1/10/2007

 
Daniel Baker  
 
 
Paradise: Lost or Under Construction?

 
   
Round table discussion on transnationalism in society and art, Roma Pavilion 
 
   















Daniel Baker interviene alla tavola rotonda



 
L’intervento dell’artista Daniel Baker alla tavola rotonda "Paradise: Lost or Under Construction?" curata da Igor Dobricic (ECF) e Angela Serino per commentare la prima partecipazione assoluta della comunita' Rom e di quella Armena all'interno della Biennale di Arti Visive di Venezia di quest'anno. Parlare delle due mostre considerando il panorama politico europeo e' stata un'occasione per re-articolare termini come "identita'" e "nazione", per capire le potenzialita' di termini nuovi come "transnazionalismo". Venezia, 17 settembre 2007.

Premessa all'incontro (definizione e alcune domande) di Angela Serino:

Sintesi video degli interventi alla tavola rotonda:


Nato a St Mary Cray in Kent nel 1961, Daniel Baker e' il primo figlio in una famiglia numerosa di Roma Gipsy. Da diversi anni, Baker affianca alla sua pratica artistica uno studio analitico della identita' Rom, prima attraverso un master in sociologia (specializzazione in Romani Studies), e dal 2006 con un Dottorato al Royal College of Art. Baker vive e lavora a Londra. E' presidente del Gipsy Council ed editor di "The HUB", la newsletter del Gipsy Council. I lavori piu' recenti di Baker sono stati esposti alla mostra "Paradise Lost".

In questo intervento Baker propone una possibile definizione dell’arte Rom e del suo linguaggio estetico specifico, oggetto tra l’altro del suo lavoro di ricerca in corso al Goldsmith College di Londra.

Roma Art: Fiction or Function?

The Power of Naming

The term Roma Art is problematic. It clearly has many possible meanings any of which may be relevant at any particular time. It is important, therefore, to acknowledge the term’s potential to produce multiple readings and as such the possibility for misinterpretation. Given the ambiguity of the phrase and its potential to mislead, I think the term needs to be unpicked.

Roma Art. What do we mean by it?
It can mean art by Roma people.
It can mean art about Roma people.
It can also mean art that Roma people like to look at and surround them selves with…
It can also mean art that is generally assumed to have a Roma aesthetic (whatever that might be).

Given the variety of these interpretations, Roma art does not necessarily have to be created by Roma Artists, this is born out by Roma art collections such as that in the basement of the ethnographic museum in Budapest, some of whose collected works include those made by non-Roma, and yet they remain in a collection of Roma art, and this does make a kind of sense. Art about Roma by non-Roma continues today. Contemporary examples can be thought provoking, as in the 2005 work by Luchezar Boyadjiev: ‘The Roma Within…,’ where Boyadjiev examines the Roma community’s persistently liminal presence across Europe (Prague Biennale 2007).We would call Boyadjiev a Bulgarian artist if we were to follow an national sampling but the absence of this information does not detract from the reading of the piece, nor does it seem relevant to the content of the artwork. Unless it were to be labelled Bulgarian Art.

The questionable relevance of nationality is widespread at the biennale. Can art by French people be said to warrant the term French art? Does this give us any meaningful insight into those works? Or does this kind of national geographic categorisation tell us more about the origin of the works from an art historical perspective rather than other commonalities. Is Sophie Calle at ease with the use of the term ‘French art’ in relation to her work?

These questions may seem simplistic but works categorised by ethnicity or nationality enter the realm of the anthropological. Is this desirable? Unless reflexively meant and understood, this classification could limit the potentiality of the works and thereby adversely affect their reading. This by default impacts on their status as art objects, and might be an effective mechanism for exclusion from the broader contemporary art canon.

I take the position of devils advocate here, but I think it is important to be clear about our use of words and more to the point, to acknowledge the power of naming, and the possibly limiting effects of categorisation on how works of art are viewed.

The origins of the maker are important in the context of the Roma pavilion, and by privileging this, we are inevitably saying less about the works and more about the makers, but ethnicity remains only one factor in the makeup of any artwork, a factor that can be fore-grounded or otherwise depending on the emphasis desired. As a common linking factor at the Biennale this can be seen as important given the historic focus on national territories here, but it is the subversion of this categorisation and suggested similitude that is the major achievements of the pavilion. By questioning the hierarchy of the structures and mechanisms of the biennale we allow a further questioning of the nature of labelling and presupposition - not only from those outside our communities but also from within.

…but does this bring a wider public any closer to an understanding of the Roma Community? I think that inevitably it does but this is not necessarily the primary intention of the Pavilion. Understanding, recognition and negotiation within and across Roma communities is as important and will I think be seen as a crucial factor in our move towards shifts in perception. It is here that the pavilion embodies the spirit of an evolving community that is able to actively influence the shaping of a cultural identity.

A Roma Aesthetic – Revisiting Ourselves

Given the unstable nature of the term Roma art, I prefer to speak of a Roma aesthetic. This can be understood as a shared visual language or equally as set of common iconic or symbolic preoccupations (as seen in the works on show here in Paradise Lost).
This question of a Roma or Gypsy aesthetic is central to my research and studio work. Both explore how visual production by Gypsies can be seen to embody and narrate the ways in which Gypsy identities have been and continue to be constructed.

