Comments on: What Counts As “Indian Art”? http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/ Sociological Images encourages people to exercise and develop their sociological imaginations with discussions of compelling visuals that span the breadth of sociological inquiry. Fri, 25 May 2012 16:59:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Melissa Olson http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-506467 Melissa Olson Mon, 23 May 2011 14:59:15 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-506467 Recently, I was a part of a conversation by and for and between American Indian artists who serve as the advisory board to a local gallery. As the economy appears more bleak, several artists wanted to form a cooperative. And after lunch a discussion ensued about "What is contemporary Indigenous Art" and who is an "Indigenous Artist". Instead of discussing the reasons for the commodification of Indian art as are described in the article, the discussion devolved into which Indians should not be considered Indian artists because there work too often reflects these themes that are considered to be Indian art. The person driving the discussion then turned up the heat, questioning how best to discern who is and who is not an Indian artist. The question was asked by this person, who is Native, "What about adoptees? (Native ppl who are adopted out of their communities) While through no fault of their own," he went on, "They weren't raised in the culture, and so are they really Indian?" And he went on to say that they were exploiting their ethnicity in order to sell art. The underylying theme here was that they were knowingly exploiting what white audiences wanted to see from Indians and were profitting from it, and by extension, profitting from the idea that Indian art should be defined from the outside. And then a few of the other people there went on to make some crass comments. One person said, "Yeah we are all related, just not to you. (speaking of the straw person)." And this is all without posting a shred of evidence. Now, I was offended because my mom and several immediate family members were adopted out, and I felt like these folks, who I knew pretty well, were using the adoptee issue to get their own point across. So, I think there is another side of this that also should be considered. While I agree that what is Indigenous Art is hugely important issue, and Indigenous artists should feel as though they can define themselves and their work. There are people out there using these arguements in ways that are not intended, I don't believe. If there are indeed artists who are exploiting their ethnicity, then I think there is more work to be done to discuss why Indigenous art came to be so narrowly defined. But, taking it out on a select group of people in order to decide who can and cannot be part of artist associations, based on an entirely subjective view of the issue, is not cool. Recently, I was a part of a conversation by and for and between American Indian artists who serve as the advisory board to a local gallery. As the economy appears more bleak, several artists wanted to form a cooperative. And after lunch a discussion ensued about “What is contemporary Indigenous Art” and who is an “Indigenous Artist”. Instead of discussing the reasons for the commodification of Indian art as are described in the article, the discussion devolved into which Indians should not be considered Indian artists because there work too often reflects these themes that are considered to be Indian art. The person driving the discussion then turned up the heat, questioning how best to discern who is and who is not an Indian artist. The question was asked by this person, who is Native, “What about adoptees? (Native ppl who are adopted out of their communities) While through no fault of their own,” he went on, “They weren’t raised in the culture, and so are they really Indian?” And he went on to say that they were exploiting their ethnicity in order to sell art. The underylying theme here was that they were knowingly exploiting what white audiences wanted to see from Indians and were profitting from it, and by extension, profitting from the idea that Indian art should be defined from the outside. And then a few of the other people there went on to make some crass comments. One person said, “Yeah we are all related, just not to you. (speaking of the straw person).” And this is all without posting a shred of evidence. Now, I was offended because my mom and several immediate family members were adopted out, and I felt like these folks, who I knew pretty well, were using the adoptee issue to get their own point across. So, I think there is another side of this that also should be considered. While I agree that what is Indigenous Art is hugely important issue, and Indigenous artists should feel as though they can define themselves and their work. There are people out there using these arguements in ways that are not intended, I don’t believe. If there are indeed artists who are exploiting their ethnicity, then I think there is more work to be done to discuss why Indigenous art came to be so narrowly defined. But, taking it out on a select group of people in order to decide who can and cannot be part of artist associations, based on an entirely subjective view of the issue, is not cool.

