The world is not a foreign land by The University of Melbourne Museums & Collections publications

The world is not a foreign land

The world is not a foreign land Curated by Quentin Sprague Published by the Ian Potter Museum of Art, the University of Melbourne, on the occasion of the exhibition The world is not a foreign land, 6 March to 13 July 2014. An Ian Potter Museum of Art and NETS Victoria touring exhibition

The world is not a foreign land will be toured by NETS Victoria 2014–16 to: Drill Hall Gallery, Australian National University, Canberra Cairns Regional Gallery, Qld Tweed Regional Gallery, Murwillumbah, NSW Flinders University Art Museum, Adelaide Latrobe Regional Gallery, Morwell, Vic.

Text © 2013, the authors and the Ian Potter Museum of Art, the University of Melbourne. Images © 2013, the artists and their descendants. This catalogue is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-0-7340-4894-3

This project has been assisted by the Australian Government through the Australia Council for the Arts, its arts funding and advisory body.

Design by 5678 Design Printed in China by Australian Book Connection The Ian Potter Museum of Art The University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 Australia Email potter-info@unimelb.edu.au ww.art-museum.unimelb.edu.au Patron Lady Potter AC

This exhibition has received development assistance from NETS Victoria’s Exhibition Development Fund Grant, supported by the Victorian Government through Arts Victoria, a division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

NETS Victoria supporters

National Exhibitions Touring Support (NETS) Victoria is supported by the Victorian Government through Arts Victoria, by the Australian Government through the Australia Council for the Arts, its arts funding and advisory body, and through the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy, an initiative of the Australian, State and Territory Governments. NETS Victoria also receives significant inkind support from the National Gallery of Victoria.

PAGE 2–3

Cat. no. 27 Ngarra Untitled 1998

Contents

6 Foreword Kelly Gellatly 7 Introduction Quentin Sprague 9

The world is not a foreign land A conversation between Joanna Bosse and Quentin Sprague

Selected images

49 Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contemporary about Aboriginal contemporary art? Ian McLean 55

Indigenising curatorial practice Stephen Gilchrist

Catalogue of works in the exhibition

Artistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; biographies

Foreword Kelly Gellatly, Director

Following on from Quentin Sprague’s earlier curatorial project, Groundwork, which was presented at the Ian Potter Museum of Art in 2011 and brought together the work of Indigenous artists Janangoo Butcher Cherel, Mick Jawalji and Rammy Ramsey, The world is not a foreign land continues Sprague’s desire to establish different entry points into and dialogue around the work of some of this country’s most interesting Indigenous artists. As such, it is deliberately propositional in form and intent, gently, yet insistently, interrogating the manner in which Indigenous practice, as both art historical discipline and framework, has been written about, positioned, curated and consumed. By juxtaposing the seemingly disparate work of Timothy Cook, Djambawa Marawili, Nyapanyapa Yunupingu, Ngarra, Rusty Peters and Freda Warlapinni—together representative of the vastly different cultural practices and beliefs and geographic regions of the Tiwi Islands, Northeastern Arnhem Land and the East and West Kimberley—this skilfully crafted exhibition and accompanying publication encourage those who willingly embark on its journey to focus on the unique creative output of the individual artists (an approach that is simply a given for non-Indigenous practitioners), while similarly acknowledging the deeply embedded cultural and spiritual connections that

underpin and inform their respective bodies of work. As a project, The world is not a foreign land doesn’t attempt to neatly wrap these concerns nor provide a definitive standpoint, but instead opens up a space for contemplation and thought that quietly speaks of the possibilities of, and revelations within, a new paradigm. This handsome publication showcases new writing by Ian McLean, Research Professor in Australian Art at the University of Woollongong, NSW, and Indigenous art curator Stephen Gilchrist. I thank both writers for their brave and perceptive essays and the greater contribution they each make to the issues that are raised by and circulate within the exhibition itself. The world is not a foreign land could not have been realised without the generous support of the artists’ representatives, in particular Buku-Larrnggay Mulka Centre, Yirrkala, NT; Warmun Art Centre, WA; Jilamara Arts & Crafts, Milikapiti, Melville Island, NT. We are equally grateful to Alice Beale, Senior Collections Manager, Anthropology, at the South Australian Museum, Adelaide, for facilitating the loan of two significant Tiwi barks from their collection. Thanks are also due to the private lenders who have willingly parted with their muchloved works for the duration of the exhibition at the Potter and its subsequent tour.

The research and travel that informed this exhibition were the result of a NETS Victoria Exhibition Development Fund Grant. A particular debt of thanks is due to the NETS Victoria team—Georgia Cribb, Emily Jones, Sherryn Vardy, Eleanor Adams, Maria-Luisa Marino and Dylan Foley for their ongoing involvement in the exhibition. We are delighted that our partnership with NETS, along with the substantial and generous support of the Australia Council’s Visions of Australia and the Contemporary Touring Initiative, will also enable the exhibition to travel to the Drill Hall Gallery at the Australian National University, Canberra; Cairns Regional Gallery, Qld; Tweed Regional Gallery, NSW; Flinders University Art Museum, Adelaide, and Latrobe Regional Gallery, Morwell, Vic., between 2014 and 2016. Finally, we congratulate and warmly thank curator Quentin Sprague for his dedication and hard work on the exhibition and this publication and his enthusiastic collaboration with the entire Potter team. Thanks are also due to the Potter’s former senior curator Bala Starr, and curator Joanna Bosse for their close involvement in the project.

Introduction Quentin Sprague, guest curator

The world is not a foreign land is a particular kind of curatorial exercise. It began in thinking about curatorial practice in relation to what is broadly known as Indigenous contemporary art; a term used in Australia to refer to the myriad of practices that have, over the past four decades or so, emerged from the many ‘remote’ Aboriginal communities that are scattered throughout the northern and central regions of the country. Although the title of the exhibition suggests a certain expansiveness, its borders are defined by a series of very specific localities. Crossing three geographically and culturally distinct regions—the Tiwi Islands, the Kimberley and North-eastern Arnhem Land—the artists present sometimes strikingly different perspectives. However, seen together, the work of Timothy Cook, Djambawa Marawili, Nyapanyapa Yunupingu, Ngarra, Rusty Peters and Freda Warlapinni, also reveals a series of productive and meaningful relationships. While a number of these—such as the different approaches to Yolngu art displayed by Marawili and Yunupingu, or the generational influence between Cook and Warlapinni—are clearly defined, others are far more propositional, driven instead by a feeling for how certain objects and, by extension, certain practices, might relate in the physical space of an exhibition. In recent years much has been made of a significant revision in the broader art world: ‘contemporary art’, a term that had predominately been used as a

signifier for the art of the moment, has emerged as a distinct period style, one that reflects something intrinsic about the contemporary condition. Far from simply being art made now, contemporary art has taken shape as a practice that reflects a certain way of being and acting in the contemporary world. What this discursive adjustment has meant for Indigenous contemporary art in Australia remains largely unexplored. Undoubtedly it provides space to further redress ethnographically bound notions of ‘tradition’ and the Euro-centric histories and categorisations these rest upon. Yet, perhaps more importantly, it also calls upon curators and audiences to think through the logic of division—whether cultural, regional or otherwise—that continues to broadly define this art’s reception and display. Even though, at one level, The world is not a foreign land operates on the difference between contemporary art and Indigenous contemporary art, it does so in the knowledge that this in itself is a flawed distinction. If this art does contain a defining sense of the ‘foreign’ (as in, if the Aboriginal communities and outstations in which it is made lie an insurmountable distance from the populace urban centres where it is ultimately shown), it is a foreignness of a similar register that threads through the broader discourses of contemporary art, binding together previously distinct worlds. As Stephen Gilchrist highlights in his catalogue essay, exhibitionmaking provides a unique model

for a certain kind of collective thinking. Guided by the often open-ended creativity of artists, it is a formal structure that should welcome and encourage questions rather than present definitively staged answers. Whether audiences are drawn towards the internal worlds each artist constructs in their work or the broader connections between practices, the narratives this exhibition proposes are openended. In a similar spirit, the commissioned catalogue texts by Stephen Gilchrist and Ian McLean engage the exhibition as a departure point, providing space to consider a number of the key questions that the circulation of Indigenous contemporary art can’t help but raise. Along with the artists whose striking and thought-provoking works provide both the basis and core of this project, I’d like to draw attention to a number of others who have been integral to its development. Firstly, the late Gija artist Mick Jawalji, who participated in the research of this exhibition when I visited him with his friend and linguist Thomas Saunders in Imintji, Jawalji’s home community, during September 2012. Along with the excellent staff at the Ian Potter Museum of Art and NETS Victoria, I’d also like to thank the many intermediaries whose support was essential, in particular (and in no order), Will Stubbs, Kade MacDonald, Kevin Shaw, Geoff Crispin, Terry Wright, Jonathan Kimberley and Anna Crane.

