Now some issues for debate. (a) Is it really ‘their’ art? The San art is rather a symbiosis of own culture (images, stories) and modern art techniques and materials. (b) A whole range of indigenous artists are able to make a better living, selling their art products. The Australian example shows however that another quite non-indigenous group also ‘makes a living’ out of that: middlemen, galleries, museums, entrepreneurs, etc. (c) Does it really help the people as a whole, or just the lucky creative few? Does it contribute to the collective self-esteem? To the emancipation and empowerment process of the people? Or is the art one more way to encapsulate them in the dominant oppressive system?
(d) What is the difference between this ‘art’ and the ‘artisanry’/handicraft? The San have as well the necklaces made of ostrich-eggshell, leather products, etc. Why is one artistic expression considered as ‘modern art’ while another expression is called ‘handicraft’. What is the difference? I guess that the work of art is a unique product, one of a kind only. Handicraft on the contrary, uses natural materials and traditional techniques, resulting in a certain quantity of a rather equal products to be used or commercialized. Nice try! But…. Roberto Mamani Mamani, a well known plastic artist in Bolivia, has a huge production of works, all considered as ‘art’ (certainly considering the high prices!), with an impressing sales volume, but all using the same range of forms and colors, with just slight variations. And on the other hand, some ‘handicaft’ products really have fine unique artistic qualities… So at least we can conclude that the separation line between the two categories is blurred…...
Rob