In 2007, I interviewed Judith Nasby, a Canadian Curator, who was organising an exhibition of art by the Eskimo/ Inuit artist Irene Avaalaaqi at the Canadian embassy in Tokyo. From my notes, the interview appears to have been a face-to-face or a phoner. Yes, I don't actually remember any of this!
Liddell: Why is this exhibition happening here and now?
Nasby: Part of the Canadian government’s purpose is to show a diverse range of art from various groups in the country.
Liddell: Will it be shown at other embassies?<
Nasby: Maybe in Korea and Taiwan, and in Panama.
Liddell: Is this Canadian art or Inuit art?
Nasby: It’s synonymous. The person’s background…. She brings her culture and own life experience. That what’s important. There are 15,000 Inuit in the Nunavut territory and a high proportion are involved in art.
Liddell: Why is this exhibition happening here and now?
Nasby: Part of the Canadian government’s purpose is to show a diverse range of art from various groups in the country.
Liddell: Will it be shown at other embassies?<
Nasby: Maybe in Korea and Taiwan, and in Panama.
Liddell: Is this Canadian art or Inuit art?
Nasby: It’s synonymous. The person’s background…. She brings her culture and own life experience. That what’s important. There are 15,000 Inuit in the Nunavut territory and a high proportion are involved in art.
Liddell: Why are so many involved in art?
Nasby: During the period of starvation in the 50s and 60s, the Canadian Government started to help the people. Art making was introduced as a way to help the people survive. The women were encouraged to make parkas. With the scraps, they started to make artistic designs.
Liddell: Why did you write your book on Irene Avaalaaqi?
Nasby: I was struck by her art and her story. I was fascinated by the power and imagination of her work. It was different from the other Inuit women working in this medium. Previously, Inuit art had been seen as decorative, and it was treated as such by collectors, but by interviewing the artist I realized that it was not decorative, but contained mythic elements and stories.
Liddell: Most people looking at the art will be struck by its naivety.
Nasby: There is a certain childlike quality to it, in that she sees the World in symbolic terms and that’s how children see the world. But I think it’s wrong to call it folk art because this is the high art of the Inuit people. It’s would be wrong to see it any other way.
Liddell: Yes, her art is very pure. There are no influences from other artistic traditions or even hints of modernity.
Nasby: That’s a very interesting question. She’s been to the South of Canada several times, and even abroad. Often when I’ve taken her to art galleries, she would ignore other art forms and go straight to any Inuit art to see if she knew the person… It’s a shutting off of any interest in Western art form.
Liddell: But isn't this pureness something also that the market finds very attractive, rather than other forms of Canadian art that are tied to European art or international modern art?
Nasby: That’s a huge selling point. Inuit art, like Aborigine art in Australia, is the most recognizable and famous form of Canadian art.
Liddell: But doesn't this pure ethnic art simply reinforce the idea of the Inuit as naive, "other," exotic, and isn't this therefore a form of racism?
Nasby: I wouldn’t say that because if you approach it as modern art, you will see it as a person expressing things that are very important to them….When Picasso and other European painters were interested in African and Pacific island art in the early 20th century, they were interested mainly in the form. They didn’t care about what it meant.
Liddell: How does knowing what it means effect the way we, the viewers, see it.
Nasby: If we do not have that content, you’re still blown away by the artistic energy of these works. Just like any art work, if it is successful it will communicate visibly.
Liddell: Doesn't that contradict what you said about earlier generations merely seeing it as decorative?
Nasby: Not everybody has the privilege I had. The problem in the whole art world is that so much art is sold without additional information on the artist.
Nasby: During the period of starvation in the 50s and 60s, the Canadian Government started to help the people. Art making was introduced as a way to help the people survive. The women were encouraged to make parkas. With the scraps, they started to make artistic designs.
Liddell: Why did you write your book on Irene Avaalaaqi?
Nasby: I was struck by her art and her story. I was fascinated by the power and imagination of her work. It was different from the other Inuit women working in this medium. Previously, Inuit art had been seen as decorative, and it was treated as such by collectors, but by interviewing the artist I realized that it was not decorative, but contained mythic elements and stories.
Liddell: Most people looking at the art will be struck by its naivety.
Nasby: There is a certain childlike quality to it, in that she sees the World in symbolic terms and that’s how children see the world. But I think it’s wrong to call it folk art because this is the high art of the Inuit people. It’s would be wrong to see it any other way.
Liddell: Yes, her art is very pure. There are no influences from other artistic traditions or even hints of modernity.
Nasby: That’s a very interesting question. She’s been to the South of Canada several times, and even abroad. Often when I’ve taken her to art galleries, she would ignore other art forms and go straight to any Inuit art to see if she knew the person… It’s a shutting off of any interest in Western art form.
Liddell: But isn't this pureness something also that the market finds very attractive, rather than other forms of Canadian art that are tied to European art or international modern art?
Nasby: That’s a huge selling point. Inuit art, like Aborigine art in Australia, is the most recognizable and famous form of Canadian art.
Liddell: But doesn't this pure ethnic art simply reinforce the idea of the Inuit as naive, "other," exotic, and isn't this therefore a form of racism?
Nasby: I wouldn’t say that because if you approach it as modern art, you will see it as a person expressing things that are very important to them….When Picasso and other European painters were interested in African and Pacific island art in the early 20th century, they were interested mainly in the form. They didn’t care about what it meant.
Liddell: How does knowing what it means effect the way we, the viewers, see it.
Nasby: If we do not have that content, you’re still blown away by the artistic energy of these works. Just like any art work, if it is successful it will communicate visibly.
Liddell: Doesn't that contradict what you said about earlier generations merely seeing it as decorative?
Nasby: Not everybody has the privilege I had. The problem in the whole art world is that so much art is sold without additional information on the artist.
No comments:
Post a Comment