The world is not a foreign land A conversation between Joanna Bosse and Quentin Sprague

Joanna Bosse: You’ve described this exhibition as ‘a particular kind of curatorial exercise’. The term ‘exercise’ indicates an open-endedness or speculative basis to your approach. Why is this important? Quentin Sprague: I’m sure you’d agree that ‘open-endedness’ is a good quality to cultivate in an exhibition, even if curators might generally be expected to provide something didactic or definitive. However, having said that, surely at one level all exhibitions contain a sense of speculation, even if it is simply the kind of space they create for the audience to think between the objects or practices on display and the possible relationships these might represent. As an exhibition, The world is not a foreign land was driven by two overlapping frames that tracked its research and development. The first concerned artists whose work, when seen together, would reflect something specific about their local context (which we can expand in more detail later). The second, which is relevant to your question, was simply about bringing together a group of artists whose work, I felt, would highlight new ways of thinking in-between these local contexts—between the different regions or cultural groups or art histories within which each lives and works. In this sense it’s about highlighting different relationships— whether formal, or material, or poetic—that will, I hope, activate areas of overlap, resonance, even contradiction. (I say ‘I hope’ because there’s only so much you can picture without seeing the actual work in the space.) The speculative aspect also emerges in relation to Indigenous contemporary art. Would you agree that although we’ve seen plenty of thematic group exhibitions occur within the broader frame of contemporary art that take a similar approach, they are not so common in relation to Indigenous contemporary art? So the question is—how might we make an exhibition like that with this art? What are the opportunities and/or potential stoppages?

It is interesting to consider the idea of the ‘local context’. I agree that the majority of exhibitions of Indigenous art are based on geographic and cultural affinities, which has been necessary in order to articulate the specificities of cultures against the idea of a ‘pan Aboriginal art’ and to develop knowledge of local art histories. Those exhibitions have given audiences the capacity to read and understand Indigenous contemporary art at a cultural level. It strikes me that you’re interested in Indigenous art at a personal level too, at the level of an artist’s individual practice. So the paradigm of the group exhibition—bringing together artists across generations, geographies, media—is useful. Is the challenge with an exhibition like this, where, for artists, their cultural context is paramount, to not discount that in an effort to emphasise the personal? As a mode of cross-cultural communication, Indigenous contemporary art remains very important. This function has become especially prominent since the 1990s, which is when the art world really began to grapple with a critical language of exhibition-making (and writing) that attempted to reflect Aboriginal ways of thinking and doing. It was no longer enough to simply continue to imperfectly frame the diversity of Aboriginal practices within the boundaries of the Western art world. I would even go as far as saying that a number of survey exhibitions of specific regions, or artists, that we’ve seen since then—Crossing country [Crossing country: The alchemy of Western Arnhem Land art, the Art Gallery of New South Wales, 2004, curated by Hetti Perkins] for instance—are among the most significant exhibitions staged in recent decades in this country, and that we are yet to really unpack their implication in terms of the emergence of contemporary art as a distinct period style. So, I absolutely agree with you—a certain kind of exhibitionmaking has provided a key means of communication, in a sense enabling a level of cross-cultural understanding that had largely been foreclosed elsewhere. Yet, having said that, this exhibition is of another register. As I mention above, it’s the space between different works that interests me—how to set differences into play, that kind of thing—rather than setting out to make the definitive statement about, say, Yolngu art, or Tiwi art. Other curators have done this type of exhibition, so it’s the other sort, the exhibition that focuses in on the personal level, as you put it, that has driven the ideas here. However, this doesn’t mean encouraging audiences to disregard the specific cultural aspects of the work. These remain absolutely central—it’s sort of impossible to remove this frame of reference, even if, for whatever reason, you wanted to. In fact, I’d think it would be difficult to stand in front of a work by Rusty Peters for instance, and not sense the feeling for place that activates his work and his thinking as an artist. His work, as with the work of the other artists in the exhibition, looks a certain way. Its local context is articulated through the fact of what it is—both materially and formally.

You’re one of a small number of curators who have worked directly with Indigenous artists for extended periods in different art centre contexts. I can understand if your desire to create an exhibition environment that allows an artist’s work to communicate across categories stems from this experience—managing an art centre means that every day you’re in the studio, exposed to the complexities of the artistic process and acutely aware of individual agency. I’ve worked on the Tiwi Islands and in the East Kimberley, so I do have a general sense of the kind of social structures that underwrite the production of Indigenous contemporary art and I feel these are very important and often overlooked. I’ve also travelled to other localities as well—to other art centres—so I also recognise that although there are many similarities between places and the ways in which artists work, there are also divergences and these are equally revealing. One thing you learn quite quickly is that northern Australia is patterned with numerous intercultural art histories, all of which, although deeply contingent, have their own character. This is something that you can’t help but recognise, in part because, in my experience, artists are usually quick to differentiate themselves from Aboriginal art in a general sense. One thing you realise if you spend any amount of time in these spaces is that there are levels of presumption that guide the reception of Indigenous contemporary art in the broader art world. The tensions that this raises are, for me, what activates any successful exhibition of Indigenous art practice. I mean, what constitutes a ‘painting’ in a cross-cultural context? Is it the same thing that constitutes a painting in a modernist/Western sense? What is a studio, and what do we expect artists to do there? These sound like naïve questions, but I think they are very valuable. Part of what Aboriginal art urges us to do is re-evaluate the cultural bias of these kinds of categories and, in doing so, seek some sort of intercultural equivalent. During the research for this exhibition I travelled to the Tiwi Islands, North-eastern Arnhem Land and the East and West Kimberley, primarily to visit artists and the community art centres that manage their work. As a curator, I came to see this as the equivalent of a studio visit in a Western context—where you visit an artist and discuss their new work in the space in which it is made. Ideally you gain a sense of materials, of the references that artists circulate through their work spaces, the kind of thinking that drives their practice, these sorts of things. For any curator, studio visits are essential—they get you closer to the site of production and, hopefully, illuminate the kind of procedural thinking that artists employ. When you apply that ideal to Indigenous contemporary art you learn just as much, but to do so you have to suspend expectations. The ideal of a ‘studio’ is fundamentally challenged. For instance, as an interloper, it can be very hard to establish effective and meaningful communication with an artist. You find yourself relying on third parties—the art coordinators and managers who are usually well-versed in operating between art worlds and whose perspectives can be very revealing—to guide your engagements and act, at one level, as translators. Studios are also often collective spaces, which causes you to shift your thinking again. I’m not sure what aspects of this process are evident in the final exhibition, but it has informed the thinking that has underwritten it.

Let’s move to discussing the work of the artists in the exhibition and the relationships between them. For instance, the coupling of the authoritative ancestral bark painting by Yolngu statesman Djambawa Marawili with Nyapanyapa Yunupingu’s densely painted barks that have been labelled, by comparison, as ‘meaningless’ (a truly radical concept within the Yolngu painting tradition). Could you talk about your interest in the work of these two artists? I was interested in trying to show that, even though both Marawili and Yunupingu practice within the same cultural context, their work is very different. It’s a great example of how, by looking closely at a region, and at individual practices in particular, new kinds of relationships come to the fore. Yunupingu’s work in the exhibition reminds us to look first and not to always feel the need to ‘know’ what a circle or a mark means. In fact, in her case these aspects are often entirely self-reflexive. They simply create a space for the eye, or a kind of formal ballast from around which the painting extends quite organically. The titles of her work often make this point explicitly. For example, ‘Mayillimiriw’—a title that has been used in the past for Yunupingu’s ‘White paintings’—is a Yolngu Matha word that translates, literally, as ‘meaning-less’. It’s actually quite a provocative idea in relation to broader understandings of Indigenous contemporary art. But this ‘meaningless’ is, of course, relative. Yunupingu’s work has been celebrated by the art world. It looks beautiful, it echoes the reductive moments of late modernism, it reveals things about its context of production in a material sense. It’s a perfect example of the kind of relationship the exhibition sets up when you see her work in comparison to Marawili’s. His work defines the opposite pole of current Yolngu art; a space where, from a Yolngu perspective, every mark is laden with textual meaning, quite literally ‘readable’ in terms of ancestral and clan connections. From this perspective, Yunupingu’s work is seen as very minor indeed. I mean, in a context where individual status is contingent on the articulation of collective bonds and responsibilities, why would someone choose to paint nothing? It’s the Western context that creates the space for this to happen and be celebrated. Beyond format and material, Marawili’s major painting Buru (2007, cat. no. 9, pp. 26–28), which depicts the ancestral events associated with the birth of fire, actually has a greater resonance with Ngarra’s or Rusty Peters’ work. These artists also paint epic narrative—ancestral stories and their relation to the land. Similarly, Yunupingu’s work also finds different points of traction within the exhibition; areas of overlap that pull otherwise disparate practices into alignment, however briefly or tenuously. The looseness of Freda Warlapinni’s mark-making, or the roughness of Timothy Cook’s paintings, are good examples.

