My Emily Problem
Emily Kame Kngwarreye has (almost) always been
with me on my journeys into Aboriginal art. In 1990, the year I first traveled
to Australia and bought my first painting, Emily had her first solo exhibition,
at Chris Hodges' aptly named Utopia Gallery in Sydney. She also had three other
solo exhibitions that year. I'm tempted to wonder if any other artist--let
alone an Aboriginal artist--went from participating only in group shows to
having four solo exhibitions in a single year. But doing so lands me squarely
in the midst of my Emily problem, right here in my first paragraph. Somehow,
talking about Emily without careening straight into hyperbole seems to be nearly
impossible.Did you know that two large
(and thus undoubtedly important) canvases by Emily were lost in the destruction
of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001? That was one of the first
stories I heard a few months after the fires stopped burning and the first waves
of shock over the incident receded. Amidst all the other stories of pain and
loss, amidst all the questioning, soul-searching, second-guessing, this is the
only story I have heard about that day that has a sort of high-culture sheen to
it. And who else would star in the greatest of contemporary American tragedies
but the greatest of modern Australian painters? It's almost too good to be
true, this gift of universality to the
mythos.The 9/11 story also serves to
locate Emily, again, in the era of the modern and the American. It's almost as
if it is one more way in which her proper sphere of influence or operations is
in the grand, operatic, American theater. In still another way, she's linked to
the culture that produced Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, Brice Marden, and
all the other titans of Abstract Expressionism whose names crop up like
dandelions in the field of art criticism every time Emily's achievements,
stature, or reputation are broached. Somehow, we are required to come to terms
with Emily's kinship with these artists and with the whole movement of
abstraction in painting; at the same time we are constantly reminded that she
lived outside of and indifferent to the rest of the art world. It is said that
on her infrequent metropolitan visits, when taken to museums, she displayed no
interest in any works other than her own. Although what we are to make of this
lack of interest is less clear: is it Olympian detachment or sheer
provincialism?And of course, long
before issues of carpetbagging and the exploitation of Indigenous artists became
the stuff of editorializing articles in The Australian or the subject of
Senate Inquiries and Codes of Conduct, there was Emily. And here again, the
Olympian/provincial binary came into play. Was Emily the ultimate modernist
Aborigine, driven by a brilliant, individualist sense of her power as an artist,
or an elderly lady, manipulated by self-interested, fortune-seeking merchants
and trapped in a machine not of her own making? Was she magnificently prolific,
or were many of her canvases tossed off by talented forger-dealers in the back
rooms of Alice Springs galleries?A
great deal of my Emily problem stems from the fact that by the time I first
directly encountered her paintings, six years after that first trip to
Australia, she had already died, and the legend had overtaken the woman; the
myths had outstripped the paintings in their monumentality and diffusion. I
have always had a hard time shutting out the noise and seeing the paintings.
Another five years passed before I visited the Art Gallery of New South Wales
(in 2001, ironically, about the time I heard the stories about the paintings
that had been destroyed in the New York conflagrations) and saw an aisle full of
large, relatively early (1991-92) canvases on display there in the Yiribana
Gallery. As I remember those
paintings, they were what I think of as transitional works. They still
contained the undergirding of linear, yam-like structures, lines painted across
the canvas, but barely visible beneath meters of densely painted dots. The
colors were subdued, autumnal, browns and golds, dusky pinks, muted whites. I
was struck, for the first time, by nothing so much as their sheer
beauty. All
of these memories, these conflicting stories and conflicted judgements, have
been brought back to mind by my recent encounter with the catalog for Margo
Neale's magisterial exhibition, Utopia: the genius of Emily Kame Kngwarreye
(National Museum of Australia Press, 2008), which opened early in 2008 at the
National Museum of Art in Osaka, and then traveled to the National Art Center in
Tokyo, before returning to the NMA in August of that year. (As usual, the NMA's
website documenting the exhibition is superb, if no substitute for either the
show itself or the beautifully produced
catalog.)The NMA exhibition was
developed with the Japanese venues and audiences in mind, and perhaps for that
reason the catalog essays tend to focus too much for my taste on placing Emily
in the modernist tradition. Doing so probably provides a context through which
Japanese aficionados of twentieth century Western aesthetics traditions can
approach the works. This strategy undoubtedly underlies the repeated
comparisons to the work of Japanese painter Yayoi Kusama, whose hallucinogenic
compositions share with Emily's an occasional trompe-l'oeil three-dimensionality
achieved through elaborate dotting, but whose work is otherwise as far removed
from Emily's aesthetic as it is possible to imagine. In the end, the need to
compare and contextualize forces the essayists to stumble, for they must
consistently return to the fact of Emily's otherness, her Aboriginality, her
ignorance of those Western and Japanese modernist traditions, however much the
paintings seem to belong to them.
