Other Africas

June 4, 2005 7:20 AM

Other Africas.Critical observers have long noted that museum collections from Africa are composed largely of the spoils of colonial pillage. Thus the Africa we normally encounter in museums—the Africa of masks and ritual objects displayed on walls and in glass cases—is a fetishized Africa of colonial nostalgia. The objective of this exhibit is to offer images of Other Africas, perspectives that lead us away from the desolate and romanticized Africa of the Western imagination toward those places where African modernities are emerging.
posted by tpoh.org (27 comments total)

Great pictures.
posted by farishta at 7:53 AM on June 4, 2005

...is a fetishized Africa of colonial nostalgia...

I would respectfully disagree with this insofar as you imply that the colonialists forced the Africans to make masks, fretility objexts, etc. These items existed when they were found, looted by Europeans and North Americans, and brought west. When I went through the photos in your link, I felt more of the fetishized displays of "Look at the modern Africans! They have real churches and wear clothes now!" This seems like an excuse to show us pictures of a vacation; the indictment of romanticizing a group of people falls to Dr. McCall and Ms. Carwill.
posted by DeepFriedTwinkies at 8:00 AM on June 4, 2005

This seems like an excuse to show us pictures of a vacation; the indictment of romanticizing a group of people falls to Dr. McCall and Ms. Carwill.

It seems like most Westerners, at least, just view Africa as one large continent populated by starving, genocidal criminals. Giving a view of it as a diverse continent with promise is hardly a fetishized display.
posted by cmonkey at 8:48 AM on June 4, 2005

This is a great link, thanks.
posted by carmen at 9:02 AM on June 4, 2005

The camcorder cloth is interesting.
posted by foot at 9:09 AM on June 4, 2005

It seems like most Westerners, at least, just view Africa as one large continent populated by starving, genocidal criminals.
I would not argue that point with you at all. Westerners do like their stereotypes.

Giving a view of it as a diverse continent with promise is hardly a fetishized display.
I would counter that the pictures that were chosen to display did little to advance the notion of diversity. We saw some modernity granted, but we were also shown Y2K billboards, hand painted church signs, cell phone tapestries, and other examples that to me said "Aren't they quaint!" rather than "Aren't they diverse?" It still seems that a western bias was present in this exhibit.
posted by DeepFriedTwinkies at 9:10 AM on June 4, 2005

It still seems that a western bias was present in this exhibit.

Well, John C. McCall does appear to be a westerner.
posted by foot at 9:19 AM on June 4, 2005

We saw some modernity granted, but we were also shown Y2K billboards, hand painted church signs, cell phone tapestries, and other examples that to me said "Aren't they quaint!" rather than "Aren't they diverse?" It still seems that a western bias was present in this exhibit.

The photo of the Y2K sign was taken in 2000 and exhibited in 2002.

And if the vast majority of church signs in Africa are hand painted, what are they supposed to show? Hell, the majority of church signs in my American neighbourhood are hand-painted and rather crude.
posted by cmonkey at 9:48 AM on June 4, 2005

I was a little sad that they didn't have examples of real kente cloth, which is a completely different animal from the English prints. There are some great pictures with interpretations of the symbols here

DFT, the purpose of the exhibit was to counter some specific stereotypes, particularly that Africa is a rural place where you are likely to see wild animals surrounding tiny impoverished villages with no technology. It was not to create a complete picture of diversity (how could pictures of urban Nigeria capture the diversity of the continent? That would be like using New York to represent all of North America), the purpose is to provide "viewers with a means to examine the assumptions and expectations they bring to museums as [much as] it is about the images themselves."