There are of course similar interests and intentions that manifest in artists’ practices across different Aboriginal cultures, however, the predilection to focus on cultural affinities often renders these unseeable. That’s exactly why this show is different. I like that the exhibition sets up a relationship between Ngarra’s small-scale and delicate fibre-tipped pen drawings and Rusty Peters’ austere monumental ochre canvases. In terms of Andayin knowledge and law, Ngarra was generally revered by Gija as a great leader (as you know, the late Gija artist Timmy Timms once described him in equivalent terms to the Pope) and yet this cultural knowledge of immense significance is conveyed in relatively modest drawings. Ngarra’s work speaks with the same ambition as Peters’ does, and in this context we’re able to reflect on that. Yes, I like that relationship too—the idea that a similar gravitas can be embodied by both big and small works. I’ve always enjoyed that aspect of small works, they draw you in and can enclose you in quite an intimate space. For that reason Ngarra’s drawings form another key aspect of the exhibition. They were made over a decade ago and have never been shown before, simply because they are so unusual within the canon of Aboriginal art, and within his practice they were quite peripheral. By that I mean it was his paintings on paper and canvas that took precedent in his commercial exhibitions, which is where the focus was. Perhaps because of this contrast, the drawings embody something totally unique. They are far more propositional than so much work you see, simultaneously studies for larger paintings (at least in some instances), and works in their own right. The works included in the exhibition are part of a much larger series, which were still in the care of Kevin Shaw, an anthropologist who was based in the West Kimberley and at whose house Ngarra would paint and draw, quite separately from the broader community. It’s a fascinating archive that ranges from the kind of planar pictures of country that form the majority of the works in the exhibition, to observations of plants and animals and regional history. I wanted to maintain a sense of this ‘archive’ in terms of the works’ display in the exhibition, not to isolate them on the wall but to try and communicate something of their nature as sketches. Having them occupy the space in a different manner to much of the other work—displayed in purpose-built vitrines—is an attempt to shift the viewers’ experience of them, and to emphasise their difference as material objects. From their small enclosed spaces to the expansive canvasses of Peters is a stretch, but I think you are right: there’s a real sense of affinity between the two, whether or not it’s a similar approach to depicting landscape or a sense of ambition, as you put it.

I’d like to discuss another of the unexpected relationships that emerge as a consequence of the exhibition. You’ve touched on Nyapanyapa Yunupingu’s work and its lack of specific Yolngu content or iconography. Seeing her work in relation to the reductive ochre paintings by Timothy Cook, makes me wonder whether those lines and marks are also ‘empty’ of cultural meaning. In Cook’s paintings about the Kulama ceremony, he uses one repeated iconic form, the circle (and dot), to symbolise a whole ceremonial cycle. In the context of Tiwi art, they are reductive in the extreme. While Yunupingu’s and Cook’s works are culturally and materially unrelated, seeing them in the same environment allows a reflection on mark-making and what is being embodied by a simple form, or stroke. Yes, that’s what I hope viewers will begin to think about—that ‘open’ relationship between form and intent that bridges otherwise distinct traditions of art making. Cook’s paintings, like you say, are firmly embedded within a reference to a particular ceremony, not so much to its ongoing performance but to its status as an enduring symbol of Tiwi culture. Anyone who is familiar with his work will know that his paintings have become increasingly marked by the repetition of certain iconography associated with this subject. This is particularly apparent in the sequence of six large works on paper that are included in the exhibition, where essentially the same set of motifs are repeated, with minor variation, from one to the next. As you say, these works explicitly reference the Kulama ceremony, which might be best understood as the life-affirming corollary to the other major Tiwi ceremony, the Pukamani, which concerns death and the afterlife. But in Cook’s paintings this isn’t a simple translation between subject and form; like Yunupingu’s work they’ve always struck me as very individual interpretations. The most revealing aspect of Cook’s work from this perspective is his use of the Catholic cruciform—not only as a reference to the mission history on the Tiwi Islands, but also, as an unavoidable expression of cultural hybridity—the contemporary inheritance of recent Tiwi history. Cook usually presents this charged symbol against a backdrop of stars and frames it within concentric circles that might refer to, among other things, the full moon, the ceremonial ground of the Kulama, circles of spectators and participants. But at some stage, each of these aspects, including the cruciform, might simply become formal devices—ways to ‘solve’ a painting. So, I think you’re right in suggesting that there’s a point of overlap here with Yunupingu’s paintings.

Staying with the work of Timothy Cook, the inclusion of Freda Warlapinni’s paintings (and, in the iteration of the exhibition at the Potter, the two 1954 Tiwi barks from the collection of the South Australian Museum) is a classic articulation of influence. You obviously want to convey a generational influence between these artists? At an early stage of the exhibition’s development, I was more concerned with trying to articulate specific examples of artistic dialogue, whether between contemporaries or generations. The ideas that subsequently emerged moved beyond this, as we have just been discussing, but the work from the Tiwi Islands still reflects the notion of artistic dialogue in an intergenerational sense. As with the rest of the exhibition, it’s the interplay of similarities and divergences that I hope make this selection revealing and allow these relationships to be tested in a one-to-one fashion. The Tiwi bark paintings are part of a group collected by Charles Mountford during a National Geographic research expedition he led to the Tiwi Islands in 1954, and now held at the South Australian Museum in Adelaide. At the art centre at Milikapiti on Melville Island where Cook practices, there’s a binder of largely black and white reproductions of the works Mountford collected which artists will leaf through from time to time. It’s interesting to consider how this kind of re-engagement might activate a set of relationships between an object and its copy, and the mediated ways in which culture might pass from the hands of one generation to another via various intermediary routes. It’s productive to remember that this is never as simple as the transmission of some kind of immutable ‘tradition’— things are in flux; they change. Cook’s paintings in particular have often been understood as re-tooling elements of the Mountford barks to a new end, so it seemed like an opportunity to actually see them in the same environment. How similar are they? What basis have they provided for current practice like Cook’s? Likewise with Warlapinni’s work. She’s an artist who is widely understood to have played an important mentoring role at the art centre with artists of Cook’s generation, so the exhibition gestures towards this relationship as well. But I also felt the inclusion of the two older barks would make a broader point. As with the majority of Indigenous contemporary art, all the work in the exhibition can be drawn back to similar historical points of exchange where the necessity of cross-cultural communication premised the creation of new kinds of material objects. There’s something very contemporary about this. In fact, if we understand all the work here as outcomes of dynamic histories of exchange, rather than reiterations of traditional practice, we get someway towards establishing its character as contemporary art. This is the kind of thinking that the work on display here activates.

This conversation was undertaken by email in December 2013.

