uni blog for Indigenous art culture and design: August 2011

I wrote an essay last year about artists appropriating other people's work and I focused on Aboriginal artork. Here are the relevant sections

The term appropriation has several different meanings according to the subject. In the case of at it is defined as; “to appropriate something involves taking possession of it. In the visual arts, the term appropriation often refers to borrowed elements in the creation of new work. The borrowed elements may include images, forms or styles from popular culture or materials and techniques from non-art contexts. Since the 1980’s the term has also referred more specifically to quoting the work of art of another artist to create a new work[1]. “ The general definition of it succinctly states: “the act of setting apart or taking for one’s own use[2]”. After comparing it to the definition of plagiarism, it was quite evident that the two were similar. Plagiarism was defined thus; “the wrongful appropriation, close imitation or purloining publication of another author’s language, thoughts, ideas or expressions and the representation of them as one’s own original work[3]”The dictionary definition even uses the word appropriate. This raises the question; are plagiarism and appropriation the same? Does the concept of appropriation give artists license to plagiarize?

The same cannot be said for several aboriginal artists. In 1966 an Aboriginal artist by the name of David Malangi had his painting appropriated by the Reserve Bank. His design was used on their one dollar bill. Malangi sold the painting to a Hungarian art collector who, in turn, showed it to the bank who went on to use his design without his permission. The Governor of the Reserve bank claimed that they simply wished to “boost[1]” the reputation of Aboriginal art. Malangi received $1000 compensation. An undesirable situation in which plagiarism occurred raised awareness of the fact that aboriginal artwork needed copyright[2].

However, this was not the only case of Aboriginal art being plagiarised. In 1983 Peter Stripes Fabric used an Indigenous bark painting entitled “Long necked fresh water tortoises by the fish trap at Gaanan” on one of their products. The painting was the work of Yanagarriny Wunugmurra. Wunugmurrra won the case against peter Stripes Fabric and the designs were discontinued. Wunugmurra received $500 compensation[3]. Still, more occurrences similar t this took place with one particular artist, Johnny Bulan Bulan winning $15,000 when a screen printing company used his painting “Magpie Geese and Waterlilies at the Waterhole” on their t shirts.[4]. Bulan was later asked if he would have let them use his designs if they paid him. Bulan refused; “the images are titles to my land and only certain members of his society were allowed to paint them and they are too important in a religious sense to be mass produced[5]”.

It became evident in these cases that it is the principle, not the money that matters. Clearly they are being plagiarised (they did not ask permission to use their works) and the long term damages are adding up. Their culture is important to them; private. Mass production or exploitation of their work pollutes the significance of their artwork[6]. Kate Jones, who wrote the thesis Aboriginal Imagery and Appropriation: Intellectual property legislation and its relationship to Indigenous Australian Culture, explains: “Aboriginal people have also developed complex laws designed to protect their intellectual property and cultural property. The so called ‘traditional’ Aboriginal designs are visual expressions of stories handed down by the ancestors of the Aboriginal people who are now ‘custodians of these designs. They receive their title as a birth right and the title is such that the designs cannot be transferred to the ownership of another, as property”[7].

The attitudes of other coupled with the concept of appropriation is what causes Aboriginal work to be exploited; “Appropriation is a key word in post modernism. Many contemporary postmodernist artists consider the images of other artists from diverse cultures to be ‘fair game’ for their own work[8]” This attitude was expressed often enough that there were entire exhibitions dedicated to plagiarised Aboriginal artworks. In 1996 an exhibition entitled Copyrights, Aboriginal Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproductive technologies was held at the Tandanya centre. It showcased infringements of Aboriginal artworks in the 1980’s. The aim was to “communicate the offensiveness of these appropriations to the artists and their culture[9]”.

The issue is the privacy: certain dreamtime stories are kept within the certain groups, passed down through the generations. To have an outsider use their sacred stories, methods and appropriate their work is both disrespectful and dishonourable. Especially is it was done without permission. Therefore the consequences of appropriation (in regards to Aboriginal artwork) are disrespectful and dispiriting to whole communities[10].