In other words, this exhibit is as much, if not more, about the museum visitor's perspective than it is about representing Africa. It forces viewers to ask themselves whether these images fit with other images of Africa and what that means. These are the questions that the exhibit encourages us to ask ourselves (particularly if we bother to read the accompanying text).
posted by carmen at 9:49 AM on June 4, 2005

The objective of this exhibit is to offer images of Other Africas, perspectives that lead us away from the desolate and romanticized Africa of the Western imagination toward those places where African modernities are emerging. (from the first page.)
I just don't see where what they chose to exhibit supports the goal. We have pictures of cities, of class warfare, of many of the same things that you can certainly find in the US; however, I don't see much more than a set of photographs that tell me that Nigeria doesn't have Tarzan and naked natives roaming about. If that is what they were striving for, then I suppose they were successful. It seems an exercise in pointing out the obvious.
posted by DeepFriedTwinkies at 10:00 AM on June 4, 2005

the comics were interesting ... kind of dire in a cheesy way
posted by pyramid termite at 10:11 AM on June 4, 2005

DFT, with regards to the colonists 'forcing Africans to make masks," etc, think of it more in terms of choosing what to collect, and present. The kind of 'documentation' that was done then often served more to reinforce pre-established notions of 'savage' or 'simple' peoples than to actually explore diverse cultures in other lands. Selection of artifacts and presentation of photographic imagery has everything to do with how cultures are perceived from afar, and especially within the context of colonization, how can we possibly expect it to be neutral? (that is of course, avoiding the well-established idea that no document is without bias.)

And maybe not forcing people to make masks, but the idea of fabricating reality by manipulating and 'directing' people is entirely real. Look at Nanook Of The North. (a 'documentary' by Robert J. Flaherty, made in Arctic Quebec about an Inuit community in 1922) Not only were the families in the film fabricated, but it is well known that Flaherty went to great troubles to not only hide any evidence of modernity that existed in the community, but even went so far as to demand that the people hunt using ancestral techniques that were no longer used. It's even been suggested that because of his insistence that they hunt the old way for his film (which they were not accustomed to anymore) the family actually caught less than they needed, and so their food stock that season suffered, affecting them physically and mentally.

This film was taken as an accurate depiction of Innuit life for years. Documentarians choose what to look at all the time, and their choices have consequences. (Michael Moore is criticized for his narrow scope constantly.)
posted by paultron at 10:33 AM on June 4, 2005

Carmen, paultron, I agree with what you are saying (and the Inuit parallel is a fine one). My objection is more with what was chosen by Dr. McCall to attempt to break the stereotypes. There is an interesting contrast between this exhibit and the FPP down just a few links. IMHO, the other exhibit and text support the thesis of what was one perceived as Africa; what is shown in this is just a bunch of pictures.
posted by DeepFriedTwinkies at 10:48 AM on June 4, 2005

Did anyone really not know that Africa has some cities and computers and cell phones? Anyone who didn't understand this is too brain-dead to bother reaching.

I'm with DeepFriedTwinkies. This seems (mostly) like one white guy's vacation photos, saying "See? They have cities -- with power lines and everything!"

Now, if there were some serious studies about the interactions between rural and urban in African life, or how Africans adapt western technologies to create new artforms (as with the camcorder cloth), then you'd have something worth saying.
posted by argybarg at 11:01 AM on June 4, 2005

"...corruption is largely a byproduct of an economy fueled almost exclusively by petroleum exports. With no vested interest in developing Nigeria's infrastructure and manufacturing sectors, the wealthy simply profit from oil while the nation falls ever deeper into economic chaos."

Sounds like some other countries Americans have been visiting (like maybe in the Middle East), not necessarily on vacation, though.
posted by silicaspan at 12:47 PM on June 4, 2005

The kind of 'documentation' that was done then often served more to reinforce pre-established notions of 'savage' or 'simple' peoples than to actually explore diverse cultures in other lands.

Have you ever actually seen an exhibit of traditional African "art" (for lack of a better word -- it wasn't considered art in its original context)? I can't imagine anything less "savage" or "simple"; I'm awed when I wander through the African collections of the Brooklyn or Metropolitan museums. There's a reason Picasso & Co. went apeshit when they saw this stuff, and it wasn't a fascination with the "primitive." Sure, you can look at a mask and think "primitive" if that's your mindset -- you can think anything you like -- but it would be incredibly stupid.

