Meyers Culture Making

8/13/2019 Meyers Culture Making

1/22


2/22

culture-making:performingAboriginalityat the AsiaSociety GalleryFRED R. MYERS-New YorkUniversity

Life s translationndwe are all lostin it.-Clifford Geertz 1983:44]My article is a belated reflection on some events in New YorkCity in late 1988, when two

Aboriginal men from Papunya, a community 160 miles west of Alice Springs, spent twoweekend afternoonsconstructinga sandpainting or an audience atthe Asia Society Galleries.This construction was related to an exhibition, Dreamings:The Art of Aboriginal Australia,then on display at the Asia Society.I am interested in this event not only because I know the artists from previous fieldwork atPapunya, but because the sandpainting and the exhibition itself representa recognizable typeof intercultural transaction. The performance of Australian Aboriginal cultural practice in amulticulturallocation is similar to others-increasingly taking place in venues rangingfrom artgalleries and museums to rock clubs, such as the Wetlands in New York-that are importantcontexts forthe contemporary negotiation and circulation of indigenous peoples' identities (seealso Myers 1991). For both indigenous performersand their audience-participants, this kind ofculture making -in which neither the rules of production nor reception are established-isfraughtwith difficulties. Generally, such spectacles of cultural difference are scrutinized verycritically by anthropologists and other cultural analysts' on questions both of authenticity andof inequalities in the representationof difference. This makes them, in my view, all the moreworthy of sustained attention.The way in which the performance is stitched-together discursively and practically isillustrativeof a significant set of contemporary quandaries that, once buried in the handbooksof anthropological method and epistemologies, now occupy center stage in culturalstudy andthe politics of difference. These quandaries-about ethnocentric projections, about the positionof the observer-participant, about advocacy-are no longer external to the phenomenon.Translation is the ethnographic object. Inthe examination of concrete events, such as those ofmaking a painting, representation-anthropological and otherwise-becomes tangible as a

This article presents and analyzes the construction and performance of AustralianAboriginal cultural practice, a sandpainting, at a major art exhibition at the AsiaSociety in New York. Drawing on an ethnography for which anthropologicalknowledge is part of the event itself, I examine the multiple constructions ofAboriginal identity in the performance. Such interculturalperformances representan important form of cultural production and constitute salient contexts for thecontemporary negotiation and circulation of indigenous peoples' identities. Thefocus of the analysis is on the unsettled and pragmatic quality of the performanceas a form of social action, emphasizing the goals and trajectoriesof the differingparticipants and the specificities of context and discourses involved. [AustralianAborigines, performance, intercultural,identity]

culture-making 679

American Ethnologist21(4):679-699. Copyright? 1994, AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.

This content downloaded from 198.83.124.72 on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:07:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/22

