annabelle-abts2030-uq

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

My video - sorry it is a YouTube link, it was too big for the free version of Vimeo  but it’s unlisted so it’s only viewable if you have the link. 

References for included footage: 

CIAF Cairns Indigenous Art Fair, (April 1, 2021). Cairns Indigenous Art Fair 2021 (Promo). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FY55K_SOhU&ab_channel=CIAFCairnsIndigenousArtFair

MCA Australia, (December 12, 2016). Richard Bell on his MCA Collection work 'Worth Exploring'. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf8WS9fshNo&t=239s&ab_channel=MCAAustralia 

Tate, (June 8, 2019). Artist Richard Bell – 'My Art is an Act of Protest'. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDXksMvx2gk&t=187s&ab_channel=Tate  

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

Overview

For my area of research, I decided to focus on how Indigenous artists use their chosen medium to respond to the commodification of Aboriginal Art, the proliferation of ‘fake’ Indigenous art and contribute to discussions of who can produce ‘authentic’ Indigenous art. I will mainly be focusing on visual arts in analysing the paintings of Richard Bell and Gordon Bennett and their use of appropriation to convey the aforementioned ideas. As we discussed in our tours of proppaNOW at the UQ Art Museum and Gordon Bennett’s work at GOMA, Indigenous artists are challenging the colonial paradigms of who can produce authentic Indigenous art – as non-Indigenous people have historically and continue to manufacture fake Indigenous art for monetary benefit. Artists must also navigate their physical positioning within galleries and as we discussed within our tutorial, Aboriginal artists are often ascribed/classified by their identity rather than as artists within their own medium.

I was drawn to the humour and personality of Bell when choosing which artist to focus on for this assignment. I was deeply intrigued by his ability to represent social and political ideas in such a clever yet creative way, utilizing a multitude of mediums such as acrylic canvas, film and the Embassy. I find it interesting how his theorem (Bell’s Theorem), written in 2002, continues to be evidenced within his work that is opening up the necessary discussions of Aboriginal Art’s position within the national narrative, galleries and more broadly within the art industry of Australia. Likewise, the ‘Unfinished Business: The Art of Gordon Bennett’ exhibition was an interesting experience as I entered that space with little knowledge of his background or life story. I really enjoyed seeing his use of multimedia and how he ‘appropriated’ different artists such as Pollock and Jean-Michel Basquiat. Initially I was going to solely focus on Richard Bell, however after hour tour of Bennett’s exhibition, I felt compelled to include how Bennett addresses my research focus within his work.

This topic was a really poignant issue for me as it’s not really one I have researched into before, I have never really considered that all galleries exist as a political space and that Indigenous artists are using their art to challenge the way galleries purchase, hang and sell their art. Likewise, as a prospective journalist, this has reinforced the need to go beyond merely focusing on someone’s identity when interviewing them. My great-grandfather was a non-Indigenous artist who had an exhibition at the Southbank gallery in 2008 and I did some work experience in a gallery when the Hermannsburg Pots were touring Lismore, so I have always been somewhat familiar with art and the industry that runs the Australian art world. Through this research and course, it has definitely highlighted the biases and gaps in my knowledge of how Indigenous people navigate this industry and I have thoroughly enjoyed engaging on a deeper level with this topic.

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

/

There has been much discourse concerning what position that Aboriginal art has within the broader national and international art industry, especially when classifying what is ‘authentic’ Indigenous art. In 2016, the Australian Government along with the Indigenous Art Code and Copyright Agency established the ‘Fake Art Harms Culture’ campaign to prevent the proliferation of fake Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art.

In 2019, this operative introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Prevention of Exploitation of Indigenous Cultural Expressions) Bill, however it was knocked back by Parliament. Richard Bell, interviewed by Bec Mac noted that “...exploitation is rife and encouraged in very many areas, so it’s very difficult for me to see that there would be, you know, any kind of blanket ban that would actually work...”, encouraging people to do extensive research to ensure they buy from artists themselves. Recently, the Netflix show Afterlife was the subject of criticism as they included a piece by a UK non-Indigenous woman that appropriated the dot- painting style as well as incorporating traditional symbols that depict men’s business within the Papunya community, demonstrating the prevalence of this issue within the present-day.