]]> By: Scott Andrews http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-487270 Scott Andrews Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:08:07 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-487270 I recently posted three entries in my "Seeing Things" blog about American Indian artists that do not meet the "traditional" definition of American Indian art: On the recent exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum: http://tinyurl.com/3ozuovg On Frank Big Beaer: http://tinyurl.com/3tw3573 On Todd Bordeaux: http://tinyurl.com/3ttlu9p I recently posted three entries in my “Seeing Things” blog about American Indian artists that do not meet the “traditional” definition of American Indian art:

On the recent exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum:
http://tinyurl.com/3ozuovg

On Frank Big Beaer:
http://tinyurl.com/3tw3573

On Todd Bordeaux:
http://tinyurl.com/3ttlu9p

]]> By: Debbie Reese http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-487165 Debbie Reese Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:11:10 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-487165 There's another layer beneath the "what counts as Indian Art" question... It is, who counts as Indian? Most people who are tribally enrolled, or, connected in a meaningful way (not via a great great grandparent whose tribe they don't know) to a specific tribal nation will specify that nation rather than saying "I am part Native" or "I am 1/4 American Indian." People who don't specify this information often don't know much about their tribes, the issues tribes care about, etc. For example, artists mentioned above: Fonseca was Nisenan/Maidu/ Hawaiian/Portuguese. James Luna is Lusieno Oscar Howe was Yankton Sioux Being able to say you are tribally enrolled is dependent on your tribe claiming you on its census. The discussion is politically loaded, with many pointing to tribal politics and how that figures in tribal policies about enrollment. Because those politics are sometimes corrupt, people want to discredit tribes for those policies. Going down that road, however, can undermine the sovereignty that is the ground on which we (federally recognized tribes) stand today. Tribes decide. As sovereign nations, tribes decide who their citizens and tribal members are. And, each nation has its own ways of making those determinations. Again---very politically loaded discussion---but central to the political status of tribal nations in the U.S. There’s another layer beneath the “what counts as Indian Art” question… It is, who counts as Indian?

Most people who are tribally enrolled, or, connected in a meaningful way (not via a great great grandparent whose tribe they don’t know) to a specific tribal nation will specify that nation rather than saying “I am part Native” or “I am 1/4 American Indian.”

People who don’t specify this information often don’t know much about their tribes, the issues tribes care about, etc.

For example, artists mentioned above:
Fonseca was Nisenan/Maidu/ Hawaiian/Portuguese.
James Luna is Lusieno
Oscar Howe was Yankton Sioux

Being able to say you are tribally enrolled is dependent on your tribe claiming you on its census. The discussion is politically loaded, with many pointing to tribal politics and how that figures in tribal policies about enrollment. Because those politics are sometimes corrupt, people want to discredit tribes for those policies.

Going down that road, however, can undermine the sovereignty that is the ground on which we (federally recognized tribes) stand today.

Tribes decide. As sovereign nations, tribes decide who their citizens and tribal members are. And, each nation has its own ways of making those determinations. Again—very politically loaded discussion—but central to the political status of tribal nations in the U.S.

]]> By: What counts as a name http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-486669 What counts as a name Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:57:28 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-486669 This is a great article that I am going to bring up in one of my classes. A good amount of the comments have talked about some truly individual artists addressing this issue. I don't think there is a choice though. The article seemed to say that indigenous people are holding themselves within this mold as well, which I don't think is true. My father went to IAIA and he was given the chance to explore many different genres. It is as it's always been the dominate anglo society forcing these indigenous artists into this mold just as every aspect of the culture and tradition. Rich white people want old depictions of indigenous people. It was the only art my father was able to sell and it's what made him stop creating work. Look at the example of Elizabeth Durack which, if she was from the US, would be called plating indian. Durack decided to make up an indigenous person named Eddie Burrup and wouldn't stop until her death. "Durack claimed that her familiarity with Aboriginal life entitled her to create Aboriginal art through the "alter ego" of Eddie Burrup." This appropriation of a culture for commercial purposes continues and it's this entitlement that keeps great indigenous artists locked down. What doesn't count as indian art? Well I guess if you're an indian whose artistic medium is acting or writing you won't get mentioned in this article or any others. This is a great article that I am going to bring up in one of my classes.

A good amount of the comments have talked about some truly individual artists addressing this issue. I don’t think there is a choice though.

