Rob
>
>This week's Bulletin article entitled "Dots and robbers", about the
>"theft" by whites of Aboriginal art techniques, is rather amusing. What
>it fails to mention is that the method of dot painting which has enjoyed
>such commercial success was taught to Aborigines of the Western Desert
>by a white schoolteacher only a few decades ago. You won't find any of
>these Aboriginal dot paintings done before WW2!
What do they mean by 'theft of art techniques'? I wasn't aware any particular
race had exclusivity to any particular art technique. Is it illegal to paint
using dots if you are not aboriginal? Or is is illegal to paint using brushes
if you are aboriginal?
What exactly is the implication?
Lawrie Waller
schoolteacher? Where are the references? If true
it does seem that all the hype about "traditional"
art is just that and no more than that. As far as
contemporary art - chacun a son gout!
Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:7nben3$5j6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
: This week's Bulletin article entitled "Dots and
robbers", about the
: "theft" by whites of Aboriginal art techniques,
is rather amusing. What
: it fails to mention is that the method of dot
painting which has enjoyed
: such commercial success was taught to Aborigines
of the Western Desert
: by a white schoolteacher only a few decades ago.
You won't find any of
: these Aboriginal dot paintings done before WW2!
:
: Another example of Political Correctness.
Garth Foster
"Lawrie Waller" <law...@nlc.net.au> wrote:
> This is rather a bold assertion - who was the
> schoolteacher? Where are the references?
The schoolteacher was Geoffrey Bardon. If you want references, do a
search on his name.
Marcella Caruso
>
> This is rather a bold assertion - who was the
> it does seem that all the hype about "traditional"
> art is just that and no more than that. As far as
> contemporary art - chacun a son gout!
It's well known, Lawrie. In fact, you can check every art gallery in
Australia, and you won't find a single example of Aboriginal dot
painting done before 1970.
Roscoe Marks
<law...@nlc.net.au> wrote:
>This is rather a bold assertion - who was the
>schoolteacher? Where are the references? If true
>it does seem that all the hype about "traditional"
>art is just that and no more than that. As far as
>contemporary art - chacun a son gout!
At http://oasis.fortunecity.com/labreya/84/aus/aa/aaArt.htm
you can read an item entitled "Origins and Art of the Australian
Aborigines". The following extract relates to the development of dot
painting from the 1970s on:
"This "new" medium spread like wildfire across the country. The
Australian government slowly came to recognize Aboriginal artistic
expression as a national resource, and for this as well as
humanitarian reasons, it began to support the art movement by
providing materials, exposure to new techniques, and establishing
authorized contact points for outback dwelling groups."
Thus, the whole dot painting "tradition" is in fact an example of
white paternalism. A white schoolteacher taught the Aborigines how to
do it, and the Government took it up it as a form of occupational
therapy for rural Aborigines, arranging the distribution of the
necessary Dulux and canvas. Like basket-weaving and knitting, it is
intricate, repetitive, time consuming, and results in attractive
products - necessary criteria for such therapy. Another particular
advantage for Aboriginal communities was that many people could
participate in the creation of the same object.
Seppo Renfors
Marcella Caruso wrote:
>
> Lawrie Waller wrote:
> >
> > This is rather a bold assertion - who was the
> > schoolteacher? Where are the references? If true
> > it does seem that all the hype about "traditional"
> > art is just that and no more than that. As far as
> > contemporary art - chacun a son gout!
>
> It's well known, Lawrie. In fact, you can check every art gallery in
> Australia, and you won't find a single example of Aboriginal dot
> painting done before 1970.
Naturally, kind of hard to bring a cave into a gallery. There are
cave paintings that have used dot techniques. It isn't the
predominant way of cave paintings, but they do exist.
Could it be that this is where the idea originated from?
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that
privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Foster
Seppo Renfors <srenfors@!nojunk!adelaide.on.net> wrote:
>
>
> Marcella Caruso wrote:
> >
> > Lawrie Waller wrote:
> > >
> > > This is rather a bold assertion - who was the
> > > schoolteacher? Where are the references? If true
> > > it does seem that all the hype about "traditional"
> > > art is just that and no more than that. As far as
> > > contemporary art - chacun a son gout!
> >
> > It's well known, Lawrie. In fact, you can check every art gallery in
> > Australia, and you won't find a single example of Aboriginal dot
> > painting done before 1970.