Richard Bell’s Theorem, published in 2002, addresses these ideas of perceived cultural authenticity, how art galleries can reinvent their payment structure to benefit local artists and attitudes that rural/regional Indigenous people can be the only producers of ‘authentic’ Aboriginal art. This theorem, with the thesis that “Aboriginal Art has become a product of the times. A commodity” continues to be present across Bell’s work. Principally, Scientia e Metaphysica (Bell’s Theorem), an acrylic on canvas piece produced in 2003 is a reflection of Bell’s Theorem. This piece consists of blocks of synthetic polymer paint overlayed with Pollock-esque swirls and the text “Aboriginal Art is a White Thing”.

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

Richard Bell - Scientia E Metaphysica (Bell's Theorem) 2003. Acrylic on canvas. 240 x 540 cm

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

//

My interpretation of incorporating some of Jackson Pollock’s iconic work can be seen as a part of the broader narrative that Indigeneity is only celebrated when it conforms to white interpretations of Aboriginality. As Bell’s works are often considered “controversial”, the appropriation of Pollock’s work could be seen that non- Indigenous people are only prepared to be confronted about the truths of history if it is delivered in a palatable way, so in overlaying statements like “I am worth less” or

“Pay the Rent” with Pollock swirls, Bell could be suggesting that non-Indigenous Australians only want to interact with issues stemming from colonialism and racism when it is presented in a palatable way (i.e. by white people). Jackson Pollock’s painting techniques were heavily influenced by Navajo sandpainting and arguably appropriated this form of Native American art. Richard Bell’s Worth Exploring? is a reference to this as Bell employs a Pollock style of swirling paint to emphasise that the demand for Indigenous art exists on the principle that it must conform to Western aesthetics. “Aboriginal Art is a White Thing” is an emphatic and controversial statement for a Western viewership that is featured throughout Bell’s work and as is evidenced within many of his other pieces, he provokes conversation and draws attention to contentious areas, often causing controversy which he has described at one point led to a loss of popularity as he was speaking uncomfortable truths for white Australians. Likewise, Bell was a founding member of proppaNOW, established 2003, that aimed to give urban-based Aboriginal artists a voice. Bell’s theorem argues that those Indigenous artists within regional/rural areas are considered to be ‘authentically Aboriginal’.

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

Here, Bell talks about his work with appropriation and explores ideas of ‘authentic’ Indigenous art within an anthropology context. As I am studying in anthropology, this video has really highlighted the ongoing issues with the discipline and Indigenous people as it has historically been used to romanticise, fetishize and demonize Indigenous people through ‘othering’ and objectification.

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

///

Like Bell, Gordon Bennett incorporates Pollock’s work within his own art and argues that “...for Pollock has a place within Australia's psyche because of the Blue Poles fiasco, Prime Minister Whitlam's purchase of the painting made it emblematic of his Government's radicalism and determination to move on rather than remain in the past...”. The purchase of Blue Poles by the Whitlam Government in 1973 for 1.3 million dollars which caused great controversy as it was the highest amount paid for modern art, and many Australians did not understand why the Government would approve for the acquisition of an abstract painting created by an American painter. Some argue that Bennett’s incorporation of Pollock’s work is a testament to the changes undertaken by The Whitlam Government to advocate for Aboriginal land rights and to abolish the White Australia Policy. Blue Poles and the Whitlam Government are intrinsically linked, and so Pollock’s work can be viewed in association with changes enacted by the Whitlam government. I personally saw appropriations of the Blue Poles exhibition before I saw the actual painting itself, as I viewed some of Bennett’s work before I visited Canberra last year. I found myself kind of not really understanding the significance behind Blue Poles if it is viewed in isolation to the broader historical context concerning Whitlam.

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

Gordon Bennett. Possession Island. 1991. Oil and synthetic polymer paint on canvas,162 × 260 cm. Collection Museum of Sydney. Courtesy Milani Gallery, Brisbane.

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

Jackson Pollock. Blue poles. 1952. Oil, enamel, aluminium paint, glass on canvas. 212.1x488.9cm. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra 