I always enjoy seeing images of the messy reality of today's world, but I think setting this up as some sort of counterweight to an alleged "colonialist" view of Africa as represented by traditional art is idiocy. Go see Yeelen, a movie that exists in a timeless realm with no evidence of modernity or Western intrusion, and tell me it's some sort of pseudo-colonialist artifact. Art is art; what it chooses to focus on is its own business, and if you choose to disregard whole areas of it because of some idea of "reality" or "modernity" or "colonialist mentality" or whatever, you're the poorer for it.
posted by languagehat at 1:13 PM on June 4, 2005

very nice. thanks.
posted by whatzit at 5:13 PM on June 4, 2005

Yes, languagehat.
That's exactly what I was saying. I was saying that masks are savage, and that people who make them are primitive and uncultured. I was also saying that non-western culture can't really be truly considered culture, and that anything that's not fully self-reflexive or conceptual is just crude.

You got it.

Actually though, I think it was pretty clear what I meant. It's not a matter of the actual crafts, items, or practices, it's a matter of what those crafts, items, or practices represent to people who are inclined for whatever reasons (power, for example) to maintain a belief that these people are somehow lesser to them. The problem is not that colonists collect masks and spears - the problem is the multiplicity of other things/practices that they leave out, creating a simple view of a simple people. It's the narrowness of the scope, not to mention the slant put on the content.

As an example, no one would dare say that jazz music or say, bartending are simple, undynamic, or 'primitive' realms... but it would be entirely fair to say that in 1950-1960 cinema, the relegating of a majority of black actors to the roles of barkeeps or jazz musicians did have a lot to do with perpetuating a narrow scope, and simplified view of black culture. Which made it much easier to dismiss black actors, let alone black communities, because they're all either piano players, or bartenders.
posted by paultron at 8:58 PM on June 4, 2005

On preview...

I realise that was a pretty far stretch of a tangent.
But I think that in general, it makes sense.
Hopefully.

Oh man.. why do bother getting into things like this late at night?
posted by paultron at 9:02 PM on June 4, 2005

That reminds me of a visit I made a couple of weeks ago to Belgium's Royal Museum for Central Africa, to visit its temporal Memory of Congo exhibition.
On one hand, the exhibition was a step forward in that it made clear mention of the...er...slightly negative aspects of the colonisation of what was first called the "Congo Free State", something rarely seen in Belgium so far. On the other hand, somebody in the exhibition committe had clearly managed to get some "balancing" comments inserted into the exhibition. Even if one takes the view that the mainly British critics of Leoplold II were conspicuously less interested in the abuses committed in Britain's own colonies, the Royal Museum for Central Africa, founded by Leopold II himself, and very much a memorial to his African venture, seemed a pretty odd place for such "balance". (Plus, I got into an argument with some upper-class Belgian idiots who were wandering through the halls of the exhibition whining to themselves about the whole thing had just been a "smear campaign" by the Protestants, British trading interests, and a "drunken Irishman").
posted by Skeptic at 3:46 AM on June 5, 2005

That's exactly what I was saying. I was saying that masks are savage...

I didn't mean (or think) you thought that; sorry if it came off that way. I was responding to the idea that traditional images were automatically complicit in such a view; I guess I'm defensive about it because the "Other Africa" approach now seems to be the PC one, and interest in masks and other traditional art is suspect. But I agree with your point, and the jazz comparison is excellent.

Skeptic: Are the Belgians really in denial about the horrors of King Leopold's Congo? Jesus, how depressing. Can't anybody face up to their history?
posted by languagehat at 9:54 AM on June 5, 2005

languagehat: It is difficult to understate the relevance of Congo even in today's Belgium. This was, after all, a very small country with a damn big colony. Many Belgians, especially upper-crust Belgians, have strong colonial ties, in particular links to the corporations like the Union Minière which were born during the Congo Free State days but remained at the centre of power in Congo under the Belgian colonial administration and, most importantly, even after decolonisation.
It's maybe naïve to expect these people to suddenly accept that their great-grandfathers took part in a genocidal venture and that their fortunes are very directly built upon such a legacy...
posted by Skeptic at 12:49 PM on June 5, 2005

Well-typed, language. This is why your hat is full of gerunds and mine of cheese doodles.
posted by DeepFriedTwinkies at 6:40 PM on June 5, 2005

It's maybe naïve to expect these people to suddenly accept...