The world is not a foreign land

Cat. no. 29 Rusty Peters Smoke Dreaming 2008

Cat. no. 37 Nyapanyapa Yunupingu Pink and white 2011

Cat. no. 41 Artist unknown Tiwi Shoreline: breaking waves, rocks and tidal debris 1954

Cat. no. 40 Artist unknown Tiwi Milapuru, totemic site of Mulupukula (White Cockatoo Woman) 1954

Cat. no. 1 Timothy Cook Kulama 2013

Cat. no. 9 Djambawa Marawili Buru 2007

Cat. no. 38 Nyapanyapa Yunupingu Pink and white circle 2011

Cat. no. 16 Ngarra Untitled 1998

Rusty Peters My cousin’s brother’s country, 2008 pigments with acrylic binder on linen 150 x 180 cm Rusty Peters My cousin’s brother’s country, 2008 pigments with acrylic binder on linen 150 x 180 cm

Cat. no. 31 Freda Warlapinni Pwoja 2001

Cat. no. 5 Timothy Cook Kulama 2013

Cat. no. 28 Rusty Peters Berrngalanginy (Eaglehawk Dreaming) 2008

Cat. no. 35 Nyapanyapa Yunupingu Badatjuna 2011

Cat. no. 7 Timothy Cook Kulama 2013

Cat. no. 17 Ngarra Untitled 1998

Cat. no. 18 Ngarra Untitled 1998

Cat. no. 19 Ngarra Untitled 1998

Rusty Peters My cousinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s brotherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s country, 2008 pigments with acrylic binder on linen 150 x 180 cm

Cat. no. 33 Nyapanyapa Yunupingu Untitled 2012

What’s contemporary about Aboriginal contemporary art? Ian McLean

‘It is of the highest importance that our understandings and perceptions of Indigenous art and culture are aligned with contemporary culture, instead of being shackled to the past.’

2 Osborne, P, Anywhere or not at all: Philosophy of contemporary art, Verso, London, 2013.

1 Iseger-Pilkington, G, ‘Branded: the Indigenous aesthetic’, Artlink, 31/2, 2011, p. 39.

3 Perkins, H, ‘Foreward’, in Tim Acker & John Carty (eds), Ngaanyatjarra: Art of the lands, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 2012.

Glenn Iseger-Pilkington1

If Aboriginal art once was prohibited from the modern, the contemporary now claims it. Modernism’s badge of ‘primitive’ has been discarded and Aboriginal art is newly badged as ‘contemporary’. This was not a battle won but a gift miraculously given. The contemporary is not something you defeat or join; it is the fiction of our times; the new universal.2 It already has you in its belly. The contemporary, fully globalized, has no centre and hence no periphery; no other and hence no ab-original. Today, even art that is centuries old is included in exhibitions of contemporary art. The contemporary has not banished primitivism but it has milked its poison. Now the primitive and the Aboriginal, the old and the new, are amongst the many circulating signs that collide promiscuously across the terrain of the contemporary. Freed from the binary and teleological prescriptions of modernism, Aboriginal art is no longer of the Stone Age. Rather it is the oldest continuous culture in the world. With an ‘ancient heritage’ and ‘myriad contemporary expressions’, it ‘defies conventions while remaining deeply rooted in tradition’.3 Now ‘Australia’ is simultaneously contemporary and Aboriginal, and Aboriginal art is of country (ie. rooted in the local) and global. Western Desert painting has been the most successful example of this Aboriginal contemporary. The late Anmatyerre artist Emily Kame Kngwarreye is its embodiment: earth mother and Jackson Pollock all rolled into one. Yet this Aboriginal version of the contemporary, so popular in Australia, has had little traction beyond its shores. The failure of Aboriginal contemporary art in the wider international artworld may be partly due to a lingering primitivism in the old Western centres, but there is a bigger issue at stake. If primitiveness once was the guarantee of authenticity, this authenticity is now in question. The issue is all too prosaic. The artworld, it is believed, is the victim of a scam. The British critic Waldemar Januszczak recently called the cream of Western Desert painting ‘tourist tat’. He was referring to the works selected for Australia, the 2013 Royal Academy of Arts exhibition in London. ‘These spotty meanderings’, he said, are ‘dull canvas approximations, knocked out in reduced dimensions,

by a host of repetitive Aborigine artists making a buck’. He doesn’t doubt the power of pre-colonial Aboriginal art, but ‘out of a tremendous [I]ndigenous tradition … the Australian art world has managed to create what amounts to a market in decorative rugs’.4 One senses Januszczak’s primitivist nostalgia, but his main complaint is the devastating impact of colonialism. None of the paintings exhibited at the Royal Academy were the product of the carpetbagger scams we are familiar with. The scam Januszczak is referring to is the opaque forces of the mainstream art centre based Aboriginal art industry—opaque in part because of their sheer remoteness to other artworld centres. Both these systems, one capitalist and the other socialist, trade on the rhetoric of authenticity. If Australians generally trust the art centre system, preferring to not interrogate its rationale, we also have our Januszczak’s, especially amongst urban-based Aboriginal artists. The Brisbane collective ProppaNow also doubts the authenticity of remote Aboriginal painting. Vernon Ah Kee, self-declared ‘urban Aboriginal’ artist, calls it ‘a white construct’. Its artists, he said, have ‘been sterilized, cleaned. It’s like laundering money … it disgusts me … that’s the difference with urban artists, we’re not going to fall for that type of thing’. Fellow collective member, Richard Bell, agrees: ‘We’re the ones doing the real dreamtime paintings, you know, our art is the authentic Aboriginal art. Because we’re talking about our experiences now, which will in a couple of hundred years be the fucking dreamtime’.5

4 Januszczak, W, ‘A desert of new ideas’, The Sunday Times, 22 September 2013. <http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/ sto/culture/arts/Visual_Arts/ article1315292.ece>

While coming from very different perspectives, these dismissals of remote Aboriginal art stem from the same logic of colonial conquest, in which, as Januszczak put it, Aborigines ‘were shunted aside, murdered and betrayed’. The artworld celebration of these post-colonial products as contemporary art is, in his mind, ‘problematic and tokenistic’: simultaneously a symptom of white guilt and the victory of capitalism. While one can hardly call this celebration tokenistic—excessive is more to the point—ProppaNow and Januszczak refuse to evade an historical hurdle, a difference, that the cosmopolitan discourses of the contemporary represses. This refusal underpins the current politics of Aboriginal contemporary art, sharply distinguishing it from those of contemporary art more generally.

For example, if, in the global makeover of the contemporary, national identifiers have largely disappeared, Aboriginal ones have intensified. Unlike the cosmopolitan ethos of most contemporary art, Aboriginal art seems to suffer from an obsessive narcissism, as if its Aboriginality is the centre of its being and thus meaning. The contemporary term for this is Indigeneity. The term signifies Aboriginal art’s shift from the primitivist paradigms of modernism to the promise of the contemporary. This thesis is the basis of the recent 2013 exhibition at the National Gallery of Canada, Sakahan: International Indigenous art. It explicitly asserted the contemporary global look of Indigenous art while at the same time insisting upon its essential Indigeneity. Here the idea of the contemporary performs the sort of magic that only ideology can. No wonder curators of Indigenous art wear the new badge of the contemporary with pride. However, the magic is wearing thin. Indigenous contemporary art is stuck in a parallel universe. This parallelism is how the primitive manifests in the contemporary. If the modern and primitive are in a binary or inverse

relation, how can we understand a parallel relation? Are they on completely different planes of existence that never meet, or are there ways to shuffle between them? There are increasing signs that Australian art institutions are seeking such wormholes. Sydney’s Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA) is a good example. In its collection Aboriginal art is hung within the mix of the contemporary, as if there is no difference. This might seem to evade an essential difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous experiences of modernity but it equally has the potential to ask new questions of this difference. However, when the MCA mounts an exhibition that exclusively features Aboriginal art—as in the recent exhibition String theory (2013)— the cosmopolitan impulse of the contemporary is foreclosed. The burden of Indigenous contemporary art is the compulsion to protest (declare) its Indigeneity.

5 Moore, A, ‘Black eye = black viewpoint: a conversation with Proppanow’, Machine, 1/4, 2006, p. 4.

6 Iseger-Pilkington, G, ‘Sorry: keeping our histories alive’, My country, I still call Australia home: Contemporary art from black Australia, Queensland Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane, 2013, pp. 131–32.