This "recontextualizing" of Emily's
paintings emerges in my mind as a consistent theme in the critique and
evaluation of her work, and in the end, I find it leads down paths that are
ultimately not helpful, indeed, downright distracting. The compulsion to
explain Emily's success (and the even more annoying compulsion to replicate it
by nominating an endless series of little old ladies to take her place at the
vanguard of Aboriginal art) seems to be quite beside the point. In the end, I
don't want to know why Emily's career is important. I want to be able to
look at the work for
myself.Fortunately, Margo Neale's
catalog does an excellent job of clearing the air by presenting an extraordinary
and generous selection of the paintings. Arranged thematically, in a scheme
derived equally from aesthetics and content ("Fields of Dots," Colourism," "Body
Lines," etc.), Neale's presentation of Emily's career lays out the changes in
style with great clarity. Given that Emily made dramatic shifts in styles in
the course of her career, and that she rarely looked back once she took up a new
theme, the organization of the paintings by these themes is also quite nearly
chronological. As I turned the pages, I could see how body marks became
submerged in a kind of floral landscape, how subsequently that engagement with
fields of color took over her imagination. And then how suddenly she stripped
away the profusion of strokes, dots, and color in favor of line and monochrome
composition, and how that change may have reflected equally the pressure to
produce more work, the increasing frailty of an octogenarian, and maybe even a
compulsion to create as she aged.Neale
ends the catalog with an essay of her own that returns Emily to the country she
lived in. Neale cuts through much of the chatter in a photo-essay that
convincingly pairs photographs of cracked earth, yam seeds and yam blossoms,
blooming desert meadows, and women's bodies moving in fields of sand with more
reproductions of Emily's paintings. If ever it were true that a picture is
worth a thousand words, it is so here in Neale's inspired
assemblages.But my Emily problem
remains with me. Why was Emily's work embraced with such critical fervor? Why
the rush, even when she was still alive, to emplace realm her in the empyrean
realms of modernism, midway between Monet and Marden? Of course I have my
theory. Doesn't everyone?One piece of
my theory has to do with museums and markets. As Neale points out, Emily
arrived on the scene at the moment when the state galleries were beginning to
collect Aboriginal art in earnest. Nearly two decades of striving by the
artists of Papunya Tula had generated momentum, and the desert painting movement
had spread to Yuendumu and to Balgo as well as to Utopia in the latter half of
the 80's. At the same time, however, federal subsidies for the production of
Aboriginal art and the support of art centres were declining. Government
operations like the Centre for Aboriginal Arts and Craftsmen in Alice Springs
were closing down, to be replaced by commercial galleries specializing in fine
art of the Aboriginal kind, like Hodges' Utopia Gallery, or Gallery Gondwana in
Alice, owned by Roz Premont, who had formerly managed the government gallery.
(See "After the Fall: In the Arts Industry," Chapter 7 (pp. 209-229) of Fred
Myers' history Painting Culture: the making of an Aboriginal high
art , Duke University Press, 2002, for a full treatment of this
transition.) The moment was ripe for a new dynamic in the
marketplace.The paintings that had
been coming out of Kintore, Papunya, Yuendumu, and Balgo were all of a piece,
despite stylistic differences. They were recognizably Indigenous, trading in
desert iconography (see Nancy Munn's Walbiri Iconography: graphic representation and cultural
symbolism in a central Australian society, Cornell University
Press, 1973). The traditional palette of Papunya Tula had been enhanced and
vivified at Warlukurlangu; Warlayirti artists would soon redefine the regular
dotting style of the Pintupi artists, but all these works shared what could be
identified as a consistent Indigenous
aesthetic.At Utopia these stylistic
changes coalesced and were transformed in the vibrant colors and looser
constructions of Emily Kngwarreye's paintings. In many ways they looked nothing
like their Central and Western Desert counterparts. They combined the
decorative, craftsmanlike compositions of batik with the overall effect of
Western abstraction and were neither representational nor iconographic. They
created a niche in the market where north met south. For all these reasons,
they formed the thin edge of Aboriginal painting into the contemporary art
sphere, and their sales indicated the enthusiastic acceptance of a format that
was both familiar and other--surely a hallmark of modernism as defined by the
cultural canons of the twentieth century. Critical response followed upon
commercial success, and more commercial success followed critical
response.(I wonder now if a similar
dynamic played a role in the success of paintings by Rover Thomas, an artist
whose name is often linked to Emily's, and whose performance in the secondary
market is the only one to really match hers over the years, but who otherwise
shares little with her. Again, a style that was quite different from the norms
of "Aboriginal painting" in the late 80's, and which bore superficial
resemblances to modern master--famously, in Rover's comparison, to Mark
Rothko--led to rapid assimilation into the Euro-American art
markets.)Margo Neale cannily called
this exhibition Utopia: the genius of Emily Kngwarreye. The first
element in the title is a place name. The second element, genius, is originally
"the tutelary or attendant spirit ... allotted to every person at birth, or to a
place" (per The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). Despite all the
homage to modernism and to modernist critical theory, Neale returns the emphasis
to place; she lets Emily be Emily.
Emily and her paintings were and are an inextricable part of the network of meaning that constitute Alhalkere, the ancestor, the pierced rock, the Country and the associated Dreamings that emanate from it. She was neither superior nor central to it. When you appreciate Emily's oneness with her world, you gain a better idea of the lived reality of her experience. When I discuss her paintings ... I do not refer to Alhalkere as a body of knowledge possessed by the artists; instead I describe these images as her lived experience and expression of being part of Alhalkere. In other words, her paintings are not about Alhalkere--they are Alhalkere (p. 224).
Posted: Sun - April 25, 2010 at 12:30 PM
|
Quick Links
About this Blog
Readings, reviews, and reflections by an American observer of Australian Indigenous art, culture, politics, anthropology, music, and literature.
If you don't wish to leave comments on the blog itself please feel free to contact me directly. Will Owen
XML/RSS Feed
Search the Blog
Archives
Categories
Links
Visits Since September 2006
Past Posts, Selected
Calendar
| | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Find It In a Library
Find It In An Australian Library
Creative Commons
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 25, 2010 03:47 PM
|