|
Introduction
For those who were paying attention, a peculiar but special
term was used in my two previous column articles. Cultural
integrity. Hands up all those out there who know what
this means. Ah ha. Hands up all those out there who want to
know what this means. Ah ha! Now, hands up if you didn't even
notice those two words in my column writings. Come on, don't
be shy, and be honest! And don't go scrambling for those back
issues of the magazine because you won't find them - I've
asked Mr Murphy to make sure they're well hidden until a time
when they're not urgently needed.
Ok, seriously, what is cultural integrity and how does it
relate to the didgeridoo? If you have been waiting in anticipation
all these months hoping that I would finally come around to
addressing this issue, well, this is your lucky day!
In a nutshell, cultural integrity is about strength of culture.
Up to now, the phrase has been used mostly by arts writers,
curators, gallery owners, and community arts organisations
when talking about Australian Indigenous art. A piece of Indigenous
art is likely to have high cultural integrity value if it:
- is inspired by and executed on 'country'
- conveys feelings of pride associated with personal and group
identity
- draws upon traditional themes, subject matters, designs and
iconographies that the artist has undisputable rights to through
birthright
- is an expression of ancestral lore that connects mythology,
land, powerful creative spirits, and today's generation of
human beings
- is a permissible form of artistic expression that does not
contravene cultural rules, expectations and responsibilities
In the showrooms of Australia's leading art galleries and
auction houses, cultural integrity is very much tied up with
notions of quality, authenticity and value. In this way, cultural
integrity has become a benchmark for assessing the artistic
merit, importance, collectibility and, ultimately, price,
of a work of art. In the auction houses such as Sothebys and
Christies, Aboriginal paintings of the highest cultural integrity
sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Cultural integrity is premised on 'strong culture, strong
art'. It is never used in the negative. That is, a painting
would never be described as having low cultural integrity
value: rather, it would be simply dismissed as a fake or a
reproduction or not by the hand of an Indigenous person. The
other thing is that cultural integrity is not a sticker or
label used by white audiences to judge Indigenous Australians
and the degree to which they have or have not maintained their
cultural traditions. 'Weak culture, weak art', after all,
would only reflect back on the 200 odd years of European settlement
of Australia and the untold damages inflicted by the new colonisers
on the Indigenous peoples and cultures. And we all know what
a bad guilt trip that would be! But I'm digressing... sorry,
sorry, sorry...
Aboriginal people themselves talk about cultural integrity
in terms of rights of ownership and rights of access and use.
"That's my Dreaming" or "I paint my mother's totems" immediately
communicate the authority of the artist and the legitimacy
of his or her work.
What has all this got to do with the didgeridoo I hear you
ask? In the global market, the authority of non-Indigenous
didgeridoo producers and the legitimacy of non-Indigenous
product are ambiguous to say the least. And in the absence
of mechanisms to protect consumers and Indigenous producers
alike, this ambiguity continues to fuel a multi-million dollar
industry that has 'fake' or 'counterfeit' product as its number
one seller.
Let's look at some examples of ambiguous advertising on the
internet. As a start, let us examine how the words 'yirdaki'
or 'yidaki' are used to promote didgeridoos that are not genuine
instruments made 100% from start to finish by the Yolngu people
in north-east Arnhem Land. Here's one... this website I'm
looking at right now claims that the yirdaki it sells "...started
as a eucalyptus tree on a farm in Bali. It was harvested at
just the right height and hand painted by Balinese artisans.
The intricate dot painting is traditional of the Aboriginal
depicting creatures and patterns of the dream time"!
Just as perplexing are descriptions of "genuine, authentic,
100% yidaki" for didgeridoos made by white guys!
These sorts of advertising proclamations are not unusual
on the internet. In fact, almost every website that I have
come across that sells didgeridoos has an interesting mix
of words that probably wouldn't stand up to closer legal examination.
"Authentic", "Aboriginal", "Australian", "genuine", and "original"
are common, and recently, "Aboriginal style" is starting to
appear as prosecutions are brought against manufacturers and
retailers for misleading and deceptive representation.
Exploitation of Indigenous cultures is of course as old as
the hills and certainly not something that is limited to the
didgeridoo. In the USA, for instance, "It was the experience
of Native American tribes that many commercial enterprises
attempted to counterfeit Native American arts and craft and/or
falsely indicate some association between non-Indian product
and a Native American tribe" (Final Report on National Experiences
with the Legal Protection of Expressions of Folklore, World
Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, 2002).
The problem with the didgeridoo is that it is difficult to
define exactly what an 'authentic' or 'real' instrument is.
A case in point: are all Australian Aboriginal-made instruments
'authentic'? Hmmm... I suppose it depends how 'authentic'
is defined. Certainly, many Aboriginal-made instruments, especially
those originating from urban areas, are little different to
didgeridoos made by non-Indigenous producers. And what if
traditional owners of the didgeridoo in Arnhem Land were to
manufacture pine-drilled instruments? Would these be classed
as 'authentic'?
This is where cultural integrity comes in. When cultural
integrity designations are used together with geographical
indications (GIs), we have a potent labelling system that
offers, at the very least, an alternative to the ambiguity
and confusion that currently prevails. Ah, okŠ what is geographical
indications (GIs) I hear you ask? . Hands up all those out
there who want to know what this means. Ah ha! Hands up if
I've lost you. Come on, concentrate and keep up!
According to the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), an international
trade agreement that all nations are bound to established
by the World Trade Organisation:
"Geographical indications are, for the purpose of this Agreement,
indications which identify a good as originating in the territory
of a MemberŠ or a region or locality in that territory, where
a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the
good is essentially attributable to its geographic origin".
This is very interesting indeed as many of us have long accepted
the existence of geographically distinct didgeridoo types
in Aboriginal Australia. The celebrated ethnomusicologist
Alice Moyle, for instance, noted that there were two main
types of didgeridoo-playing: A-type (overtone-absent) and B-type
(overtone-present). And these two types of playing styles
corresponded with geographic and cultural boundaries. In the
Exhibitions section
of the iDIDJ Australia website , 9 major areas or cultural
blocs are marked on a map showing local varieties of didgeridoo
belonging to each area.
Keeping all this in mind, would it be possible to devise
a ratings system, a labelling method, that takes into account
geographical origins and cultural integrity in assessing the
'authenticity' of a didgeridoo? If we truly honour the didgeridoo
and its Indigenous custodians, and respect its place in culture,
then surely there is something we can do as consumers, producers,
educators, retailers, and players?! I played around with some
ideas and words and came up with this: the Cultural Indications
(CI) index. The CI Index combines the cultural integrity of
an instrument with its geographical origins, and it goes something
like this:
A CI Index of 4 is the highest rating of 'authenticity' for
a didgeridoo. Instruments in this category are the real deal,
the sure thing, the true blue, the ridgy didg... Didgeridoos
produced by Djalu Gurruwiwi, Milkayngu Mununggurr, Timothy
Litalita Ganambarr, and other Arnhem Land artists belong to
this class.
The CI Index is not to be confused with the quality of an
instrument. There are didgeridoos with a CI Index of 0 that
are fabulous instruments and many European craftsmen have
made a name for themselves for their fine work using the split
method. Eddy Halat's instruments, for example, are something
to be seen, let alone heard!
- To be continued -
|
top of page