This burden was not evident when Aboriginal art first escaped from its ghetto in anthropology museums and primitive art departments, and entered the realm of the contemporary in the 1980s. Then it directly engaged the Western hegemony of contemporary art. The best-known but relatively late example is the Aboriginal memorial. Made for the 1988 Sydney Biennale by a group of forty-three artists from the central Arnhem Land community of Ramingining, it was displayed in a large warehouse along with the latest installation art. The National Gallery of Australia (NGA), which had largely subsidized its costs on condition it enter the collection, first displayed it in the international sculpture galleries between works by Joseph Beuys and Constantin Brancusi. In the 1990s, with the appointment of Indigenous curators in state art galleries to run their newly established Indigenous art collections, Indigenous art increasingly became a parallel universe, one populated by too much uneven work, crowded exhibits and an inclusive, celebratory tone. One only has to walk through the door from the galleries of Indigenous and international contemporary art at the NGA to see the problem. The issue, however, is not poor curation but lies instead in the actual conceptualization of Indigenous contemporary art. Take the Queensland Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art (QAGOMA)’s recent exhibition, My country, I still call Australia home: contemporary art from black Australia (2013). Curated by Bruce McLean, QAGOMA’s Indigenous curator, it has a deftness and energy lacking in the Indigenous galleries at the NGA. As in many other exhibitions of Indigenous contemporary art, My country is curated according to a grand narrative predicated on Australia being ‘essentially still a divided nation’6—as one of the catalogue’s contributors, Glenn Iseger-Pilkington (an Indigenous curator of Indigenous art at the Art Gallery of Western Australia) puts it. This division is posited as an essential condition, like a stain, which permeates all aspects of the Australian nation. The contemporary Australian nation is not a co-joined Indigenous-Western entity, but an irreparable split that must be endlessly negotiated. This is not a divide that Indigenous curators alone imagine. It is the great defining divide of those who call Australia home. Why do so few—not much more than 2% of the population—so trouble the consciousness of the other 98%, as evident in the space they occupy in its art galleries? The questions are symptoms of a founding trauma. This is powerfully evident in Vernon

Ah Kee’s Tall man (2010), a four-channel video work that has been widely exhibited in state galleries and contemporary art spaces and which most recently provided the last and climactic exhibit in My country. Here is seen the helplessness of the Australian nation-state in the face of its founding trauma, and the frustration and anger that pervades Aboriginal Australia. It is the same anger that sets the tone of how Aboriginal curators often frame their exhibitions. Yet, although this anger can be confronting, there is some strategy in the malice—the anti-colonial struggle necessitates defiance— but there is also deeply felt grievance that creates what Iseger-Pilkington calls ‘a completely overwhelming sense of responsibility’ in Aboriginal curators.7 Thus their exhibitions and essays are often unforgiving: ‘this colonial divide’8 is the essence of the Aboriginal contemporary, the burden it carries. However, there is nothing contemporary about this divide. Indeed, it is almost retro in its binary nature. It has cut through the Western reception of Aboriginal art for longer than we can remember. Aboriginal art may have finally made it into the fine art museum but we still see it largely segregated from mainstream art, as in the NGA’s special Indigenous galleries and in the Royal Academy exhibition. This apartheid only confirms the colonial divide. It’s one that exhibitions of Indigenous art unwittingly continue to repeat. No wonder Iseger-Pilkington feels ‘the ever-strengthening grip of ethnographic prescription’.9 Anthropologists have long since moved on, but curators have seemingly stepped into their place.

8 Iseger-Pilkington, G, ‘Sorry: keeping our histories alive’, ibid.

7 Iseger-Pilkington, G, ‘Branded: the Indigenous aesthetic’, ibid.

9 Iseger-Pilkington, G, ‘Branded: the Indigenous aesthetic’, ibid.

Iseger-Pilkington believes that the ‘branding problem’ of Indigenous contemporary art lies in the ethnographic connotations of the first term. ‘How do we’, he asks, ‘re-brand ourselves in a world where our Indigenous brand has become so synonymous with the context and content of our work?’10 There may be some truth in this. However, the conundrum of Indigenous contemporary art is the divide that frames its every move. Its repetition of the essence of colonialism disavows the cosmopolitanism that now defines the contemporary in contemporary art more generally. The ‘contemporary’ in Indigenous contemporary art is not the same ‘contemporary’ that animates current artworld discourse of the contemporary. This is the conundrum of all current exhibitions of Indigenous art, especially those that claim the contemporary. The global reach of Sakahan, for example, emulated the biennale model that has so defined contemporary art, yet the Indigenous-only theme contradicted the inclusive relational ethic of the contemporary. Further, while the curators of Sakahan sought to distance their project from modernist paradigms, they repeated them by largely avoiding traditional Indigenous practices. No Indigenous art from Australia’s remote communities was included despite its significant achievements over the past forty plus years. While this made Sakahan look more like a contemporary biennale —for outside Australia few in the artworld believe that remote Aboriginal art is contemporary art—it surely defeated the rationale and challenge of staging a global Indigenous art exhibition. Anything can be contemporary art today so why not Indigenous art? The ‘contemporary’ in contemporary art no longer means ‘made in the present’, but like the term ‘modern’ did in the previous century, names a way of being. It refers to the non-linear temporalities and spatialities that are transforming

the binary relations of the modern. Exhibitions now need to find ways of working with this emerging ontology, which is relational rather than divisive, hybrid, cosmopolitan and collective rather than identity orientated or essentialist. Can this be done in the shadow of the colonial divide, which shows few signs of disappearing? The contemporary doesn’t do away with divisions; it works them differently. The lament that Australia ‘is essentially still a divided nation’ implies that it doesn’t have to be—as if this is an ideal to aspire towards. However, it is the nature of nations to be divided. All nations are artificial constructs that divide one from another, creating an imaginary unity across internal divisions. And it’s not just nations that are divided, but also communities, families, the individual psyche, right down to the human genotype—the ever shifting landscape of variant genes or alleles that in their replication through division determine, for example, skin colour. Life, it seems, is founded on division. It is not a matter of being still divided: the Australian nation will always be divided no matter how cosmopolitan it may become. Sometimes it seems that only an enemy will unite us, if, that is, we can agree on who or what the enemy is. At least in a football final, where the enemy is clearly demarcated, we can say that the crowd is united in its division. Herein lies the wisdom of Aboriginal skin systems and their layered negotiated identities of which ‘Aboriginal’ is only a recent post-colonial signifier. In clearly demarcating an essential difference, this clarity of demarcation creates the grounds for identity. Perhaps we can draw a more general law from this: only in our divisions are we united. So let us praise division and banish the desire for others to be like us, as if identity is simply a matter of sameness. This is the ethic that drives the relational-type practices of ‘contemporary art’.

10 Iseger-Pilkington, G, ‘Branded: the Indigenous aesthetic’, ibid.

How can a contemporary artist, critic or curator, whatever their background, respond to the legacy of colonialism? If they are being contemporary, then they can only respond in a cosmopolitan manner. If cosmopolitanism enables (rather then represses) difference, then the colonial divide is a challenging space for the cosmopolitan ethic but also a meaningful one. For this to occur the truth of the colonial divide must be the starting point of negotiation—it must be where the conversation begins not ends. The line in the sand has to be crossed if Indigenous art is to be contemporary rather than simply badged as such. How can Aboriginal artists and curators walk this line when their people have been invaded and degraded, their land polluted, the children stolen, the women raped? And when all of this was done by an entity that proudly goes by the name of the Australian nation-state, how can Aborigines call Australia home? Can the twain ever meet? Fortunately for state art galleries that employ Indigenous curators, a good proportion of the 98% has seemingly developed a masochistic streak, and seems to enjoy a good slap in the face, as if it relieves the historical burden left by a founding trauma. Many though probably don’t read the catalogues or wall texts, preferring to enjoy these cathedrals of the contemporary without having to endure the sermons. The teachers bring their students, I suppose, because they think it’s educational, teaching a bit of history and

demonstrating who the winners and losers were in the founding of this great nation, which, like the founding of most nations, is in rivers of blood. But whatever the motivation, such exhibitions undeniably attract a white crowd. Counter-intuitively, the very defiance of Indigenous artists and curators, it seems, is creating a cosmopolitan space, as if such a space can only open through calling the trauma out. Curiously, the particularly hard-nosed politics that Indigenous curators and critics usually play is not evident in music, which often is vibrantly cosmopolitan and intercultural and therefore altogether more contemporary. Music, it seems, is able to freely go where curators of visual art dare not tread. However, there are also many contemporary examples of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal visual artists working together, and sometimes even collaboratively. Much remote art, for example, is made as part of a larger collective enterprise, invisible to the wider artworld, in which art coordinators from elsewhere play central roles. The classic example is Djon Mundine’s role in the Aboriginal memorial. Such intercultural exchange belies the founding divide of ‘Australia’. This historical divide is why Indigenous curators and also Indigneous artists are wary of the cosmopolitan ethic of the contemporary. ‘We are’, says Iseger-Pilkington, ‘still far from reaching equality’, and there’s ‘“no freedom ‘til we’re equal”’.11 Unfortunately, waiting for equality is like waiting for Godot. And like Godot, equality does not guarantee freedom. Collaboration is rarely between equals; it is where differences meet in a cosmopolitan regard. This is the promise of the contemporary.

