iDIDJ Australia Didgeridoo Cultural Hub

Hello,

As an amateur of Aboriginal Arts, I know that their paintings are sacred and that most Aboriginal people disapprove the use and copy of their paintings, symbols and techniques.
As a graphist, drawer and didj'crafter, I never used or copied any of their Dreams or symbols in respect for their disapproval.
Though, I'd like to understand a bit more this "moral interdiction" concerning Aboriginal Art and symbols' reproduction.

When there is money/profit made out of the reproductions, I fully and easily understand this restriction.
For example all the non-ethnic didjes sold on the market (Indonesian but also Australian and others) that are often (always?) presented as genuine Aboriginal artifacts.
I understand that it threatens real didjes' market and it also devaluates Aboriginal crafting (as they often are rubbish decorative-didjes... with crappy decoration!).

Now, when people show their own home-made didj' painted in an Aboriginal way, they will often be told that this also is theft of culture and that Aborigines are strongly against this.
I see two versions for this type of non-commercial reproductions :
1 > an exact replica of a true Aboriginal didj (could be painting or whatever) > Theft of the clan's "flag" (or of the "dream"), which wrongness is understandable.
2 > a new composition using Aboriginal symbols and techniques (dotpainting, crosshatch, Xray, footprints...) > Main criticism is "don't you have any imagination to draw your own stuff?"... But does this hurts Aborigines ? If there is no sacred meaning behing the painting ?

Finally, and this is why I'm seeking for further understanding, I'd like to know what Aborigines think of reproductions of their Art included in another piece of non-Aboriginal Art.
... let me give a concrete and direct example : a cartoon talking about Aborigines.
The drawing techniques are Occidental... but when it comes to show a drawed Aborigine painter in action, what HE draws must be a reproduction of what they REALLY draw.
Here are two graphic examples that will speak better than words :

Toto l'Ornithorynque (Johan, Omond - Delcourt - France) :

Toto the duck-billed platypus is dreaming... and of course, his dreams are represented as some drawings from the Dreamtime (dots, crosshatching).

Kookaburra T4 Système Ragnarock (Mitric, Crisse - Soleil - France) : > LINK (see page 3)

So, is this usage of sacred art also morally forbidden ?
Is it tolerated ?
Does it depend on the context in which it is used or not ?
What would Aboriginal people think of these images ?
...
Because we're here into the first category > these comic books are sold, there is some business involved.

Thanks for the infos !

Hi

This link may help

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/A ... 95/13.html

Thanks for the link Paul !
Very interresting report.

Two things stroke me :

> "If permission has been given by the traditional owners to a particular artist to use traditional images in his or her artwork and that artwork is later inappropriately used or reproduced by a third party, the artist is held responsible for the breach which has occurred, even if the artist had no control over, or no knowledge of, what occurred (at 7). Punishment can range from removal of the right to reproduce the image, to exclusion from the right to participate in ceremonies and even death."

So... stealing a "Dream" can kill its owner...

> At the issue of the court trial, the Aboriginal artists obtained... the delivery of all the unsold stock of copied-pattern carpets ! Wow, that's gross !
(one of those artists wanted to burn them in a ceremony ! )


Well, this perticular case fits in the first category of reproduction I've been depicting > "money/profit made out of the reproductions"
PLUS a near100% exact copy.
This accumulation gives no doubt in my mind of the "wrongness" of this carpet business.

In fact, I was looking for more info on the other aspects of these reproductions :
> Partial copies put together in original composition (no real Dream expressed... sort of an "à la manière de..." style)).
> Use (...copy) of traditionnal symbols included in a more general art piece (cartoon where action takes place in Aboriginal Australia for example).

I'd even add another category :
> What about the illustration of an Aboriginal tale ?

Thanks

... silence radio ...

Well, this subject doesn't seem to concern too much people around here.
How comes ?
Are my questions irrelevant ?
Or are you all simply not much concerned with graphics ?

Come on, I'm only seeking for your opinions on the matter and maybe start a debate...

Hi Ahaw

My view on this is that artistic copy right is artistic copy right pure and simple and that work should not be copied regardless of where it comes from in the world inc painting, music poetry, sculpture, audio of any discription as a direct copy or rip off.....

However I am totaly in favour where poetic licence is taken and appropriate acknowledgment is given eg a band does a cover of another musicians work thats fine as long as the origional artist gets there dues.

also art as an influence I feel is totally fine as well as long as you make it your own.

this is all from a western point of view.

however from an Aborigional point of view where the work is of religios signifinae or from a "dreaming" point of view this is seperate issue as it is story telling passed down from gen to gen and is a kin to directly copying a book word for word and is plagerism.

I myself have used aborigional style art on sticks I have made for my self and nobody elses consumption ie not to be sold on and with that have signed the didge with my signiture hopefully makeing it totaly clear that it was me what done it like. I do not do this to offend but simply as it is within "keeping" of what may have been done before it is obviously not aborigional as these guys learn their art from an young age. I cannot paint what so ever so it is done with the greatest respect from where the origional idea came from.

there ya go a responce

Hi,

I don't want to spend ages writing about something that's been debated here in this country since the 1950's - the apprppriation of another cultures' cultural content - for whatever reason it takes place, in my personal opinion, it's wrong. There is no excuse for it and it's ocmpletely unnecessary.



I think the people that create such things have some strange idea that they understand what Aboriginal people think and feel - I say leave that to Aborigines. That's their culture and theirs alone to do what they wish with. I don't know how these non-Aborigines can think they know what the Dreaming concept is about - treat it so superficially and tell everyone else such myths that are so far from reality. This sort of crap is as bad as the fakes you guys post on eBay - it's unethical and should be stopped.

Struth - I grew up here - I'm nearly 50 now and I still don't understand the depth and complexity - the richness of Aboriginal peoples' lives after studying it since I was a boy. Maybe I'm just too stupid to grasp it....as a non-indigenous person I reckon we should stop interferring and misreperesenting indigenous cultures right across the globe. Haven't we done enough damage ???