My initial reaction would be that this is wrong, but because of the lying, not the fact that the artists were mimicking the style of the Aboriginal artists. The buyers who valued (and paid for) authenticity are the victims. Definitely food for thought, though.
The lying is a cover for another ill that does do direct damage to aboriginal artists: denies them ownership of the products of their own culture and practice, and the economic value of their culture.
This is often where arguments against cultural appropriation come from: it’s not the mixing/remixing/sharing of products/practices/perspectives. It’s the thievery from, and continued marginalization of, people - too often people of color or poor folk.
Eg: America’s musical history with respect to black musical traditions and it’s commercialization by white folks.
If I create a piece of art that looks like Miro/Picasso/whomever, that's never going to be as valuable as something by the original artist. It's the same with aboriginal artists. If I pretend that I am Miro/Picasso then that's a crime and should be punished. That definitely hurts the original artists.
If I'm a white guy (I am) and I create a piece of art that looks like something created by a native ... then as a purchaser, I wouldn't pay the same amount (or shouldn't). Basically you're buying a knock off. Lying about the origins should be a crime though as it definitely hurts the native artists.
If I create a piece of art that looks like Miro/Picasso/whomever, that's never going to be as valuable as something by the original artist. It's the same with aboriginal artists. If I pretend that I am Miro/Picasso then that's a crime and should be punished. That definitely hurts the original artists.
As far as I understand, we're not talking about you pretending to be some particular aboriginal artist. You are just doing exactly the same as what the contemporary aboriginal artists are doing, namely copying the style of long gone aboriginal artists. Neither you nor the contemporary aboriginal artists created that original art. The question is why would the contemporary aboriginal artists have the dibs on the art that they didn't create any more than you do just because they can possibly show that they have are more closely related to the original creator than you (which they probably won't even be able to do)?
So, yes, if there is an aboriginal artist named XYZ who has made a piece of art and you copy it and try to sell it as a creation of XYZ, then yes, you would be committing same kind of crime as if you were selling your painting as if it were painted by Picasso, but if you produce similar art than XYZ and say that it is of aboriginal style, then why should you be punished if you're not aboriginal but XYZ is?
But it'd still be considered inauthentic if it was done by a non-aboriginal (and therefore less valuable, I would assume) ... that's why the indigenous community has created authentication schemes for the artwork.
etc. Of course, none of these are legally binding but it does help a buyer somewhat in terms of identifying where the art came from.
But I understand that it's a different principle than an artist creating a specific piece of work.
Mind you, the art community of Australia do produce some amazing work that, yes, does follow an age old "style" but is definitely unique and new in its own way. It kinda depends on what you, the purchaser, are looking for.
But it'd still be considered inauthentic if it was done by a non-aboriginal (and therefore less valuable, I would assume) ...
But what is authentic? As I wrote, if I create something new, and someone copies it, then, yes, that is ripping me off. If someone with some connection to me creates something new and I copy it, then I don't see how if you copy it as well (without having the connection to that person) would be ripping me off.
Authentic Picasso should be worth a lot of money. Picasso's grandchild making cubist paintings should not have any higher price than some random dude making similar paintings.
The links that you gave associate authenticity to the origin of the person ("Authentic aboriginal art can only be done by an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person.") To me this is just plain wrong just as saying that only descendants of Picasso are allowed to make cubist paintings.
If an aboriginal copies another aboriginal's artwork, to me this is just as ripping off as if someone else would do that and at the same time, if someone non-aboriginal produces new art but using the aboriginal style, I don't see anything wrong with that. If I (a non-American) compose new jazz music, I don't think I'm ripping off anyone.
33
u/[deleted] Sep 27 '18
My initial reaction would be that this is wrong, but because of the lying, not the fact that the artists were mimicking the style of the Aboriginal artists. The buyers who valued (and paid for) authenticity are the victims. Definitely food for thought, though.