11 Iseger-Pilkington, G, ‘Sorry: keeping our histories alive’, ibid., p. 132.

Ian McLean is Research Professor of Contemporary Art at the University of Wollongong, NSW, and the University of Western Australia, Perth.

1 Kreps, C, ‘Indigenous curation, museums and intangible cultural heritage.’ Laurajane Smith and Natsuko Akagawa (eds), Intangible Heritage, Routledge, Oxon, 2008, p. 193.

2 Ricoeur, P, ‘Structure and hermeneutics’, The conflict of interpretations: Essays in interpretation, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1974, p. 27.

Indigenising curatorial practice Stephen Gilchrist

As both repositories and venues of cultural production, art museums have recently been the site of contestations between Indigenous people and their (post-)colonial administrators. Although museums have historically privileged Euro-American forms of artistic expression—and thus devalorised Indigenous bodies of knowledge—in the last two decades shifts in the balance of cultural power have compelled many museums to critically reflect on the way that Indigenous collections are stored, handled, interpreted and displayed.1 With the incremental acceptance of Indigenous curatorial practices, Western paradigms of museology are being reconfigured and transformed. There is a new receptiveness to a shared understanding of curatorial responsibilities that extends far beyond the walls of the institution. Liaising with ‘source communities’ is becoming the norm and Indigenous curators are not only being employed, they are being empowered to act as cultural guardians of and catalysts for creative practice. This evolution can be described as moving from a methodology of cultural preservation to cultural activation. Tasked with negotiating the contradictions of being implicated into a Western institutional framework, curators of Indigenous art (whether they are Indigenous themselves or not) need to devise installations and exhibitions that interrogate dominant interpretive binaries. These binaries can be identified in terms of temporality (contemporary vs traditional); race (Indigenous vs non-Indigenous); discipline (art historical vs anthropological); intent (ceremonial vs secular). Each of these categories urges us to foreground the ethics, politics and aesthetic relationships that constitute the production of Indigenous art. It is therefore necessary to examine the methodological, theoretical and political value of Indigenous curatorial practice in order to explore the interventionist strategies that can foster and sustain different modes of curatorship and by extension, spectatorship. Paul Ricoeur describes cultural practice in a way that captures its immersive and ritualised character. He writes, ‘our heritage is not a sealed package we pass from hand to hand without ever opening, but rather a treasure from which we draw by the handful and which by this act is replenished’.2 The new Indigenous museology is one that gestures towards this participatory and relational experience of culture. The role of the Indigenous curator is to ensure that objects are not only cared for materially, but are culturally and spiritually reconstituted.

Indigenous/Indigenist The term ‘Indigenous curator’ is used as a model of the possible, and is an ideological and not phenotypical descriptor. Despite the flawed but necessary reliance on an ethnic definition for this model, an Indigenist perspective can be a useful starting point for the absorption of many of these principles within the art museum landscape. It is up to the Indigenous curator to use this newly territorialized space of agency to set the institutional parameters of future working practices, which can be based on culturally separatist politics or, increasingly, pluralistic coalitionary engagements.

3 Shoat, E & Robert Stam ‘Multiculturalism in the postmodern age’, Ella Shoat & Robert Stam (eds), Unthinking Eurocentricm: Multiculturalism and the media, Routledge, London/New York, 1994, p. 342.

In Australia there has been a three-decade long struggle to employ Indigenous curators through affirmative action programs, a development that at one level endorses Gayatri Spivak’s ‘strategic essentialism’. Ella Shoat and Robert Stam describe this post-colonial paradox of theory and practice as a situation ‘where theory deconstructs totalizing myths, while activism nourishes them’.3 Of course, for various reasons, Indigenous curators can never be the magical panacea for institutions, nor impact significantly on the status of reconciliation in a broad sense. Often they find themselves marginalised within their institutions, where, perhaps afflicted with a form of Stockholm syndrome, they forget the power they once had. Conversely, this power may never have been legitimate, as Indigenous museum curators become enmeshed in a system that traffics culture as a commodity. Having held several curatorial positions within art museums in Australia and the United States myself, I believe being part of the representational machinery is important, but it must be said that playing by institutional rules is tantamount to endorsing a game where the odds are stacked against you. Nevertheless, as curators, we need to stop our defensiveness and be open to new ways of seeing, doing and becoming. While our allies should not eclipse us, we should model the politics of inclusion through intercultural arrangements of reciprocity and exchange that can open up new discursive possibilities.

Although not defined as such, there are curatorial-like practices that exist within Indigenous cultures. The reverence of and care for sacred objects is but one expression. The reformulation of Indigenous curation within Western institutions is predicated on the understanding that these seemingly but not entirely oppositional modes can not only coexist but can also strengthen one another. An institution informed by these kinds of Indigenous perspectives can make enormous inroads in moving beyond a one-dimensional ‘us-them’ dichotomy and create expansionary movement within the curatorial discipline. In my own experience, a large part of the Indigenous curator’s work lies in intercultural education, which naturalises the idea that Indigenous galleries are spaces of Indigeneity and not only for Indigeneity. Indigenous art has always served a community function; it was never viewed as something separate from life itself. However, Indigenous people are largely absent from visitation figures to art galleries, a fact that suggests there is a dire need to remove the elite Western bias from these institutions to create culturally resonant spaces that cater more successfully for multi-ethnic audiences. The Indigenous curator must bridge attitudinal and knowledge-based gulfs

between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in culturally appropriate and generative ways. This can be achieved through reconfiguring customary storytelling techniques into conventional and modern modes of museum pedagogy, such as labelling, lectures, audio-guides, online interactivities and both ‘authoritative’ and ‘accessible’ publications. But there is more to the absence of Indigenous visitors than the lack of an effective educational strategy. It is part of a much broader socio-political legacy. As the visual historian, artist and curator Jolene Rickard has argued, while Indigenous art from Australia is more visible than art made by Indigenous peoples across other colonial nation states, Indigenous people from Australia have far less political rights. Not since Bob Hawke has an Australian Prime Minister seriously entertained the possibility of signing treaties with Indigenous peoples. In order to not feel powerless, Indigenous Australians exaggerate our cultural capital, which, it could be said, makes living in political stasis more bearable. This observation underscores the importance of Indigenising museums and creating autonomous zones of alter(native) citizenship within its imperfect armature. Institutional separatism Exhibiting Indigenous art in institutions with diverse collections, can position it alongside the great art traditions of the world and arguably accord it an equivalent status. Understanding Indigenous art in terms of the broader currents of contemporary art is part of this. Unfortunately, this approach—though often well-intended—can too often imply that Indigenous art must rely on the canonising framework of the Western institution to validate its cultural worth. Seemingly, Indigenous art is not inherently self-possessed of its own productive and aesthetic value. One way of confronting this issue is to establish separatist spaces for the presentation of Indigenous art. However, the conceptual paradox of this approach is that it invariably endorses a racialised paradigm, even though most curators of Indigenous art are working against this reflexive categorisation. But tactics of separatism, fractioning and de-centering are surely more radical options than attempts at integration, where involvement is invariably concessional and ultimately marginalised. In addition, with Australia’s history of the forced integration of Aboriginal people, an assimilationist strategy within the museum can dilute the politics of colonization and mitigate the register of dispossession that is thematically present in much Aboriginal artwork. As important as they are, strategies of separatism can also raise the issue of essentialism. By focusing disproportionally on the racialised identity of Indigenous artists, the perceptual and cognitive engagement with their works is often completed far too quickly by the viewer. While ostensibly creating an appropriate cultural context, exhibiting Indigenous art in separatist spaces can often conflate ‘togetherness’ with ‘sameness’ and thus risk solidifying Indigeneity into a singular entity. Creating more thematic and comparative installations that cross linguistic, cultural and geographic boundaries can help to recalibrate pedagogical takeaways from the racial to the conceptual and perhaps even to the aesthetic.