The article seemed to say that indigenous people are holding themselves within this mold as well, which I don’t think is true. My father went to IAIA and he was given the chance to explore many different genres. It is as it’s always been the dominate anglo society forcing these indigenous artists into this mold just as every aspect of the culture and tradition. Rich white people want old depictions of indigenous people. It was the only art my father was able to sell and it’s what made him stop creating work.

Look at the example of Elizabeth Durack which, if she was from the US, would be called plating indian. Durack decided to make up an indigenous person named Eddie Burrup and wouldn’t stop until her death. “Durack claimed that her familiarity with Aboriginal life entitled her to create Aboriginal art through the “alter ego” of Eddie Burrup.” This appropriation of a culture for commercial purposes continues and it’s this entitlement that keeps great indigenous artists locked down.

What doesn’t count as indian art? Well I guess if you’re an indian whose artistic medium is acting or writing you won’t get mentioned in this article or any others.

]]> By: Star Wallowing Bull http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-486634 Star Wallowing Bull Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:18:56 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-486634 I was recently featured in the Fargo-Moorhead Arts Pulse magazine regarding my 2010 Bush Fellowship Award that included my own personal opinion on being labeled a Native American Indian artist. Since I was a little boy, my grade school friends always wondered why I was drawing robots, cars or things that I would see on a daily basis. They expected me to draw Tee-pees, Indian Chiefs, animals, and so on. People still have this idea that Native American Indians should only make Indian art. Deep down inside, I didn't want to be labeled in this sense. I really didn't like drawing images like that either. I didn't find no interest in drawing traditional American Indian cultural icons. If I did, I changed a lot of the images and made them more intricate and interesting. I saw that type of art growing up in a prominate Indian neighborhood of South Minneapolis. Everyone was doing it. Traditional Indian art is so well known, even the Chinese are mass producing it and selling them in gas stations and small retail stores throughout the world. Over the years I have come into heated arguments and rational conversations over being labeled a Native American Indian artist. People seemed to be confused on what kind of artist I should be labeled as these days. Instead of trying to label me, how about seeing me as an artist rather than trying to label my race? People often look at my work and say "your not an Indian artist" or they say "I'm an Indian artist" because I drew an Indian figure. My art reflects a combination of different styles of Indian icon imagery, current mainstream and abstraction. Some opinions continue to be rather different than my own. I respect their opinions, but they should also in turn respect mine as well. Let me give you an example: Swedish, Norwegian artist James Rosenquist. Slovakian artist, Andy Warhol. Irish, Hungarian artist Georgia O'Keefe & German, Cherokee artist Robert Rauschenberg...why aren't these artists nationalities' or races labeled? Why is it only Native American Indians labeled a "tag line" behind their name? I do respect Native Indian artists who want to be recognized with their racial identities but I have also met other Indian artists who agree with me on this issue and would rather be called artists rather then trying to categorize their race or nationality. I recently spoke to my friend James Rosenquist on this issue and he understood what I was talking about. James didn't understand why people wanted to label an artist's race. James was quite upset over that topic. He said to me, "From now on you're an international artist!" This topic has been frustrating and tiresome to me over the years, so once again, it's not necessary to label my race as an artist. I'm more than happy to share my heritage, pride and culture with people, just ask. I was born and raised in an American lifestyle. Yes, my heritage is Native American - but my culture is simply as an American living among many nationalities and races from my perspective. I am simply an artist, where I create my art from my experiences, my imagination and the world around me. I was recently featured in the Fargo-Moorhead Arts Pulse magazine regarding my 2010 Bush Fellowship Award that included my own personal opinion on being labeled a Native American Indian artist. Since I was a little boy, my grade school friends always wondered why I was drawing robots, cars or things that I would see on a daily basis. They expected me to draw Tee-pees, Indian Chiefs, animals, and so on. People still have this idea that Native American Indians should only make Indian art. Deep down inside, I didn’t want to be labeled in this sense. I really didn’t like drawing images like that either. I didn’t find no interest in drawing traditional American Indian cultural icons. If I did, I changed a lot of the images and made them more intricate and interesting. I saw that type of art growing up in a prominate Indian neighborhood of South Minneapolis. Everyone was doing it. Traditional Indian art is so well known, even the Chinese are mass producing it and selling them in gas stations and small retail stores throughout the world.

