Week 5 - Art/(ifacts)

  

The differing ways Anthropology and Art as disciplines approach African and African Diasporic Art according to their own values through the examples of the Harvard Art Museums and the Peabody Museum highlights the underlying assumptions about their engagement with material culture. I title this blog post “Art/(ifacts)” in light of the readings this week which showcase the fluidity between these nomenclature as representative of differences associated with incurring market value, ideologies of post-Enlightenment rational thought and discipline-specific values from a western perspective, despite empirical commonalities.

 

The art museums position a more universalised approach to knowledge regarding art/(ifacts). Their approach to their value of Truth’ and ongoing dialogue indicates this implied tending towards a something honest that reflects our life through engaging with the art/(ifacts) as a reflection of life in a nuanced (but perhaps still corny) manner. This multidisciplinary approach through multiple sites of inquiry, multimedia engagement  points toward a cross-referencing system of engaging with art/(ifacts) as a way to bringing truth to the fore. This is manifested in way Art of the Black world exhibition as well as other Black art/((ifacts) are displayed – within a wider global context where cultural historicity are touchpoints of information placed in a wider universal (temporal and geographic) context. The curation encourages thought across and between disciplines at a base level of humanity. Expressions of life that come from a sense of core “truth” in culturally and temporally informed positionalities and subjectivities are presented.

 

Contrastingly, the Peabody museum’s aims centre moreso an emphasis on difference, and of separated treatment of art/(ifacts) according to geographical location despite there bids no dedicated space for African Art itself. There is immediately a desire to capture commonalities across continents through their arrangement of collections. There seems to be a removal of artist agency in the discussion of the artifacts, although all crafted likely by an individual or group of individuals that leads to an empirical assessment of objects regarding their visual features across time and between geographies across Africa. with a view to learn more about people of the past, the museum privileges engagement with art/(ifacts) as scientific objects in an aim to foster community between people of the past and contemporary audiences’ relevant diaspora. They allow for this transtemporal connection at the level of ethnic heritage in a political climate where ideas of race, origin and difference hold increasing amount of value and importance for self-definition and justification of behaviour within a wider society. Given the history of its discipline this aim of regaining the trust of the descendants of communities’ arts that are on display are extremely pertinent in an effort to not continue the extractive processes that often led to these art/(ifacts) presence.

 

 

It is interesting how the Appiah article notes the commercial value of art I the transition of African Art from artefact to art. Whilst in collecting and curation , anthropological approach centres on sameness in order to tell us about art/(ifacts) of the Black world, in this exploration, its art is positioned separately from the rest of the world in often an atemporal standing in a way that centres on difference. Contrastingly, the individualism sought in art museums’ treatement of art/(ifacts) highlights specifically seeks to draw parallels across and between individual subjectivities, allowing for a more universal engagement with art across sociocultural, geographical and temporal lines, perhaps with an unsaid but very pertinent base assertion of genius and innovation.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Week 1 Sept 9 Introduction

Chromatic Blackness and Expression + Project Proposal

Week 4 Visual Description