However, cultural separatism still forms an imperfect political necessity in the face of the exclusionary and discriminatory reflexes of many art institutions. It is possible—and indeed encouraged—to work from this essentialist space in order to introduce a differentiated understanding of Indigeneity, and in doing so create new discursive categories and juxtapositions. The deliberative staging of unfamiliar aesthetics teases out the tensions, contradictions and prejudices that many visitors bring to their experience of Aboriginal art. This cognitive process would arguably not happen in an integrated hang. Aesthetics The interpretive struggle for Indigenous art lies in not only recognising that it has a differential value to Western art, but that it has to be valued differentially. The decoupling of Indigenous art from the clutches of anthropological discourse that occurred in the 1980s (both in Australia and internationally) was widely seen as an emancipatory exercise. Art history— presumably innocent of primitivising overlays—was thought to be a superior and more flexible category in which to be situated. Of course the conceit of both disciplines is that they could never apprehend the totality of Indigenous knowledge, experience, or power, through any one methodology. By contrast, the generative value of curatorial practice is that it is intentionally multidisciplinary; it does not and should not align to one single framework. Curators of Indigenous art should aspire to create detailed localised art histories that have been co-authored with community members to tease out cultural significations in ways that resist interpretive banalities and help facilitate a new critical language. The inherited language of art criticism used to write about Indigenous art is falsely universalising and largely inadequate. Indigenous art doesn’t have to borrow from Western iconographies but it’s semantic description borrows from the vocabulary of art history, often with disappointing results. If the level of Indigenous art scholarship is to be brought in line with other art historical studies, a new analytical language needs to be devised, informed by artists, scholars and curators. It’s likely that these qualitative and definitional terms are already among us. They might even be strategically deployed from Indigenous languages themselves to provide an Indigenous theoretical framework that underscores the experiential aesthetics of Indigenous art practice—where form serves a function. Foregrounding aesthetic encounters with Indigenous works of art with localised concepts can awaken people to the beauty of the world and Indigenous people’s responsiveness to it. It would be reductive and absolutist to continue to use Western art historical terms rather than seek a new linguistic repertory that can speak to the complexities Indigenous art presents. Intangible Cultural Heritage With the adoption of the Convention of the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage by UNESCO in 2003, museums and galleries have sought to integrate the principles of ‘performing arts, skills, knowledge and practices’ that come under the rubric of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Respecting Indigenous ways of doing things means being open to new possibilities for cultural hybridsation. This potential was underscored for

me in February 2006. The late Gija artist Mick Jawalji, then aged 86 years old, heard that three of his works recently acquired by the National Gallery of Victoria would be hung in the survey exhibition Land marks. He asked if he could observe cultural protocol and ‘sing’ these works into the collection when they went on display as a means to execute his cultural responsibilities and ensure that the ancestral spirits embodied within the paintings would be both honoured and placated in their new ‘home’. As befits the gravity of this event, the gallery was closed to the public, and was attended by a small group of people familiar to the artist. Accompanied by his own clap sticks, he sang for close to an hour, demonstrating the epic and circular song cycles. Activating a cultural network of associations, Jawalji performed a multi-modal approach to Indigenous art making that incorporated music, visual art, song and ancestral homage. As this was not a public event, it avoided the pitfalls of cultural tourism that can often overtake such cross-cultural encounters and eclipse their real purpose. This event was a powerful assertion of intangible cultural heritage, demonstrating the central relationship between performative and material culture. Conclusion The reorientation of Western art museums towards models of Indigenous curation reflects the cultural activism of Indigenous people and curators from around the world. Not content with being disenfranchised from their own material culture, Indigenous people have made their way into art museums and galleries, taking symbolic and actual possession of the objects themselves and the social practices that accompany them. Exchange has always been a part of customary and contemporary Indigenous experience. As sites of cultural exchange, museums can facilitate meaningful cross-cultural encounters through which audiences, curatorial practices and institutions can be internally transformed.

Stephen Gilchrist is an independent curator and lecturer at New York University, Sydney campus. He belongs to the Yamatji people of north-west Western Australia.

Catalogue of works in the exhibition

Timothy Cook

Djambawa Marawili

Ngarra

1 Kulama 2013 natural pigments on paper 106 x 76 cm (sheet)

8 Dhakandjali 2013 natural pigments on wood 182 x 19 x 19 cm Courtesy the artist and Buku Larrnggay Mulka Centre, Yirrkala, NT; and Vivien Anderson Gallery, Melbourne

12 Lalgari and Yungun waiting for the wet season 2008 synthetic polymer paint on paper 35 x 50 cm (sheet)

2 Kulama 2013 natural pigments on paper 106 x 76 cm (sheet) 3 Kulama 2013 natural pigments on paper 106 x 76 cm (sheet) 4 Kulama 2013 natural pigments on paper 106 x 76 cm (sheet) 5 Kulama 2013 natural pigments on paper 106 x 76 cm (sheet) 6 Kulama 2013 natural pigments on paper 106 x 76 cm (sheet) Works 1–6 courtesy the artist and Jilamara Arts & Crafts Association, Melville Island, NT 7 Kulama 2011 natural pigments and acrylic binder on canvas 150 x 200 cm Collection of Seva Frangos, Perth

9 Buru 2007 natural pigments on bark 223 x 98 cm Collection of John Churchin, Sydney 10 Dhakandjali 2007 natural pigments on wood 320 x 16 x 16 cm Courtesy the artist and Buku Larrnggay Mulka Centre, Yirrkala, NT; and Vivien Anderson Gallery, Melbourne 11 Madarrpa/Dhudi-Djapu larrakitj 2007 natural pigments on wood 307 x 16 x 16 cm Courtesy the artist and Buku Larrnggay Mulka Centre, Yirrkala, NT; and Vivien Anderson Gallery, Melbourne

13 Garngki 2007 synthetic polymer paint on paper 50 x 70 cm (sheet) 14 Parta and Bilji (‘Blackfella’ paint for ceremony) 2007 synthetic polymer paint on paper 50 x 70 cm (sheet) 15 Katcha 2006 synthetic polymer paint on paper 50 x 70 cm (sheet) 16 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm 17 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm 18 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm 19 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm 20 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm

21 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm 22 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm 23 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm 24 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm 25 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm 26 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 29.7 x 42 cm 27 Untitled 1998 fibre-tipped pens on paper 35 x 42.5 cm Works 12–15 courtesy Ngarra Estate and Mossenson Galleries, Perth Works 16–27 collection of Ngarra Estate, courtesy Mossenson Galleries, Perth

Rusty Peters

Nyapanyapa Yunupingu

28 Berrngalanginy (Eaglehawk Dreaming) 2008 natural pigments and acrylic binder on canvas 150 x 180 cm

32 Larrakitj 2012 natural pigments on wood 227 x 20 x 20 cm Private collection, Melbourne

29 Smoke Dreaming 2008 natural pigments and acrylic binder on canvas 150 x 180 cm

33 Untitled 2012 natural pigments on bark 158 x 51 cm Private collection, Melbourne

Works courtesy the artist and Warmun Art Centre, WA; and Short Street Gallery, Broome, WA

Freda Warlapinni 30 Pwoja 2002 natural pigments with acrylic binder on canvas 50 x 112 cm 31 Pwoja 2001 natural pigments with acrylic binder on paper 56 x 76 cm Works courtesy Aboriginal and Pacific Arts, Sydney

34 Untitled 2012 natural pigments on bark 86 x 40 cm Private collection, Melbourne 35 Badatjuna 2011 natural pigments on bark 142 x 55 cm Courtesy the artist and Buku Larrnggay Mulka Centre, Yirrkala, NT; and Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, Sydney 36 Circles 2011 natural pigments on bark 120 x 99 cm Courtesy the artist and Buku Larrnggay Mulka Centre, Yirrkala, NT; and Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, Sydney 37 Pink and white 2011 natural pigments on bark 82 x 54 cm Private collection, Melbourne

38 Pink and white circle 2011 natural pigments on bark 109 x 60 cm Courtesy the artist and Buku Larrnggay Mulka Centre, Yirrkala, NT; and Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, Sydney 39 Mangutji #6 with square 2010 natural pigments on bark 93 x 80 cm Private collection, Melbourne

40* Artist unknown Tiwi Milapuru, totemic site of Mulupukula (White Cockatoo Woman) 1954 natural pigments on bark 76.4 x 46.7 cm Collection of the South Australian Museum, Adelaide 41* Artist unknown Tiwi Shoreline: breaking waves, rocks and tidal debris 1954 natural pigments on bark 66.7 x 25.4 cm Collection of the South Australian Museum, Adelaide * not included in tour