Over the years I have come into heated arguments and rational conversations over being labeled a Native American Indian artist. People seemed to be confused on what kind of artist I should be labeled as these days. Instead of trying to label me, how about seeing me as an artist rather than trying to label my race? People often look at my work and say “your not an Indian artist” or they say “I’m an Indian artist” because I drew an Indian figure. My art reflects a combination of different styles of Indian icon imagery, current mainstream and abstraction. Some opinions continue to be rather different than my own. I respect their opinions, but they should also in turn respect mine as well. Let me give you an example: Swedish, Norwegian artist James Rosenquist. Slovakian artist, Andy Warhol. Irish, Hungarian artist Georgia O’Keefe & German, Cherokee artist Robert Rauschenberg…why aren’t these artists nationalities’ or races labeled? Why is it only Native American Indians labeled a “tag line” behind their name? I do respect Native Indian artists who want to be recognized with their racial identities but I have also met other Indian artists who agree with me on this issue and would rather be called artists rather then trying to categorize their race or nationality.

I recently spoke to my friend James Rosenquist on this issue and he understood what I was talking about. James didn’t understand why people wanted to label an artist’s race. James was quite upset over that topic. He said to me, “From now on you’re an international artist!”

This topic has been frustrating and tiresome to me over the years, so once again, it’s not necessary to label my race as an artist. I’m more than happy to share my heritage, pride and culture with people, just ask. I was born and raised in an American lifestyle. Yes, my heritage is Native American – but my culture is simply as an American living among many nationalities and races from my perspective. I am simply an artist, where I create my art from my experiences, my imagination and the world around me.

]]> By: Culturally Appropriating Native Americans: A “Hands-on Approach to History” » Sociological Images http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-275038 Culturally Appropriating Native Americans: A “Hands-on Approach to History” » Sociological Images Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:47:15 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-275038 [...] up like aborigines, indigenous cultures in Avatar (spoiler alert), Halloween costumes, defining “Indian art”, “my skin is dark but my heart is white“, anachronistic images of Native Americans, [...] [...] up like aborigines, indigenous cultures in Avatar (spoiler alert), Halloween costumes, defining “Indian art”, “my skin is dark but my heart is white“, anachronistic images of Native Americans, [...]

]]> By: CANDIAN http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-220682 CANDIAN Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:45:04 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-220682 Leaving the Red Ghetto Being Indian in the romantic context means that you become grayed by the content and therefore become colonized. Very few Indian Artists of any percentage have the warrior attitude to stand up in the when its raining money. They become individualized,victimized and capitalize on being Red or beige. For the Artists that do stand up and walk awy from the popular view, they are neglected (Thank God) and are left to express thier art. Indian Art has the power to colonized the mainstream, thereby creating discussion around the experience of being a percentage of Indian. By leaving the Rez you become the Hero in the Journey, you will find peace and be respected. Leaving the Red Ghetto
Being Indian in the romantic context means that you become grayed by the content and therefore become colonized.
Very few Indian Artists of any percentage have the warrior attitude to stand up in the when its raining money. They become individualized,victimized and capitalize on being Red or beige.
For the Artists that do stand up and walk awy from the popular view, they are neglected (Thank God) and are left to express thier art.
Indian Art has the power to colonized the mainstream, thereby creating discussion around the experience of being a percentage of Indian. By leaving the Rez you become the Hero in the Journey, you will find peace and be respected.

]]> By: “Shall the Pueblos Be Civilized?” » Sociological Images http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-201832 “Shall the Pueblos Be Civilized?” » Sociological Images Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:32:27 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-201832 [...] I’m sure they were, indeed, of immense interest to artists, scientists, and writers (also, physiognomists). And since they are of interest to them, that should definitely be taken into account when we decide what to do with them. Taos still loves Indian art. [...] [...] I’m sure they were, indeed, of immense interest to artists, scientists, and writers (also, physiognomists). And since they are of interest to them, that should definitely be taken into account when we decide what to do with them. Taos still loves Indian art. [...]