Imants Tiller was guilty of appropriating an artwork from the Papunya artists. His work Prism (1986) is basically Timmy Tjapangardi’s Kangaroo and the Shield People dreaming at Lake Mackay with an additional part added by Tillers. It was impolite and morally wrong of him to do so. The original has a spiritual meaning to the author and their people but none at all to Tiller’s. he besmirches their culture and identity by blatantly using their works. [11] Tillers admitted that the cultural meaning was not of nay significance to him; “I was attracted to using the Timmy Tjanpangardi work in prism for purely visual reasons- rather than at the level of meaning[12]”. He admits that the history and depth of the image means little to him; he just liked the look of it. Cultural significance was just an obstacle that he did not even stop to consider.

Cultural significance that has been established decades ago and include traditional stories and processes reflected in their artwork. Their artwork is connecter to their heritage. The Indigenous people have a tie to the land; a tie that should be respected and not appropriated by other artists. By appropriating they diminish the meaning of artworks that are considered as “religious artefacts[13]”.

While appropriating is somehow allowed, it does not compare to the actions of Elizabeth Durack. Durack posed as an Indigenous artist, named Eddie Burrup, so that she could paint her adaptations of dreamtime stories. Non Indigenous people are not meant to paint these stories without permission from the particular group from which the story originated from. Her artworks depict the Wandijina members of the Kimberly area[14]. These members were sacred which adds to the scandal. However, not everyone believed her works to be as controversial as others. Two of her artworks were chosen to appear in Telstra’s 13^th National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Art Awards held at Darwin in 1996. This resulted in Durack receiving criticism from the Indigenous community, artists, Indigenous curators, organisations, sponsors and their support from the non Indigenous population[15].

The Land in the West, 1956 by Eddie Burrup AKA Elizabeth Durack.

Adding further insult to injury she wrote her artist statement under the Eddie persona in what she believed was how aboriginal people spoke; “well, t’at one where I mak’m for olden’play…where… ‘e sit down quiet fella ‘la high place- top ‘la pentcost Range… on’y now ‘e all aday singing out; wassa matter? No one come forgive’m bresh eye- close up blind bugger[1]”. Obviously, she lacked respect for their preference to keep their artwork to themselves and insulted their intelligence by insinuating in her artist statement that Indigenous people could not speak English well or even coherently.

While undoubtedly offensive and controversial it appears that she did not plagiarize but appropriate without permission. She did not claim anyone else’s specific artwork, just their stories . The consequences in this case were minimal; she won acclaim for her work and at most received criticism which she did not take heed to. Nor did she get sued. Nonetheless, she did inflict damage on the Kimberley people; their stories should be theirs to tell. She disregarded this as well as insulting their intelligence and English speaking ability when writing her artist statement.

I conferred with my Grandmother, Margaret Brown, who is an Adnymathanha elder to see if the offense was just a localized case. I asked her if a person of non-Aboriginal descent is allowed to share the stories of a particular Indigenous group. She replied yes but then clarified; “ They can tell the stories if they know them but they’re not allowed to use them to make money”. I enquired further because I believed that she would be able to shed some light on how the Wandijina people would have felt about their work being appropriated. She informed me that if you are not part of the particular group, you have no right to use their stories and artwork to make money. Each Aboriginal group has respect for each other; “I could tell you our stories because they’re mine to tell and you are part Aboriginal too. However, I wouldn’t tell you about the Dreamtime stories from the Kimberly ranges because they’re not mine to tell”. The inter group respect stretches further; certain Aboriginal groups are allowed certain artistic practices. Adnymathanha people are not meant to do any dot paintings because they belong to the groups in the Northern Territory. Adnymathanha people deal more with stripes and lines. Considering all this, it is astounding that Durack was still allowed to be awarded for her efforts; she pretended to be someone she was not in order to plagiarize their culture for her own benefit. However, it appears that cultural consideration is not covered in the Copyright acts to protect Aboriginal artworks. Once again, a technicality meant that no legal consequences were brought forth.

Although there is no progress in Australia, the United States of America and Canada are in discussion about harsher copyright laws that may restrict the use of appropriation[2] (They did seem to take issue with appropriation when they were host to an exhibition which purely for appropriation artists; Jack Goldstein, Tony Brauntach, Phillip Smith, Robert Longo and Sherrie Levine. The exhibition was entitled Pictures and was held in New York in 1977. It showcased artists who appropriated mainly from photography or had “ a shared interest in the photography –based mass media”. Once again, these appropriators received praise and were sheltered from any backlash by Jean Beadrillard; “above all, appropriation art was justified via the ideas of Jean Beadrillard[3]”.

[