Influence, appropriation, or theft?
An examination of the three dominant aspects of the debate surrounding the "appropriation of Aboriginal imagery": cultural property, copyright, and postmodernist appropriation
If the key focus of debate within Australian contemporary art circles in the early eighties was the importation of postmodern theory and overseas models, in the late eighties the dominant topic of discussion has had a more local, "pre-modern" origin. Rather than looking at ways of recalculating the relationship between Australian art and the "cutting edge" of Milan, Berlin or New York, interest seems to ·have turned inward, towards central and northern Australia, to the new "transitional" paintings of Aboriginal artists. Although acceptance of this work into the fine art context has not been an easy or uncontroversial one, the inclusion of new "traditional" paintings in major art gallery collections, and in national and international exhibitions, appears to have assured it a significant position within the current contemporary art canon.
However, the debates around Aboriginal art and its place in the contemporary artworld are still far from resolved. The recent exhibition, Balance 1990: Views, Visions, Influences (Queensland Art Gallery, February-April 1990), and the publication of special issues of Artlink and Art Monthly in May this year, make important contributions to the greater acceptance of all forms of Aboriginal art, and the resolution of some of the problems that have arisen as Aboriginal artists take up a key position in the Australian contemporary art world.
Over the last decade most attention has been directed towards works which have a "traditional origin", with the claim being made that such work is the only "authentic" Aboriginal art. To a substantial extent these claims have been market driven:
... some local... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline