For this assignment, I’ve chosen to answer question 6 regarding Lee Maracle’s essay. In the beginning of the essay, Maracle details the difficulties Indigenous communities in have had in coalescing their literary tradition and the intentional hurdles which where created by settlers to exert physical and cultural control over Canada. In effect, the Eurocentric control over the literary canon and all academic fields which legitimize literary criticism serves to maintain authority, and reenforce a specific narrative which places white perspectives at the apex of development and understanding. I found a similar parallel in Maracle’s discussion of how the white settler-colonial domination of critical institutions has prevented de-colonized Indigenous critical frameworks relating to their literary and informative traditions from being able to consolidate and discuss Indigenous works, therefore preventing them from being legitimized, in field of art history. For a long time, it was a ‘truth’ of the art history canon that abstract art was ‘invented’ by Vassily Kandinsky. However, a Swedish woman artist named Hilma Af Klimt had been creating abstract art years before he had. But her work never gained prominence, and because of her gender, her artwork, while seen by artist such as Kandinsky, was marginalized and was not elevated into the canon of art history until recently, when discourse surrounding her role has begun to permeate academic and cultural institutions.
Its worth pointing out that my example exists within the context of Western art history, and the marginalization Klimt experiences is only on the level of gender. Additionally an argument could be made that abstraction in art was created outside the boundaries established by the Western academic canon, as abstract artists borrowed “formal properties” of African art in their own work. African works, as with other forms of non-western are less credited for their influence in the development of abstraction, thus marginalizing their works. However, by applying the argument which Maracle puts forth, African arts should not need to be validated or understood in the context of European art criticism in order to be studied or have merit.
Maracle then proceeds to detail how literary criticism in Salish culture works, as an ever evolving discipline which spreads beyond storytelling and into to fields in the natural and social sciences. It also creates “requires that the myth-makers engage in discourse with the intellectuals of the nation whom they recognize as understanding the context we inherit” (Maracle 90). In comparison to the Western culture which dominates our current discourse, where story is often separate from discourses and sciences, all of these things are combined in the Salish storytelling tradition. In effect the Salish tradition works more like the entirety of academia, then one specific institution like literary criticism.
However, the colonial destruction of nature, a key aspect of Salish storytelling and the removal of the Salish people from their land, as well as stripping them of the ability pass down their oral informative practices, have prevented the Salish narrative practices from proliferating. Ironically, even though Frye barely mentions Indigenous storytelling in his detail of Canadian literary history, and the strong absence of a “Canadian Literary Culture” seems ironic as Canadians have robbed their Indigenous peoples of their abilities to pass down their already existing mythos. Canadians seem unable to define themselves through their literary practices, but peoples like that of the Salish Nation are able to define themselves culturally despite having their practices actively suppressed by the same institutions which bemoan a lack of a specific Canadian culture and identity.
Dyrschka, Halina, director. Beyond the Visible – Hilma Af Klint. Ambrosia Film, 2019.
Frye, Northrop. The Bush Garden; Essays on the Canadian Imagination. 2011 Toronto: Anansi. Print.
Maracle, Lee. “Toward a National Literature: A Body of Writing.” Across Cultures, Across Borders Canadian Aboriginal and Native American Literatures by Paul Warren Depasquale, Renate Eigenbrod, Emma Larocque (z-lib.org), Broadview, 2010. Print.
Dr. Peri Klemm, “The Reception of African Art in the West,” in Smarthistory, December 20, 2016, https://smarthistory.org/the-reception-of-african-art-in-the-west/.
Hi Sophie,
I really enjoyed a read through your writing regarding Maracle and Frye’s articles, relating myth to nation building. I found it much more richful with regard to expanding the idea of literary critique on other nations. It means a lot that people recognize critique as a form of respect, not only with regard to the subject matter, but also the people who are affected by critiquing the subject matter. In our day and age, it is often that people on the world wide web, can easily access and provide their own critique on information or news they may not be very knowledgeable about. This leads to many unfortunate consequences for the parties involved, whether they deserved it or not. Often, we find these cases in the context of large social media platforms such as Youtube, Twitter, Twitch, etc. Although a large stretch, I feel that it is often that we use our own sense of criteria to critique others on the internet. Similar to your art example, using our own form of criteria can often lead to improper forms of critique. This becomes even more prominent in the context of the Salish people where we unconsciously use our standard of Western philosophy to judge the First Nations culture. Do you feel that our culture has come to a point where everyone’s critique has become valid over the critique of truly qualified individuals? And do you think this is the result of our growing culture in widely accessed communication and media? Should we control this in some way, and how?
Thank you
Cheers,
Aran
Hi Aran,
Your comment has brought up some question. I’d first add that I was considering critical analysis, and I assumed that this was what was being discussed in Lee’s article. This incorporates criticism, but also expands beyond that to classifying and understanding a work as being part of a larger body works. In regards to your question, while I do believe their are problematic aspects the the openness of criticism prevalent, particularly by those who lack all of the information, I wish to return to my question and invite considerations of who may be considered qualified to critique. For a long time, it was white academics, particularly in fields like anthropology who were considered “qualified”. While this is beginning to change to an understanding that Indigenous individuals are the most qualified to analyze and examine their own cultures. This is in part due to the greater access due to technological advancements like the internet, where other voices can speak where they had previously been marginalized and kept from the mainstream. My concern with the control of such communication would be that another gate would be imposed for marginalized voices.
Thank you,
Sophie
Hello Sophie,
You;ve posted very interesting analysis of different perspectives on art practices. The following fragment from your blog popped up to me creation stories from King’s GGRW: “African arts should not need to be validated or understood in the context of European art criticism in order to be studied or have merit”. It occurred to me that perhaps King intervened elements from biblical and Indigenous creation stories in GGRW in order to demonstrate what happens if to interpret the stories of one culture through the validation prism of the other culture; the interpretations are absurd, irrelevant and even disrespectful, if they are neglected to be seen in the original context. Do you agree that this could be one of the King’s messages?
Thank you,
Joanne
Hi Joanne,
I find your interpretation for GGRW, and King’s blending of elements from biblical and Indigenous stories to be an interesting one. I think that this could be a way to explain the ways in which the biblical creation mythologies do not align in King’s work. I think this particular interpretation holds merit when the prior context of Indigenous stories being interpreted through a settlers lens is considered.