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

////

On the other hand, Bennett uses Pollock’s work to comment that “quite apart from Pollock’s probable genuine interest in Navaho ground painting, we have the myth of the sophisticated and civilised ‘white’ artist who discovers something of value in the art of ‘primitive’ indigenes and brings it back to enrich the lives and cultivated sensibilities of ‘real’ artists and ‘ART’”. Blue Poles features across a range of Bennett’s work, most significantly in Possession Island. In Possession Island (1991), Bennett questions the accepted version of Australian history and colonisation through reinventing Calvert’s etching. Bennett notes that “...so if I use Pollock drips or a pastiche of Pollock, I’m referring to him and the work then takes on board some of the meaning of how his work was interpreted and his historical position”. In my view, Bennett could be demonstrating the positive change that Whitlam represented for Indigenous people in Australia in contrast with the ongoing negative impacts of colonisation and Pollock’s appropriation of Native American art, speaking more broadly to the dominance of non-Indigenous people in stealing and profiting from Indigenous art. Like Bell, Bennett is commenting on the idea that Indigenous art is something that has been dominated by non-Indigenous Australians and colonial imagery, as Pollock’s artwork covers the colonisers/the etching by Calvert and leaves a singular figure, an Aboriginal man, adorned in red and yellow as the focal point of the piece. Amidst the chaos and busy image of the swirls and dots, the man is trapped – imprisoned and reduced to servitude, as were Indigenous people following colonisation and Indigenous people working within the art industry are constrained by the governance and rules of a majority Western art world.

Bell and Bennett both use their own artistic mediums of painting to explore ideas of commodification of Indigenous art and the appropriation of Aboriginal art by non- Indigenous artists. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing these artworks in our gallery tours and having the opportunity to explore more deeply the ideas of how art speaks about art, and I was particularly fascinated by both artists’ choices to appropriate Jackson Pollock’s art style and the broader social/political implications of this.

[annabelle-abts2030-uq]

Annotated Bibliography:

Bell, R. (2002). Bell's Theorem: Aboriginal Art-It's a White Thing. The Koori History Website Project. This paper was a highly important document for its role in introducing ideas of commodification of Aboriginal art, the role of galleries and dealers, and Bell’s dismay that the domain of Aboriginal Art is controlled by non- Indigenous people. This source was crucial to my research and provides an invaluable perspective of an Aboriginal artist in this topic area. Bell successfully outlines his areas of discussion in a comprehensive way and provides an insight onto an Indigenous perspective on a range of issues concerning authenticity and appropriation, my key research focus.

Bell, R. (2003). Scientia E Metaphysica (Bell’s Theorem) [acrylic on canvas]. This artwork consisting of several misshaped blocks of colour with the text Aboriginal Art is a White Thing and swirls of white, black and red paint is a crucial reference to my focus area and was what inspired me to focus on this topic. This piece gives visual representation to Bell’s Theorem and reflects Bell’s understanding of a white- controlled Aboriginal art industry that focused towards acquiring “more authentic” pieces from remote areas rather than urban areas. In 2006, Bell responded back to his own work with the piece Australian Art – it’s an Aboriginal Thing, which adopts a very similar style. I chose to focus on this piece as it is one of the most well-known works by Bell and it gives a representation to Bell’s theorem, drawing together all of the concepts I have focused on throughout my research.

Bennett, G. (1991). Possession Island [oil and synthetic polymer paint on canvas]. This piece combines dot-painting with Pollock’s swirls over Calver’s etching and was highly useful for my research. I think that the NGA put it aptly when they said that: “Bennett intentionally fuses this iconic style of ‘Western’ painting with the famous Aboriginal white dot painting of the Western Desert, reproducing the mix in Possession Island. Thousands of dots fill the canvas. The effect is that they dissolve into a mass of colour, dots and slashes of paint. The viewer is made to step back and allow the eyes to form the images. This is similar to the way a Pointillist painting can only be seen effectively from a distance to bring the image into focus. Looking at the image from different viewpoints helps us to discover different perspectives.” I wish that there was more publicly available information that detailed Bennett’s own reasoning behind some of his work, as many sources/commentaries on his work are by non-Indigenous people.

Bennett, G. (2000). Notes to Basquiat: Poet and Muse [synthetic polymer paint on canvas]. 152.5cm x 182.8cm. National Art Gallery of Victoria. Quote from NGA: The Notes to Basquiat series takes appropriation to yet another level within Bennett’s art practice. Bennett not only used Basquiat images, but begins to paint in his style. Jean–Michel Basquiat, crowned a ‘black urban’ artist, was well known for his spontaneous and gestural paintings, which reflect the artist’s involvement in the graffiti culture of the United States. In a letter written to Basquiat after his death, Bennett writes: “To some, writing a letter to a person post humously may seem tacky and an attempt to gain some kind of attention, even ‘steal’ your ‘crown’. That is not my intention, I have my own experiences of being crowned in Australia, as an ‘Urban Aboriginal’ artist – underscored as that title is by racism and ‘primitivism’ – and I do not wear it well. My intention is in keeping with the integrity of my work in which appropriation and citation, sampling and remixing are an integral part, as are attempts to communicate a basic underlying humanity to the perception of ‘blackness’ in its philosophical and historical production within western cultural contexts. The works I have produced are ‘notes’, nothing more, to you and your work.”

