Recently I jounced down to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York to see the "Heroic Africans: Legendary Leaders, Iconic Sculptures" exhibition.
The visit was ironically educational. Especially because the never ending polemic surrounding these cultural objects clouded my experience: that some perpetual myths about African art never get debunked even when the material is on display in blue chip museums and curated by distinguished scholars.
The welcoming items in the show were Greek statues. And of course I was taken aback. My immediate thought was... "When is this ever going to end?" But then museums are educational institutions and their exhibitions will certainly aim to elucidate. So I guess that this cross referencing was because of a Western audience that needed to understand this exhibition in a Western context.
Another problem is that people's names currently associated with traditional African art are Western - those of the collectors and curators. In the Western mind, names are key and nobody goes to see any artwork that is not linked to fame or at least has that potential. Consequently in this field, a quiet appropriation has taken place going back over 100 years.
The persistence of calling African cultural material 'primitive or tribal' perpetuates a negative stereotype
The Western curators and collectors are not the only taste makers of traditional African art. The narrative has come full circle and it is common to associate these cultural objects with certain collections of Modern art. As if they were co-wives, with one leeching off the other. And it all started with Matisse and Picasso and a Dan mask.
Many studies have revealed that language and identity are closely interrelated. So the persistence of calling African cultural material 'primitive or tribal' perpetuates a negative stereotype. Will it take State laws to outlaw the pejorative referencing that directly impacts on how others continue to view us of African descent? Or will our kingdoms remain tribal bands quite like a sorority?
Some argue that the meaning of art has changed and now encompasses the material objects of all people as long as it has a given aesthetic value. Unfortunately this is only true to the extent that Western objects of art are exalted over others. So even extremely well executed articulate Ife bronzes fetch nothing near what an uninteresting Damien Hirst statue will go for at auction – he is 'imperial' and the unknown Ife sculptor, a 'vassal'.
Introspectively... what is my ultimate connection with this material? And does my individual experience lie anywhere close to it? The world of our ancestors is evidently shattered. Yet this so called African art and its meaning is the rare material legacy from this common ancestry, even as it now lies in the hands of others.