Artists’ biographies

Timothy Cook (Tiwi, Melville Island, born 1958) Timothy Cook began painting at Jilamara Arts & Crafts Association in Milikapiti on Melville Island in the late 1990s. Renowned artists Freda Warlapinni and Kitty Kantilla provided important early influences on his practice, as did the work of older artists such as Deaf Tommy Mungatopi who Cook recalls painting in the community long before Jilamara was established in 1989. Cook’s work is widely celebrated for drawing a classical style of Tiwi painting into dialogue with his own individual take on Tiwi tradition and history. His paintings picture a hybrid space in which iconographic representations of Tiwi ceremony— in particular the once-annual ceremony known as the Kulama— are often positioned in relation to the Catholic cruciform. Emblematic of the influence of the missions that held sway on the islands for much of the twentieth century, Cook’s explicit appropriation of such a charged colonial signifier (effectively subsumed within his paintings by Tiwi systems of belief) presents evidence of a unique intercultural heritage. Cook is represented by Seva Frangos Art, Perth, and Aboriginal and Pacific Art, Sydney, where he has held regular solo exhibitions since 2002. His work is held in a number of key public and private collections including the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra; the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne; and the Queensland Art Gallery/ Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane. He has recently exhibited in Parallel collisions: 12th Adelaide Biennale of Australian Art, Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide (2012); APT7, the 7th Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art, Queensland

Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane (2012–13); Under the sun: the Kate Challis RAKA Award 2013, the Ian Potter Museum of Art, the University of Melbourne (2013); and My country, I still call Australia home: contemporary art from black Australia, Queensland Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane (2013). Further reading Bullock, N & Alexie Glass-Kantor (eds), Parallel collisions: 12th Adelaide Biennale of Australian Art, Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide, 2012. McLean, B, ‘Timothy Cook and Pedro Wonaeamirri: Opposites attract’, in Diane Moon (ed.), Floating life: contemporary Aboriginal fibre art, Queensland Art Gallery, Brisbane, 2009. Frangos, S (ed.), Timothy Cook, University of Western Australia Press, Perth, 2014 (forthcoming). Djambawa Marawili (Yolngu, Madarrpa clan, born 1953) Djambawa Marawili AM is one of the most successful Yolngu artists of recent times. He has spearheaded a number of significant innovations within the tradition of Yolngu art. Key among these is buwuyak (invisibility), a development that has seen Marawili and his contemporaries move beyond the overt figuration often employed by their immediate forebears. While to Western eyes, buwuyak— marked by the dense patterning of minytji (sacred clan designs)— appears to be a move towards abstraction, the opposite is in fact true. The shimmering fields that Marawili often employs to overlay and obscure distinct figurative elements are embedded with textual meaning: they can, quite literally, be ‘read’ by Yolngu eyes. This inversion points towards the formal and

conceptual elasticity that activates much Indigenous contemporary art and, in particular, is a hallmark of contemporary Yolngu practice. Marawili’s paintings generally depict the ancestral story associated with Yathikpa, the bay into which the burning ancestral being Bäru plunged and transformed from his human form into that of a crocodile. The complex designs of Marawili’s paintings often depict associated aspects of this event in elemental form: smoke, fire, fresh water and salt water, all comingle and, as they do, render the diamond-patterned skin of the crocodile in a constant state of becoming. Marawili began painting in the early 1980s and in addition to his art practice, he is also a highly respected cultural and political leader. In 2010 he was awarded an Order of Australia (AM) for services to the arts. In 2013 he was appointed to the Federal Government’s Indigenous Advisory Council. Marawili is represented by Annandale Galleries, Sydney. He has participated in solo and group exhibitions in Australia and internationally, including Zones of contact: 2006 Biennale of Sydney; The 5th AsiaPacific Triennial of Contemporary Art, Queensland Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane (2006); and The 3rd Moscow Biennale (2009). Further reading Brody, AM (ed.), Larrakitj, Australian Capital Equity, West Perth, 2011. Gregory, B (ed.), Buwuyak: Invisibility, Annandale Galleries, Sydney, in association with Buku-Larrnggay Mulka Centre, Yirrkala, NT, 2003. Morphy, H, Becoming art: Exploring cross cultural categories, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2008.

Morphy, H, Ancestral connections: Art and an Aboriginal system of knowledge, University of Chicago Press, 1991. Ngarra (Andayin, c. 1920–2008) Ngarra was an important cultural figure in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, where he was responsible for the maintenance of traditional law across a vast area extending from the West Kimberley to the East Kimberley. He began painting in the mid-1990s after a life spent working on the region’s cattle stations. As one of the only contemporary Andayin artists, Ngarra was uniquely placed in relation to the painting traditions of the East and West Kimberley. Although the planar and iconographic aspects of his work recall both, his idiosyncratic painting style was essentially his own. His unique cultural position, combined with his celebrated sense of independence, enabled him to take his work in new directions. He was one of the first artists in his immediate region to begin using coloured acrylic paint on paper, and also produced a large series of smallscale fibre-tipped pen drawings on paper, many of which he used as studies for larger paintings. Ngarra also played an important role in encouraging others around him to begin their own art practice, including the late Gija artist Mick Jawalji with whom he worked closely for a number of formative years. Much of Ngarra’s work was completed in Derby at the house of his close friend, Kevin Shaw, an anthropologist who, at Ngarra’s insistence, took on the role as intermediary between Ngarra and the art world. His work’s subjects range from personal memories and finelytuned observations of his region’s history to the ancestral narratives of

his traditional country. Although well recognised within his lifetime, Ngarra’s work remains underrepresented when compared to many of his contemporaries. His work is held in a number of private and public collections, including the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, and the Art Gallery of Western Australia, Perth. In 2000, a solo exhibition of his work was held at the Western Australian Museum, Perth. Ngarra’s estate is represented by Mossenson Galleries, Perth, where he held a number of highly regarded solo exhibitions during his career. Further reading Tapper, N, ‘Remembering Ngarra’, Australian Aboriginal Art, issue no. 1, March, 2008. Shaw, K, Mates: images and stories from the Kimberley, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, 2003. Skerritt, HF, ‘A master of tradition and innovation’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 December 2008. Sprague, Q, ‘Outside history: Mick Jawalji and Ngarra’, Art Monthly Australia, issue #244, 2011.

that consciousness begins in water and that all human development stems from this. As well as establishing a painting practice in his later years, Peters has been an important figure in cultural education throughout his life. He helped to establish the Warmun School in the 1970s and has since participated in cultural maintenance programs on a regular basis. In 2008 Peters established the Gelengu Gelenguwurru New Media Project alongside Phyllis Thomas, Ned Sevil and Anna Crane, a collective aimed at utilising new media in aid of crossgenerational cultural transmission. Peters’ work is represented in a number of collections including the Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney. He has participated in a number of major exhibitions including Blood on the spinifex (2002) and Country in mind: five contemporary Aboriginal artists (2006), both at the Ian Potter Museum of Art, the University of Melbourne; Parallel lives: Australian painting today, Tarrawarra Biennial, Tarrawarra Museum of Art, Yarra Valley (2006); and True stories, the Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney (2003). Further reading

Rusty Peters (Gija, born c. 1935) Rusty Peters’ densely composed paintings draw on the interwoven historical and mythological narratives of the East Kimberley landscape. The celebrated depth of his work is perhaps most apparent in Waterbrain (2002), the twelve-metre long multi-panel painting he developed following a series of long discussions with the arts advisor Tony Oliver. Concerned with ‘birth and rebirth and the development of knowledge and understanding through life’, Waterbrain explores the Gija concept

Lynn, V (ed.), Parallel lives: Australian painting today, Tarrawarra Museum of Art, Healesville, Vic., 2006 Starr, B (ed.), Blood on the spinifex, the Ian Potter Museum of Art, the University of Melbourne, 2002. Bosse, J (ed.), Country in mind: five contemporary Aboriginal artists, the Ian Potter Museum of Art, the University of Melbourne, 2006. Perkins, H (ed.), One sun one moon: Aboriginal art in Australia, Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney, 2007.

Freda Warlapinni (Taracarijimo) (Tiwi, Melville Island, c. 1928–2003)

Canberra; and the Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney.

Freda Warlapinni was born in her traditional country, Mirrikawuyanga, on Melville Island and, after being taken away from her parents, was raised by Catholic missionaries at the Garden Point settlement. She commenced painting within a secular context when she was in her seventies and quickly became a leading figure among the older generation of Tiwi artists. Alongside her friend Kitty Kantilla, her distinctive work helped Tiwi art become recognised within the broader canon of Indigenous art in Australia. She also played a strong mentorship role at Jilamara Arts & Crafts Association in Milikapiti, initially guiding younger artists such as Timothy Cook and Pedro Wonaeamirri as they began to establish their own artistic practices.