Quoted from NGA: “Bennett, G. (2001). Notes to Basquiat (Jackson Pollock and his other). National Gallery of Victoria. Bennett confronts and questions the appropriateness of this borrowing. Physically, the kitsch Aboriginal motifs copied from Preston are trapped. The representation of Aborigines has been reduced to caricature. Bennett layered these two distinctly different artists with his own work – work previously appropriated from yet another context. Mondrian cages the figures; Preston objectifies the figures; Bennett accommodates both to grasp the intangible and dissect these limited interpretations and stereotypes.” As one of Bennett’s more well-known pieces, this artwork explores the central issues of appropriation by Pollock and Margaret Preston, a non-Indigenous Australian artist. Prior to reading about this source in my research, I did not really know much about the history of Preston and her relationship with Indigenous art as she incorporated Aboriginal symbols and imagery into her work. I would like to focus more on this piece within my future research and to explore how other Indigenous artists have responded to her artworks that are considered to be a Eurocentric appropriation and an extension of appropriating Indigenous art without understanding the spiritual and cultural significance behind it.

Fisher, L. (2012). The art/ethnography binary: post-colonial tensions within the field of Australian Aboriginal art. Cultural Sociology, 6(2), 251-270. This source was highly useful for conducting background research into this topic and was insightful for my anthropological background. As outlined in the title of the work, it explores ideas of urban vs remote artists, the ongoing tensions between the art/ethnography binary and the different views of Indigenous and non-Indigenous artists, actors and filmmakers on this issue. This was particularly poignant for understanding some of the motivations behind Richard Bell’s work, especially the duplicated ethnography that features in the video.

Mac, B. (2018). Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs. House of Representatives. Canberra, ACT. This interview between Bec Mac, a representative of the Fake Art Harms Culture initiative and Richard Bell was a great resource for further understanding Bell’s perspective on fake art and what is considered ‘authentic art’. Bell demonstrated his apprehensions towards the Fake Art Harms Culture Initiative and the proposed Bill in Parliament, noting that “I don't know whether it can be legislated, you know. I think what we have to do is respect each other and see where we're each coming from” and using his own work as a vehicle for conveying the importance of changes to the art industry.

MCA Australia. (2016). Richard Bell on his MCA Collection work 'Worth Exploring' [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf8WS9fshNo&ab_channel=MCAAustralia. As quoted in the description of the video: “The four panels of Richard Bell’s work 'Worth Exploring?' challenge the position of Aboriginal art and artists inside the western art system, linking it to the historical legal status of European colonisation. With his trademark directness and humour, Bell uses a combination of paintings and legal documents to raise complex questions about artistic authenticity, appropriation and reception as part of a broad debate on Australian race relations. This interview, recorded in 2006, goes into depth on the issues and ideas explored in the work.”

Middleton, D. R. J. (2019). Culture as a commodity? The cultural dynamics of Indigenous tourism in the Far North East of Queensland, Australia. University of Queensland. This thesis was similar to the Ryan and Aicken reading, however it provided a much more comprehensive and focused understanding within a North Queensland context. This source spoke explicitly about the commodification of Indigenous art and the mass-produced products on display across Northern Queensland and broader Australia. Likewise, her analysis on the politics that Indigenous artists navigate within art galleries was crucial to my understanding and really helped to understand more behind Richard Bell’s Theorem and the broader context of the a binary between Aboriginal/Western art.

Ryan, C., & Aicken, M. (Eds.). (2005). Indigenous tourism: The commodification and management of culture. Elsevier.This source served as an important background reading into how Indigenous culture has been commodified within this country. This reading gave a broad overview in analysing perspectives from North America, Australia and parts of Asia. While it did not comment extensively on Australian Indigenous art, it was a useful overview for developing an understanding of how Indigenous cultures can be utilised as a marketing and monetary strategy to demonstrate an atmosphere of inclusivity in order to promote tourism, while in actuality, these governments are actively oppressing Indigenous people, an idea reflected within both Bell and Bennett’s works.