formof social action. Further, also want to suggest that the uncertainties,he unsettledunderstandings,recentral o comprehendinghe variableproduction f culturaldentity ndifferentcontexts-what I am calling(afterRichardFox [1985] and SherryOrtner[1989])culture-making r, morespecifically, becomingAboriginal.Theobjects displayed n the exhibitionwere mainlyof fourtypes and fromfour differentculturalreas nAustralia:culpturesfromCapeYork),barkpaintingsfromArnhemLand),acrylic paintings CentralAustralia),nd what are known as toas ormessagesticks(from heLakeEyreregion).Barkand acrylicpaintingsare producedas commoditiesprimarilyorcommercialsale to outsiders see Bardon1979; Kimber 977; Megaw1982; Morphy1983,1992; Myers1989; Williams1976), but both artistic raditionsdrawlargelyon designsandstories mbedded nAboriginalraditionaleligious ife. Barkpaintings, s a particularmodeofvisualproduction, ate from hebeginning f the 20thcentury,althoughheformsaredirectlycontinuouswithmortuaryecorations, ody paintings, nd the like.Acrylicpainting ates rom1971 (seeBardon 979),but heimagesaresimilarly erived rom ndigenousraditionsfritualform.Thetwo-day performance ythetwoAboriginal aintersromPapunyaTua Arts oopera-tive (BillyStockmanand MichaelNelson)was conductedon the AsiaSociety stageon theweekendof November4-5. Thiseventwas meantbothto showsomething fthe origin -theculturaloriginaland ritual ontext-from which acrylicpaintingshaddevelopedand also tofill a cultural lot in the AsiaSociety'sparadigmof programming. he performance-fullofironiesand fabrications-functioned s one more in a set of representationsf Aboriginalculture and as a signifierof an emergingconstructof Aboriginality. n this case, theperformance y genuine Aboriginal eople authenticated he presenceof the Other nthepaintingsorthe AsiaSociety.Ifforsome the chance to see the actualAboriginal ainterswascertainlyhe realthing,as tokensassertinghegenuinepresenceof theOther nthepaintings,forothers heirpresenceraisedprominent uestions.The exhibition tselfwas one of a numberof Australian ulturalpresentationseldduring1988 to markAustralia's icentennial ear.One mightviewthisevent,therefore, sanexampleof those presentationsf indigenousartthat arrive romthe old settlercolonies from imetotime.Similarortsof culturaldisplayswere once a partof NativeAmericanife,in Wild Westshows (see Blackstone1985])as well as in the displayof art. would alsosuggest hattheAboriginalAustralian ultural ormsemerging n contemporarynterculturalracticeshouldnot be segregatedrom he indigenousormsproduced n otherconditions:hey maybe newdemonstrations f spirituality nd authenticity-that is, redefinitionsand rediscoveriesofidentityworkedout inthe faceofchallengingnterrogationsroman other. heyare,however,no less sincereorgenuineas cultural xpression nthisresponse o history.In his light, tseemsto me that mostanalysesof culturalperformance o notaddress heseeventsas formsof socialaction.Indeed, he currentdominantdiscourseaboutsuchperform-ancesemerging rom he discussionby manyanalystsrevolvesarounda view that ndigenouspeople (natives) houldrepresenthemselves.Thisposition,once the oppositional ritiqueofpreviousrepresentationalrames,endsto dismiss nterculturalroductions f identity.Thosejustlyoutraged ndoverwhelmed y guiItat the terriblehings hathave beendonetoAboriginalpeople,2 orexample,stillrepresenthemtoo often as merelyvictimsorpassiverecipients fthe actions of others.Thus, he predominantly uro-Australianrtcritics n Sydneyand NewYorkhavefrequently ismissedAboriginalcrylicpaintingas an inauthenticommodificationof theirculture.3For the artworld,this is a judgment hat reducesAboriginalpainting oinsignificancesee Price1989).Intheend, Iwould argue,this erasesfromoursightthewaysin whichAboriginal eopleusepaintingo defineandgainvaluefrom hecircumstanceshatconfront hem:a doubleerasure.One mustbe cautiousaboutromanticallyindingresistanceandcultural reedomwherenone exists(see Abu-Lughod990);it maybe thata structure f

680 american ethnologist




4/22

domination,uchasthatestablishedbythe whiteAustralianonquest,willultimately eterminethe outcomeof individual nitiatives. tdoes notfollow, however, hatone shouldacceptsuchan outcomeas representinghe actionsof theparticipantshemselves.To do so, Ibelieve,canbe grievouslymisleading.Incontrasto theextremesof romantic esistance nddevastating omination,other recentwork ncultural tudiesandanthropology asrecognizedhe intersectingnterestsnvolved ntheproduction ndreceptionof suchevents.Inaddition o pursuing uchan approachhere,Iwanttoargue hat hesignificance f sucheventsinthe lifecoursesandprojects f participantsgoes well beyondthe momentof theirperformance.An ethnographicperspectivecan drawattention o the neglectedtemporaldimension of such culturalevents by considering hehistoricalrajectorieshatbring hevariousplayers ogether.positions

Ido not offermyselfas the hero of this story.Indeed,IemphasizethatIam in it,partof it.ButIthink tdoes matter hatIam in it,not leastbecauseanthropological epresentationsikemy own (see, for example, Myers 1986) enter heavily into many discoursesconcerningAborigines.This s strikinglyo inthe representationf meanings orAboriginal rt.Myowninvolvementn the event was minorand largely nformal, s I shall detailbelow, instructivemainlyabout hechanging location fanthropologynthe 1980s.By1988,the overt anguageand actionof politicsso prominentn the 1960s and 1970s had shiftedwiththe worldwideswingto the right.Howeverphysicallyremote he peopleinAboriginalommunitiesmaybe,the relationship etweenthem and the dominant ocietyis mediatedby Euro-Australianermsof Aboriginalelf-determination, itizenship,andwelfaredependence in a liberalstate.InAustralia,selsewhere, ndigenouspeoplearestrugglingo finda voice and to definethe termsof theirsituation n ways thatwill strengthenheirown sense of autonomy, heirown localtraditions nd histories.Manyrecognize hat, o someextent,theywill haveto workwith thetermsof the dominant ociety iftheyare to gain anyculturaloreconomicadvantage.Othersfind itsimply nexplicable hat he whitesocietyfailsor is unable o recognizetheirterms.Thecommentsandparticipationf Aboriginal aintersntheexhibition how precisely he extentto which thepeople Iknowarewillingorable to recognizesuch terms.One mustunderstandthat he termsof discourseare neither nvariant ordotheyissue froma singlearena.Theyare,as numerous heorists f identityhaveargued,multiple ndshiftingBhabha 986;Butler 990;Ginsburg ndTsing1991; Hall1990;Spivak1987).Thus, t is interestinghat,in recentyears,Aboriginal eople increasingly re indexedbytheir artistic roduction,productshat standfortheir dentity.Thisshouldhardlybe a surprise.nmanyrespects, t is the artworldthat hasconstructed he new scene, the arenain which the Other -the non-Western,non-white,non-male-is bothbeingconstructed ndits usecontested.Notably, ven whenthe Other sinvited o representhimself/herself/themselvesn the 1980s, mostfrequently t is the artistwho is invited o speak-be itTrinhT.Minh-Ha,DavidHwang,orMichaelNelsonTjakamarra.Around hem,and sometimes hrough hem,deep debatesover the adequacyand legitimacyof representationsf culturehavebeentakingplace.

