| |
 |
|
Alexandra van Dongen, Curator museum Boimans van Boijningen,
Rotterdam:
" Actually there is no such thing as 'roots': this notion is
pure romanticism. 'Roots' infact are always 'routes', as I don't
believe in one single provenance of things. Always there are multiple
traces inside, maybe a certain form was invented somewhere, but
it is always based on previous inventions and inspirations. The
phenomenon of 'appropriation' is an important factor, as people
will make something coming from outside their own, after the initial
moment and period of introduction. It all comes down to identity,
desire, and semiotics, lots of sociological processes.
Yvonne Dröge Wendel, initator
of the Universal Pattern project, Amsterdam:
"I really liked that expression that 'Roots' are infact always
'routes'. But in many places that sentence would bring up loud protest.
If I think about South Africa for instance where people are completely
obsessed with authenticity, roots etc. It also seams that so many
scientists are busy with finding the roots. If I think for instance
about the documentaries that one can see on channels like National
geographic, the stories of explorers seeking to find the roots.
Isn't mapping and determining the roots also something that has
to do with taking power over the 'things'?
Alexandra:
"Presenting the perspective that 'routes' are historically
more honest than 'roots' is of course quite a political statement.
I assume there will be protest against this. People are naturally
looking for their 'roots', especially in connection with stolen
cultural identities connection with political and racist suppression.
Understanding this complex process shows that claiming cultural
property is exactly part of all the sociological and political issues
involved and it will bring out the phenomenon of appropriation in
all its confronting aspects. In the 'Unpacking Europe' exhibition
in Rotterdam last year (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam,
2001), this same aspect came out very clearly. For this show I cooperated
with the African-American artist Fred Wilson. We selected objects
from the museum collection which are traditionally understood as
being 'European', but their 'roots' were historically somewhere
else outside Europe. Wilson presented these European objects, such
as majolica ceramics, glassware, trousers and shoes, European cubist
painting (Picasso), in a traditional museological context, using
text captions stating 'Made in Turkey', 'Made in Syria', 'Made in
Africa'. This way, visitors were confronted with both the 'roots'
as well as the 'routes'. Official history used to have the tendency
to 'forget' the forever ongoing ancient tradition of cultural contact,
and exchange. It is so much more interesting to retrace trans cultural
pathways and the cultural of reception. If for example one looks
at folk tales, they always carry the marks of the international
use made of it, and if one situates a certain folk tale, just as
a material object, in the context of its production, reception and
recycling, it seems to be a reliable way to understand the role
of objects in the construction of cultural identities. If you break
down a folk tale in different pieces, looking at all the different
narrative motifs and elements, it will clearly present itself as
a complex pattern of both traditional and newly introduced story
lines. This is the way I like to look at material objects all the
time. Do you know the Chinese version of Cinderella?
Yvonne:
I really wonder how social and political processes relate to the
phenomenon of claiming cultural property.
If I look at the examples I have now from the Universal pattern
project, I see that there is quiet a difference in the way people
claim this pattern. Today I looked again at some video interviews
I recently made in Bolzano, a German speaking part of North Italy.
One female shopkeeper that I interviewed there got so aggressive
when I suggested that this material is maybe from Holland as well.
During the interview she pulled out all red and white checked shirts
from the shelves and told me that this pattern is used in all the
traditional costumes and typically from Tirol. That's the name of
that area. She claimed that the red and white pattern is from that
area and the blue and white from the Northern part of Europe.
Then I have another example from a neighbor called Ronald van Tienhoven.
He is very well read and knows a lot. He explained to me that the
red and white checked textiles come from India, but that it were
the English who introduced the pattern there. Following his explanation
the English introduced their complex checked textiles and the Indians
made a simplified copy of these pattern. This two colored simple
version found it's way back to Europe.
So maybe classification of cultural property goes hand in hand with
the way we personally look at in world in general and tells us about
some ones character as well.
For the woman in Bolzano only her own world is her only reference
and the horizon is the region she lives in. Ronalds explanation
is quiet absurd to me. I think that the Indians had woven textiles
long before, in a time when people in England walked around in animal
skins.
You wrote that for the exhibition you selected objects from the
museum collection which are traditionally understood as being 'European',
but their 'roots' were historically somewhere else outside Europe.
Isn't any form of categorization only valid as long as we talk about
a limited period of time? Because before it came from somewhere
else.
I think we both agree that the question of origin is not too interesting
and I liked what you wrote:that it is so much more interesting to
retrace trans cultural pathways. Unfortunately this is not a very
common attitude.
What intrigues me is the fact that once something is fixed it seams
to be impossible to change that attitude with reason. Spagetti will
maybe always come from Italy and never from China. To place Cinderella
in China is difficult for me as well !
Alexandra:
To my opinion, Ronald might be very close to the intercultural history
of this pattern. Just in the same way, Chinese porcelain potters
were given European ceramic forms and decorations to produce the
socalled 'Chine de Commande' porcelain for Europe, transported back
to Europe by the VOC on a large scale in the 18th century. I think
Ronald does not mean that the English/Scottish introduced the cotton
weaving itself to the Indians, but they proposed this apparently
popular chequered pattern and asked the Indian weavers to produce
it, possibly from the 17th century onwards. On the VOC Kenniscentrum
website (www.voc-kenniscentrum.nl/prod-kledeneffen.html) you can
find a page from an 18th century cotton weaving sample book, with
Indian plain and striped cottons (1780s). Also I found a reference
to an article by Brigitte van Mechelen, in the magazine Items (no.
3, may/june 1998), éntitled 'Na Dato: het boerenbont, eind
17de eeuw', and she seems to refer to the VOC as well, importing
chequered cottons from India. From that time onwards, in Holland
as well, the cotton weaving industry started to produce chequered
patterns, in the so-called 'bontweverijen' (boerenbont), of which
the Brabants Bont was the most succesfull.
This cotton might have been integrated in European culture quite
rapidly, that within a short timespan, people thought of this stuff
as 'their own'.
Yvonne:
I can't agree. For me it's absurd to think that the English made
the checked pattern popular in India. I believe that weaving is
something that had a tradition in India that dates back for thousands
of years. Within these years the Indians for sure had developed
their own checked patterns. And the English in earlier days used
their knitted cloth and animal skins.
I now believe that this pattern is somehow a pattern for the poorer
people. Easy to make since you only need two colors. On the other
hand quiet effective since it visually is appealing.
This conversation is continuing and will be updated weekly.
|
|