UK Gypsy culture displays an historic absence of the production of what I call the ‘art object’. The emphasis being on ornamentation combined with function - a combination usually associated with craft. Here a duality of visual opulence and spatial economy is displayed where tools of trade and domestic items become vehicles for artistic expression. These objects carry in their materiality the stories of my community. The choice of materials, the ways in which they are made and the iconography all point towards specific cultural narratives. The works come from a community where the artistic, the social and the economic are intertwined. Many objects are made in and for a domestic setting, sometimes by more than one family member. Here the family comes first, the family that requires a closeness of consideration beyond all else. This close attention is reflected in the constructed surroundings of family life. In this environment everything is elevated to embody a level of intense aesthetic significance. Here the boundaries between art and craft become blurred. Some of the objects made by and valued by Gypsies may appear to be placed beyond use but their potential for utility remains to play an active role in the narratives of these and objects like them, activating the social space and fuelling the dialogue between life and art.

My studio works take these conventions forward by exploring the employment of utility in the conveyance of meaning, and the role of ‘use’ as content as well as function. These operations of the ornamental and their potential for informing interpretation are explored in my looking glass works. As well as examining the boundary between craft and fine art by questioning the custom that precludes the utility object from the realm of art, these works employ specific material techniques and aesthetic reflexively in order to critique modes of Gypsy representation and to examine the connections between that depicted and that experienced by the Gypsy. These pieces set out to question processes of presupposition in an audience (both Gypsy and non-Gypsy) and in so doing intend to subvert assumed meaning in the reading of the subject. As such the works are made for general consumption and can be read equally outside the confines of a cultural specificity.

The Use of Art

Early in 2007 as a part of my research I co-curated, along with Paul Ryan, a show of works by Gypsies and Travellers in the UK. There was a conscious decision not to show work by self acknowledged art professionals, but works by Gypsies who would not necessarily consider them selves to be artists. Those included in the show produce objects and images for circulation within the community. This exhibition, named ‘No Gorgios’ and staged in London, shared some of the objectives of ‘Paradise Lost’ but with a different emphasis and method of approach. Despite their differences both shows address the severe lack of serious consideration of visual production by Roma, and by doing so promote a new way of encountering Roma communities. They also, and maybe as importantly, challenge the traditional reluctance of us as Roma to present our world to outsiders. This double ended approach to cultural representation not only facilitates a new kind of cultural visibility in relation to the ways we are experienced by others, but also makes way for a reassessment of the how we may encounter ourselves as Roma.

In London this was partly achieved by presenting works by Gypsy makers in a contemporary art gallery setting unhindered by over contextualisation. Works which may be considered the product of marginal artistic practices or crafts were able to be seen with a fresh eye. When viewed in the gallery space, the objects transcend their usual or intended environment. The effect of this re-viewing can result in lucid and surprising resonances, and objects that may once have been ‘understood’ in one particular environment are re-encountered and re-experienced in another way. Whilst the item enters a process of transformation through re-siting, the original intention of the work can remain, and act to inform and further articulate the viewer’s response. This is the phenomenological object/cultural dynamic that the show sought to set in motion. This approach to presentation, in denying the viewer their expectations for contextualisation, heralds exciting and valuable possibilities not only for the viewing of objects but as a way of re-encountering the makers.

Paradise Lost and No Gorgios are new in important ways. Given the lack of reference to visual production by Roma amongst the growing number of studies on Roma identity, the shows give a long overdue account of a visual culture from within. Secondly, by presenting shows that seek to move away from the anthropological gaze of Folk Art and the pathologised artefact of Outsider Art the exhibitions offer not only a viewing experience freer from the confines of the marginalised specialist exhibit, but also an alternative to the cultural blackout that has long been in place due to preconception and misrepresentation. Inevitably the Gypsy community’s tendency towards a closed-ness has helped enforce this cultural curfew and with this in mind it was the intention of ‘No Gorgios’ to offer an open dialogue not just between the artworks and the audience but between the makers themselves and their works. In the same way that the makers appearing in the London show underwent a re-evaluation of their individual positioning in connection to the wider Gypsy community and by association the interactions with that of the non-Gypsy community, so I would suggest that the artists of the Paradise lost have experienced a parallel re-encountering of their own individual and cultural connections and differences. This was the case for me.

I think it is clear then that my concerns are focused on how we as Roma see ourselves, and the impact of this has on how we represent to others. Our recognition of these modes of representation is an important factor in the negotiation of our cultural identities.

Until recently the main focus of artistic exposure for Roma has been music, performance and more recently literature signalled by a growing number of Roma texts and resulting in an emerging confidence and body of work. The late arrival of Roma literature is not surprising given the absence of a reasoned view of the Gypsy within European cultural narratives where we appear most frequently as romanticised and demonised symbols of an illiterate long lost tribe. Society’s stories have held no sensible place for us and suspicion has fuelled the Roma’s mistrust of the written word. Images can tell a different story…

With this in mind a new approach would seem timely.
The development of a new visual discourse surrounding Gypsy culture is taking place. Initiatives like the Roma Pavilion are offering alternative narratives and signalling the way forward to equity through presence. This route has not been reflexively considered until now but our emergence presence at international events like the Biennale marks out a clear cultural space that will be an important factor in opening up the discourse surrounding contemporary Gypsy representation. A recognition that is surprisingly long overdue. Our presence in Venice can be seen as the start of a new dialogue, encouraging those outside of and within our communities to discourse in new ways; although many will see the works on show here many more will not. Either way the pavilion is a new iconic reference point, joining and maybe superseding some of the historical and recent problematic ones.

Daniel Baker 2007


     

 
 

[ Segnala questa pagina ]