identityTwoissuesseemto be central o the performancesndcirculation fcollectiveidentitiesbyAustralian boriginal eople. One, as Ihavealready uggested, s the significanceof culturalperformancesn Westernsettings,not justforthe communicationof aspectsof a collectiveAboriginaldentity,but as perhapsa centralcontextof itsveryproduction ndtransformation.

culture-making 681




5/22

The other issue is the veryexistence and production f an Aboriginaldentity, s opposedtothe less categoricaland moretemporaryocal identities hatAboriginal eople hadtypicallyproduced orobjectified seeMyers1988])forthemselves nsocial action nthepast.Toputitboldly, herewere noAborigines ntil he Europeansame. Therewere, instead, people romWalawala, r Warlpirieople, or peopleof Madarrpalan.Theus/themopposition s obviouslya criticalquestion,since intraditionalife this sort ofpermanent,essentialalterity s impossible-even if the Other a self-othercontrast) s anecessaryconditionof one's own definition.4There can be no doubt that the categoryAboriginal s, inthe first nstance, xternallymposed-as settlersof Europeanescent usedthecategoryodenote heoriginalnhabitantsfthecontinentwho hadnoframeworkorneed)to grasp hemselvesas an identity a difference)n opposition o some other sortof people.5Theywerequiteable to do so, of course-as they typicallyextended he indigenous ategoryof humanperson (forexample, wati, man, or yarnangu, person, or Pintupi;yapa,person, orWarlpiri; olngu, person, n NortheastArnhemLand) hat haddifferentiatedrealpeople romothersortsof persons orsubjects)o contrastwith whitefellas see Keeffe1992;Myers1993).Tosome,thevery category Aboriginal, herefore, eeksof its colonialistoriginsas the formof the indigenouspeople'sdominationand exclusion. Embraced y thedescendantsof the first nhabitants,owever, thasthe potentialof layingclaimto a temporalpriorityhathas moralpower nclaimingrightso land(astheconceptof FirstNations hasinNorthAmerica).Despite heexistenceofa categoryof collectiveidentity,herewas littleactionbasisfor itsperformancer realization. dentitywas moretypically, orwantof a betterword,segmentary rrelative,ocal. Mostperformancesf identitybytraditionallyrientedAborigi-nalpeopleare totemic seeMyers1993),differentiatingeopleat one level butlinkinghemat another.Incontemporaryife, hereareundoubtedly umerous ontexts nwhichcollectiveidentitiesare criticaldimensionsof socialaction,but itshouldrequire ome considerationhata centralarenafor the performance nd criticaldiscussion-that is, the objectification-of culturalidentityhas been in thearts, o to speak(see Kirshenblatt-Gimblett992; Lippard 990).Following long historynwhichfirstobjectsrepresentingheiractivities ndbeliefs,andthenfilms,were circulatednmuseumsandexhibitions,Aboriginal eoplehave beenparticipatingincreasinglyas embodiedrepresentativesf their culture and identity n such endeavors,displayingheirculture nexternal ontexts n the formof performance.Theseare,too, malebodies. One mightwell askwhat differencet would make ftheperformances ere embodied

