Descartes Was Wrong

Orientalism is a western phenomenon that creates identity of the foreign 'other', an identity solely formed by western minds that does not function or exist in the country in question, in order to create a strange, weak, or underdeveloped image of a foreign population. Whether it is unintentional or very much calculated, this ethnocentrism justifies the stewardship of said population by western forces (purveyors of capitalism, etc, etc) in order to better them, as they cannot better themselves. Their customs, their history, all of it is controlled by ignorance and assumption, a dangerous, stifling, and ultimately powerful combination.

This implies that the artistic effects or imagery appropriated for western art are not the culture's own--in essence, by creating the 'oriental Other', those "foils and negotiations of the Occident" (Oguibe 231), we have also created their imagery. We approach their works with preconceived notions of style, tradition, and meaning, and take away from them the same things we already believed to exist in them: thus we have African art typecast in the tribal mask or fetish statue, symbols of the dark and mysterious jungle. We then employ these appropriated stereotypes in our own work, using meaning for their artistic lexicon that subverts their own understanding. We 'create' their art and then appropriate it.

When interpreting dreams, it is said that other figures who appear are merely representations of certain aspects or characteristics of the self, fragmented from one's mind and reflected back by those who we subconsciously tie to those specific traits. Can this be used to explain the creation of Post-colonial identity and subsequent appropriation? It seems almost as if in taking the imagery of others that have already been deemed 'inferior' or 'primitive', Western civilizations hope to reclaim their own bygone days of the primitive, of the mystical. This would make sense, as the primitive and mystical--in the sense that the West perceives them--do not exist in the civilizations they are taken from. They are merely figments of the imagination.

Combating ignorance will be the only way to correct our 'history', and both Oguibe and Mosquera provide avenues to do so: First, artistic identity and historic and "discursive territory" must be left "to those who have the privileged knowledge and understanding of their societies to formulate and own discourse" (Oguibe 232), or, international identity is the sole property of the country in question to create, and no one else's. No one will speak for the country but itself. Secondly, evaluation of intercultural artwork "is not just a question of seeing, but also of listening" (Mosquera 223). What is the context of the piece? What functions does this piece fill, and how does it accomplish them? What are the values portrayed, what perspectives does it open, etc. Mosquera is correct in realizing that in order to understand a piece, you must understand a culture--but it is here that we run into another problem. Mosquera believes that even an "incorrect" reading of an artwork is useful as it still generates new meanings (Mosquera 222). But these incorrect readings are made in ignorance--not willful ignorance, or ignorance born of superiority, but the ignorance that comes when you belong to a culture that has equipped you with the faculties needed to navigate that specific culture. Ethnocentrism may suggest the villager who believes "the whole world is his village" (Mosquera 219), but if his eyes are opened to the foreign, he will still try to apply his village to the world.

This is not to say that the villager is wrong. He is simply unable to fully comprehend another culture because there is no true way to break the boundaries of his own, to escape his culture and start anew. However, in this day and age of the hybrid, his work may be done for him. It may be easier to approach and appropriate another's culture in order to enrich your own if they have already done the same with your culture. But we must realize that a full, complete understanding of foreign artwork is impossible if we try to read it in its original context: we do not have their history, their customs, their artistic traditions or their mindset. This does create challenges in creating meaning that bridges countries, and pulls us further from the Western's beloved 'universal'. Hopefully, these challenges are ones that artists--and people--the world over are willing to face.

Mosquera, Gerardo. "The Marco Polo Syndrome: Some Problems around Art and Eurocentrism". Theory in Contemporary Art. p. 120. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005: pp 218-225.

Oguibe, Olu. "In the 'Heart of Darkness'". Theory in Contemporary Art. p. 120. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005: pp 226-232.