]]> By: bulaklak http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-75223 bulaklak Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:44:27 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-75223 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/ 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/

]]> By: What Counts as “Indian Art?” at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-75106 What Counts as “Indian Art?” at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:01:01 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-75106 [...] by Guest Contributor Gwen, originally published at Sociological Images [...] [...] by Guest Contributor Gwen, originally published at Sociological Images [...]

]]> By: Plano http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-60066 Plano Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:26:40 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-60066 Art is an expression. It is important to realize that it can't always be taken literally. Obviously, in many cases it is, but assumptions about the Native Americans or American Indians should not be made just because that is what you see in the art. Native Americans are just as advances as everyone else. They don't live on reservations, ride ponies to places, or where feathers to the grocery store and I think that many people are unaware about the Native American culture because they have never taken the time to research it and see what is accurate and not. Art is an expression. It is important to realize that it can’t always be taken literally. Obviously, in many cases it is, but assumptions about the Native Americans or American Indians should not be made just because that is what you see in the art. Native Americans are just as advances as everyone else. They don’t live on reservations, ride ponies to places, or where feathers to the grocery store and I think that many people are unaware about the Native American culture because they have never taken the time to research it and see what is accurate and not.

]]> By: giotto http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-58361 giotto Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:46:51 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-58361 Caity, You must know the work of Eddie Burrup, an Australian aboriginal artist who turned out to be, in fact, a white woman named Elizabeth Durack painting in an aboriginal style. When the truth was revealed, actual aboriginal artists were not pleased; nor was "Burrup's" dealer. As you say, "authentic" art, whatever that might be, sells for a premium, and the paintings were worth far more as Burrups than as Duracks. Caity,
You must know the work of Eddie Burrup, an Australian aboriginal artist who turned out to be, in fact, a white woman named Elizabeth Durack painting in an aboriginal style. When the truth was revealed, actual aboriginal artists were not pleased; nor was “Burrup’s” dealer. As you say, “authentic” art, whatever that might be, sells for a premium, and the paintings were worth far more as Burrups than as Duracks.

]]> By: T B http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-58311 T B Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:44:40 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-58311 Here's a relevant piece at Racialicious that I recommend - http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/27/%E2%80%9Crespecting-your-history%E2%80%9D-jessica-yee-on-being-asian-aboriginal-and-canadian/#more-2472 Here’s a relevant piece at Racialicious that I recommend -
http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/27/%E2%80%9Crespecting-your-history%E2%80%9D-jessica-yee-on-being-asian-aboriginal-and-canadian/#more-2472

]]> By: Katt http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-58276 Katt Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:55:16 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-58276 My father is from South Dakota and has a large collection of Howe's work. Although my family is non-Native, my father is a storyteller (he loves African, Native American, and some European tales) and found Howe's paintings to portray Native American folklore quite exquisitely. I currently have several of his cubist style prints up in my room. I think his work is much more poignant than the romanticized work other Native artists are pretty much forced into producing because non-Native art buyers are looking for that romanticized look of history. My father is from South Dakota and has a large collection of Howe’s work. Although my family is non-Native, my father is a storyteller (he loves African, Native American, and some European tales) and found Howe’s paintings to portray Native American folklore quite exquisitely. I currently have several of his cubist style prints up in my room. I think his work is much more poignant than the romanticized work other Native artists are pretty much forced into producing because non-Native art buyers are looking for that romanticized look of history.

]]> By: misti http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/15/what-counts-as-indian-art/comment-page-1/#comment-58212 misti Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:37:42 +0000 http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=9677#comment-58212 This reminds me of when I was in college, I signed up for a class titled "Japanese Buddhist Art". It was a study of those selected artworks. Silly me, I thought we'd be *making* Japanese Buddhist art! I was informed, rather seriously, that since I was neither Japanese nor Buddhist, it would be impossible for me to create such art. I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who considers it possible to at least consider participating in the creation of another culture's artwork. This reminds me of when I was in college, I signed up for a class titled “Japanese Buddhist Art”. It was a study of those selected artworks. Silly me, I thought we’d be *making* Japanese Buddhist art! I was informed, rather seriously, that since I was neither Japanese nor Buddhist, it would be impossible for me to create such art. I’m glad to see I’m not the only person who considers it possible to at least consider participating in the creation of another culture’s artwork.

]]>