>
> Naturally, kind of hard to bring a cave into a gallery. There are
> cave paintings that have used dot techniques. It isn't the
> predominant way of cave paintings, but they do exist.
>
> Could it be that this is where the idea originated from?
Which cave paintings do you have in mind? Has anyone photographed them?
Or is this some sort of Secret Artists' Business? I take it you reckon
the traditional painters insisted on confining their dot art to caves
until the 1970s, when they suddenly started putting it on canvas.
Chad Ng
Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This week's Bulletin article entitled "Dots and robbers", about the
> "theft" by whites of Aboriginal art techniques, is rather amusing.
What
> it fails to mention is that the method of dot painting which has
enjoyed
> such commercial success was taught to Aborigines of the Western Desert
> by a white schoolteacher only a few decades ago. You won't find any
of
> these Aboriginal dot paintings done before WW2!
>
> Another example of Political Correctness.
The whole idea of theft of the technique is nonsense, anyway. Does "The
Bulletin" recommend a system of specific racial entitlement to
royalties? This would cut both ways. Anyone identifying as an Aboriginal
would have to pay a royalty to people not so identifying, whenever (s)he
used (for example) a wheel.
Seppo Renfors
I'm not denying it was a teacher who did get the dot paintings
started in their modern form. However new it isn't. The cave
painting I saw was on TV... that morning program "Today" from
Kakadoo, but that isn't the only time I've seen it. What I was
questioning was, is this where the idea originated from? Perhaps
the idea itself is aboriginal in origin, but not in method or
materials used.
Iskandar Baharuddin
What is all the fuss about?
It is just pointillisme with a bigger brush.
--
Regards,
Izzy
"Stop the world - I want to get off!"
Garth Foster
Well I can't find such an example on the 'net or in any art book at the
local library. Perhaps there was a bit of "snow" on your telly at the
time, which made the picture look dotty.
> What I was
> questioning was, is this where the idea originated from? Perhaps
> the idea itself is aboriginal in origin, but not in method or
> materials used.
Nice one Seppo. So the ancient Greeks and Romans got the idea for making
a picture out of small separate bits of colour (ie, the mosaic concept)
when they popped over to check out your Kakadu cave.
Garth Foster
Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
> > questioning was, is this where the idea originated from? Perhaps
> > the idea itself is aboriginal in origin, but not in method or
> > materials used.
> >
>
> What is all the fuss about?
>
> It is just pointillisme with a bigger brush.
Not really. The whole idea of pointillism is for the coloured dots to be
blended by the eye to produce the perception of an overall colour other
than the colours appearing on the individual dots. It's like the colour
TV concept. The dots must be tiny, and colours must often differ from
one dot to the next. Aboriginal dot art is not like this; the perception
is of the dot pattern itself.
It's possible the schoolteacher was trying to get his pupils to do
pointillism, but if so, he didn't get very far.
Iskandar Baharuddin
Thank you for explaining what I meant.
Seppo Renfors
Garth Foster wrote:
>
> In article <379d...@duster.adelaide.on.net>,
> Well I can't find such an example on the 'net or in any art book at the
> local library. Perhaps there was a bit of "snow" on your telly at the
> time, which made the picture look dotty.
Hey, not MY fault you can't find it, is it. YOU can't find
something, therefor it is "snow" on my telly. That marvellous
logic! Ever thought of writing comedies?
> > What I was
> > questioning was, is this where the idea originated from? Perhaps
> > the idea itself is aboriginal in origin, but not in method or
> > materials used.
>
> Nice one Seppo. So the ancient Greeks and Romans got the idea for making
> a picture out of small separate bits of colour (ie, the mosaic concept)
> when they popped over to check out your Kakadu cave.
Disprove the theory if you like, the above is mere sneering. On
second thought, forget about the comedy, the above didn't even
raise a smirk.
Jane Pascal
-cut-
>Hey, not MY fault you can't find it, is it. YOU can't find
>something, therefor it is "snow" on my telly. That marvellous
>logic! Ever thought of writing comedies?
-cut-
I think Garth has the right of it here Seppo. It was you who attempted
to support your argument with something you'd seen on TV. Garth quite
reasonably asked for a better reference source.
Seppo Renfors
It was reasonable to ask for a further reference, but NOT to
claim "snow" on my telly. The logic being; "If I can't find it on
the net, it can't exists. Therefor you can't have seen it on TV".
Bit moronic isn't it?