 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Roma Art: Fiction or Function?
By Daniel
Baker
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 a 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
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