It's the "suddenly" part I don't get. I mean, let's say a guy spent years terrorizing the people next door: beating up the old folks, taking sexual advantage of the kids, torturing the pets, and occasionally setting the house on fire. Let's say all of this was filmed and reported on the news and everybody else in the neighborhood kept telling him to knock it off, and finally he was put under house arrest or something and the situation ended. Now, I can understand his making excuses for himself, saying he was under the influence of drugs or something, but I can't fathom saying "What terror? There was no terror! It's all lies, lies by the Protestants and British trading interests and drunken Irishmen!" I mean, it's on tape, dude! Everybody knows about it! What's the point? We're beyond normal denial and well into psychosis here.
posted by languagehat at 6:01 AM on June 6, 2005

I was responding to the idea that traditional images were automatically complicit in such a view; I guess I'm defensive about it because the "Other Africa" approach now seems to be the PC one, and interest in masks and other traditional art is suspect.

languagehat, I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of the exhibit. McCall found that in his own collection the "traditional" views of Africans were over represented, to the point that he had difficulty selecting slides for his students that represented everyday life in Nigeria. Carwile, although she thought she was prepared for Nigeria to be different than how she'd seen it represented, found that she had unconscious expectations that were discordant with modern, city life.

I don't get the sense anywhere in the exhibit that an interest in African art, including masks and traditional objects, is suspect. What I got was that they wanted to show some things that aren't normally shown. It's not that this is the way that all exhibits should be, it's not that this is the way to represent Africa. It's that this is one way to represent a part of Africa that is important.

There are things in the exhibit that are really interesting, and that have nothing to do with "traditional" art. The mechanical hand with kola shell is a fantastic piece of sculpture, but nothing like the "traditional" stuff that gets imported to North America. The woman wearing the Olympic Victory cloth was a really interesting example of how a classic prestige item (cloth) remains a dynamic part of the current era.

When I was in Accra (Ghana), there was a tourist market by the coast where you could go and choose from rows and rows of identically carved African masks, "thinking man" sculptures, mother-child sculptures etc. The vendors and sculptors did not perceive a demand for orignial, modern African art. They simply reproduced hundreds of identical "traditional" pieces. Surely representing more variety in African art in American exhibits could have the worthwhile effect of increasing demand for original African artwork?

I think the exhibit is interesting and worthwhile. Thinking that doesn't somehow make exhibits of masks and drums not worthwhile. The exhibit doesn't capture the whole of Africa, nor even the whole of Nigeria, but I don't think it claims to do that. It would be great to see a larger exhibit that integrates more aspects of modernity and its continuity (or not) with objects of the past. (One thing I think would have been cool would have been a picture of the empty spaces in the Edo museum where objects that the British colonialists took and placed in the British museum are supposed to stand.) But it seems as odd to me to condem this exhibit because it mentions the (very real) colonial influence on past exhibits as it is to condem the use of "traditional" art in modern exhibits simply because they might remind us of colonial times.
posted by carmen at 7:52 AM on June 6, 2005

carmen: I totally agree -- this looks like a great exhibit. As I was trying, apparently not very clearly, to say, I was responding not to the exhibit but to attitudes I scented (apparently also not very clearly) in comments to the thread. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
posted by languagehat at 12:16 PM on June 6, 2005

No need to appologise. I have also found it hard to express myself about this subject. I've been rather absorbed in studying colonial and colonial-influenced representations of Africa lately, so it's quite possible I over reacted :)

I appreciate the discussion, and the chance to analyse my own ideas and reactions to both exhibit and comments.
posted by carmen at 12:54 PM on June 6, 2005