When Policy meets Practice - Selling Yarns 2

A couple of weeks, Selling Yarns 2 was held in Canberra. It was a conference that focused on fibre art in Indigenous contexts. It was fantastic to see and hear of the work being produced in communities from Arnhem Land to Tasmania; it was inspiring hearing of the work being done by Indigenous officers from various museums involved in community based workshops, where skills and techniques were being swapped and revived. Communities developing craft-based tourism initiatives; the establishment of learning and cultural centres, and the work and inspiration of individual makers such as Lucy Simpson, a young Yuwaalaraay woman.

Alison Page gave the keynote address, and issued a challenge, to support and enable the establishment of a National Indigenous Design School with a strong emphasis on developing links with manufacturers, in part to deal with the huge problem of appropriation of Indigenous motifs and designs for the insatiable market for Aboriginal art. Stories appear from time to time in the press, scandalised stories of artists being paid in grog, or broken down cars, of people being held in rooms til the required number of canvases or art works have been completed, of people being paid a pittance for works that will fetch thousands of dollars done south.

The tension between the exploitation of art and knowledge and the nuanced ethical practices that some of the museums have set in place hovered throughout the conference. It was something the Indigenous makers & designers were wanting vigorous discussion of, but the failure for it to be adequately addressed was clearly highlighted by the session discussing the new guidelines for ethical practices shortly due for release.

Guidelines have been prepared & published before, and NAVA had been involved in revising the code, creating a 100 page document or thereabouts, with five subsections, covering not only galleries, but auction houses, and other selling venues. However, the conference was presented with a 15 page bastardisation, a document based on AAAC legal guidelines - a bastardisation demanded by the Federal government who are intent on moving on, determined it seems to be seen to be doing something. Never mind the need for consultation or nuance. A hallmark of Rudd's government as regards Indigenous issues. So much for evidence-based policy.

With question time running short, two Indigenous women pointed out that this charter/guideline will be as useless as all the other previous charters if it is not mandatory. Galleries who operate ethically are already prepared to abide by protocols (though the drafting of some of the clauses in the new code would deter even the most pious) - its the rogues and bastards who are already exploiting people or stealing designs who will continue on their merry way. The presiding arts bureaucrats looked something akin to appalled - no doubt distressed at having to return to their political and mandarin masters to explain that the natives are restless, and equally distressed at looking irrelevant.

Frankly, I thought people extraordinarily polite in the face of yet another set of golden principles that will make little difference to the problems 'out there'. The possibility of developing an Indigenous Artmark did come up but was given scant attention, despite Christina Hurihia Wirihana earlier in the day having spoken about the development of toi iho (Maori makers mark) in New Zealand - and spoken plainly about its successes and problems.

toi iho also speaks to the issue of quality which of course brings in another process of assessment, but the issue of Indigenous identity is probably not as complex in Australia as some undoubtedly think (including the two white women who walked out ahead of me, muttering about the impossiblity of such as thing - "imagine the fuss"). As contested as someone's Indigeneity might be in individual circumstances, there has been a mechanism in place which could be used in developing at least that component of assessment criteria. That is of course eligibility for voting rights in the ATSIC elections - a mechanism that will be revived when a new national representative body is formed sometime in the next couple of years. And it has equal value in the development of an Indigenous Artmark.

The other benefit of developing such a marker is that will clearly define which pieces were in fact the work of Indigenous artists rather than a white designer in downtown Brisbane or Melbourne, and if gallery owner want to see that wee tag hanging on their walls, they can be 'assisted' to meet whatever code of ethical practice is arrived at AFTER community consultation. If they don't come up to scratch or transgress - sorry mate, no Indigenous Artmarks swinging on your gallery walls.

It also becomes much easier to educate both non-Indigenous Australians and international tourists to look for the mark - a nice two way street - you the buyer wont be getting ripped off buying a piece of fraudulent crap, and the artist is not being ripped off by the gallery owner or you the buyer.

Though there is one small problem. It would be have to be Indigenous controlled, and the arts bureaucrats might find that a wee bit of a challenge. Being the handmaidens instead of the smiling frontliners. Hopefully I'm being unpleasantly skeptical. Hopefully. But as with every other area of Indigenous policy making and implementation - if we the great unwashed non-Indigenous Australians really want to see progress and solutions to the issues facing Indigenous Australians, offer a hand, offer our expertise but get out of the way and let people get on with managing their own problems and their own lives. Now that would be truly closing the gap.

just thinking

Jeff Peachey is a conservation bookbinder and toolmaker based in New York. He has an excellent blog that doubles as a showcase for his work. His interests are broad and his gentle humour and occasionally scathing insights are always entertaining.

Today he's writing a book review of The Craftsman by Richard Sennett. It's an excellent review, but what caught me initially (as it was meant to) was the opening line:

“Craftsmanship… the desire to do a job well for its own sake.”

-Richard Sennett

Craftmanship is often a dirty word in art making (I'm not even going to broach the art/craft linguistic mire here) but it's always a high level of skill and care that transforms artmaking into Art. So why is the notion of craftsmanship overlooked in art training? I feel, working at an art institution that prides itself on having practicing professional artists as teachers, that craftsmanship is always implied but never demonstrated or emphasised; it's only brought out in the open when a student is absolutely unable to work it out for themselves and produces 'shoddy' work (or is unable to rationalise the shoddy work as 'art').

Any thoughts?

Discuss

Discuss is hoping to become an on-going loose conversation between a disparate group of makers, artists and cultural workers spread across the eastern half of Australia and overseas. Post-training, the need for conversations about exhibitions, pieces, practices and support is all too infrequently given time and space.

We've gathered a core of contributors and we're hoping we'll have a couple of new posts a months, on topics from exhibitions, conferences, shows journal and magazine articles, web-based resources - we're catholic in the nicest sense. The main focus is to have a sense of being connected to something larger than our worktables, benches, desks and labs.

Please join in the conversation, but if possible, please keep your comments under five paragraphs. If you'd like to guest post, please email:

blog.discuss at gmail dot com

Art. Crafts. Making. Practice. Discuss.