by women, as they could easily have been. Would the readings ave emphasizedanessentialist female dentification ith theearth?)StuartHall'smuch-quotedtatement, nothingxistsoutsideof representationHall1990),is entirely o the point.Theseperformancesrealwaysmediated,alwaysenterinto a groundpreparedby existinggenres-genres of pedagogical instruction, vant-garde shocksof thenew, nostalgiaor the loss of spiritualwholeness, and so on. Moreover, fthe performers,somewhatcosmopolitan isitors o a rangeofcultural estivalsandperformances,ringa senseof audienceand intention,he audienceparticipantsringat least wo preexisting,ometimesoverlapping, ultural rames orthis sortof performance f culturaldifference.One, morepoliticaland instructional,rame is the performance f ethnicity,whereculturaldifferenceindexes collective and (potential)political identity.This frameprobablyderivesfrom the19th-centuryolkloristicnterestsn nationalminorities,but it is now a significant iscursiveframeworkorthe presentation f Thirdand FourthWorldpeople (see Graburn 976, Paine1981).The otherframe,well-established t a settingsuchas the AsiaSociety(wherea typicalpresentation ould concernTibetan,Chinese,orJapanese rtandperformance)s theframeofcoming in contactwith a cultural ormthat is assumedto possesssomethingof an aura

682 americanethnologist




6/22

(Benjamin1968), of sacred tradition or aesthetic originality,as expressed in the following pieceof publicity circulated by the Asia Society:the extraordinaryitalityof Aboriginal rt. It is the oldestcontinuousart tradition n the world,and isflourishing ithnewenergyandcreativityncontemporary edia.Theworks nthe exhibition epresentthe Dreamings, hespiritualoundation f Aboriginalife.The origin of the exhibition and the sandpaintingevent lies in the collaboration of the SouthAustralianMuseum and the Asia Society. Inaddition to the exhibition itself, the Gallery offeredvideo displays, films, a two-day symposium with anthropologists and Aboriginal artists,and the

sandpainting(underthe auspices of the Performance segment of the AsiaSociety staff).6Theseevents were not only intended to help place the artobjects on display in a sociocultural andhistorical context.7 As events, performances also provided the sort of action that bringsadditional publicity and attention to an exhibition. Thiscertainly proved to be the case with thesandpainting:basing herself on interviews with the two painters, producer Joanne Simon did asegment on the exhibition for the nationally syndicated MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour (1989).The responsibility for arrangingthe sandpainting allegedly lay with the curators from SouthAustralia(anthropologists Peter Sutton and Chris Anderson, also contributors to the catalog),who negotiated for over a year with men from the Papunya Tula Artistscooperative (currentlyabout 90 men and a few women, mainly from the communities of Papunya, Kintore,Kiwirrkura,comprise this collective). However, itwas the Asia Society people who insistedon this inclusionto help show something of the roots of the acrylic paintings in ritual life. The sandpainting event,billed as TraditionalSandpainting by Aboriginal Artists, cost $10 to attend and attracted amore-than-respectable 700 visitors on its two weekend afternoons. The rubricforthe construc-tion of a sandpainting was that such ground designs constitute one of the traditional bases forthe contemporary production of acrylic designs on canvas. The embeddedness of designs intraditionalreligious life constitutes, for Aborigines and perhaps for whites, a majorpartof theirvalue (Myers1989). While the South Australiancuratorsagreed to negotiate for a performance,the secret/sacred (that is, esoteric) nature of men's ritual and the conventions for its display(well-known to anthropologists)were a problem, because performance in a fully public contextwould be a violation of the ordinary, prevail ng rules forthe production of such symbolic forms.

the anthropologist at home

PerhapsIshould explain my own participationinthe events.8 Iwas consulted late in the plansfor the exhibition itself, for advice on trainingdocents. Because Iwas already going to CentralAustralia for more fieldwork with Pintupi people, I ended up helping to make a videotaperepresentingthe point of view of the artistsfromthe community of Yuendumu (the cooperativeknown as WarlukurlanguArtists) hat was shown forthe exhibit (this is another story, however).Ialso agreed to take partas a speaker in the firstsymposium, drawing on my previous researchwith men who had done several of the paintings in the show. When the Papunya artistsarrived,men I had known for several years, I visited with them and offered to make videotapesdocumenting the event and tripfor them to take back to show in Papunya. So, Ispent most ofthe days of their visit to New Yorkeither shooting video and talking with them or informallyasa participant,providing anthropological knowledge to the audience. My abilityto take on theseroles was enhanced by Chris Anderson's interest; as the anthropologist who organized thesandpaintingevent fromthe SouthAustralianMuseum,Anderson was as interestedas I in havinga document of this unusual interculturalevent.

