Should the artists be in Alice?  One question to ask is, what's best for the artist?  If connection to the land puts an individual artist into contact with wellsprings of inspiration and spiritual power, then get out of town.  But what if you're the main source of income for a large, extended family, a family that's humbugging you every day for cash, cars, and other financial favors?  If you have the opportunity make big money by cranking out canvasses for private dealers, what is your true moral obligation?  Of if your eyes, lungs or kidneys are on the fritz, isn't it better to be closer to quality medical care than suffering out in the community?

The "intercultural space" is filled with moral ambiguity and mutual exploitation.  The making and selling of art is a market-driven activity, and I wish there was a better way to sort out the players in the market.  Do you buy only from community art centers?  Do you extend the buying circle to include the "good" dealers?  How do you separate them from the "bad" exploiters (all of whom insist that they take better care of the artists both physically and financially than idealistic but ineffective art center coordinators)?  Is it our responsibility as collectors who care about the personal and cultural well-being of the artists to judge the dealers and make our judgments public?   This would certainly help collectors who just don't have the time or knowledge to sort these things out.

So I guess I widen the basic question to:  how do I participate in the buying and selling of indigenous art in Australia in a way that is beneficial to the individual artists, respectful of their history and tradition, and supportive of the larger cultural goals of the communities in which they live?  The easy answer is to buy from the art centers and the dealers who support them.  But if the artist needs money and a not so beatific private dealer pays them more than the art center, shouldn't I respect that artist's right to make the choice of who he or she paints for?  If we boycott certain private dealers, doesn't this cut off an important source of  income from people who desperately need it?  It's easy for us whitefellas who are well fed, watered, and stabled, to be righteous.  And even private collectors exploit the rising value of Aboriginal painting, slipping works to the auction houses, taking tax breaks on donations of appreciated artworks, leaving valuable collections to their heirs.

I'd argue that the relationship of dealer/collector to artist is inherently exploitative, and even more so when the dealer/collector is a whitefella buying indigenous works.  To minimize the exploitation, we have to find a way to give back some of the appreciated value of the art to the people who made it, to use in furthering their own interests as they define them.

Although money is an important article of value, the Pintupi have not accepted a commodity-based economy. They do not enter the larger Australian economy for work nor do they desire to do so. They want, as far as an outsider can see, primarily to remain in close proximity with their relatives. In this sense, they are inclined to use the value they gain through work or other payments for traditional ends like traveling and visiting. Many individuals work to earn enough money for particular capital items (a motorcar, a radio, fancy clothes) and then quit. A Pintupi man who was especially afflicted by the disparity between white and black culture described the contrast in these terms: "Money is the main thing for whites; they don't worry who will cry for them when they die." (40-41)