culture-making 683




7/22

ritualSandpaintingsretypicallyconstructed s partof ritual, ncluding ongsand reenactmentsof ancestral ctivities, nwhich all thosepresentareessentiallyparticipants.andpaintingsreneither ndependent ntitiesnor arethey performancesor an audience of spectators.ndeed,sandpaintings re ritualconstructionso which, like most formsof religiousknowledgeinCentralAustralia, ccess is restricted.Only initiatedmen wouldordinarily e permittedo seethese paintings.Inthatsimplesense, the activityof constructing sandpaintingt the AsiaSocietywas somethingnew. And how to managethe painting n such a way as to adheresufficientlyo the conventionson such knowledgewas an issuethat had been discussedatmeetingsamongtheAboriginal rtistsbefore heycameto the UnitedStates.The artistswere facedwithmanaginghe painting nsuch a way as to adhere ufficientlyothe conventionsof such knowledge, hat is, sufficiently nough to protect hemselves romcriticismromotherswithrightsodesignsand frompossiblespiritual angers rommisperfor-mance.Theywerecertainly ognizantof thedangers heyfacedfrom hejealousyofothermen,although heyhaddiscussed heirplansatlengthwithothermenatPapunya.AndwhenMichaelwas interviewedbyJoanneSimon romMacNeil-Lehrer,orexample,a greatsuccess for theAsiaSociety,she askedhimabout hemeaningofthedotsin the acrylicpaintings.He toldher,politelybutfirmly,hathecould not alkabout hat: I an't ellyouthatname. Suchknowledgewas restricted.9Each f the men did apaintingorwhich he hadrights swhatiscalled owner nAboriginalEnglish, r kirta nWarlpiri, ightshatcan be conceivedof, forsimplicity'sake here(butseeMeggitt1962, Munn1973, Maddock1981, Myers1986), as rights o designsand stories,including he right o performhem,obtained hrougha fatherwho was also kirta.Suchrightsare differentiatedromanother,complementary,et of rights o the sameobjects,songs,andstories,which belongto those who are managers r kurtungurlu. illStockman's aintingwas of the BudgerigarDreaming,while Michael Nelson'swas, typically,more ambitious: tincluded hreedifferentDreamngs o which hehadrightsPossum,Kangaroo, lyingAnt).Suchpaintingswould have been undertakeny severalmenundernormal,ritual onditions.Allofthiswasexplainedrepeatedlyotheaudience,which, however,changedover he courseof theafternoon ndseemed littleable to hear ts localsignificance.Suchissuesofproductionwouldbe of greattheoretical nterest o postmodern rtconcerns,but these enteredlittle into theessentiallymodernist rame.

the painters and their purposesTwoAboriginalmen,MichaelNelsonandBillyStockman,were chosenandagreed o do thesandpaintings. n importantriterionntheirselection,which was partlymadeinconjunctionwith the adviceof DaphneWilliams thenartadvisor o PapunyaTulaArtists)ndpartlywiththe recommendationf a groupmeetingof the artists hemselves,was thatboth menspeakEnglish elativelywell. Nelson and Stockman'spreviousexperiencesof interculturalctivity(theywere usedto representingrmediatingheir dentities)meant heywould be comfortabletraveling o New Yorkand communicatingwith people there.TheWarlpiripainterMichaelNelsonTjakamarras anintense, houghtful,ndcomplexperson.Theyoungest on of a rituallyvery importantatherand grandfather,Michael was long overlookedin favor of his ratherglamorousolderbrother.Whilehe was theyoungerof the two men on thistrip,Michaelhasachievedconsiderablereputationor his painting,especiallyfor the designhe did thatwasreproducedn a huge mosaic in frontof Australia'secentlycompletedParliamentHouse.10One ofMichaelNelson'spaintingswasin theexhibitionand isreproduced n thecoverof thecatalog. ButMichaeltook up paintingonly recently,and the older man, BillyStockman,





8/22

Michael's lassificatoryrother-in-law,njoyeda reputations a painterrom he earliestdaysof Papunyapainting n 1972. Billy, distinguishedby his silver hair and full-bearded elderappearance,has served as a memberof the NationalAboriginalCongress,visitedthe UnitedStates and Francewith earlierexhibitionsof Aboriginalwork,and traveled as one of theAboriginalepresentativeso theBlackArtsFestivalnLagos,Nigeria,n1978. Othermen couldhave come insteadof thesetwo, buttheywere likelychoices,giventhe circumstances.Whytheywantedto come andwhattheywantedto communicates morecomplex. First,therewastheinterest f atrip o a distant ountryand,secondly, he considerableprestigeheyexpectedto enjoywhentheyreturnedo Papunya.Otherartistswho havetraveled, can say,have tried o representhemselvesbackhome as entitled o specialtreatment ecauseof theirexperiencesand connectionsabroad. Onemanhasrepeatedlyoldme thatno one can arguewithhimor threatenhim,inCentralAustralia, ecausehe has toomanyrelations nEnglandandAmerica.) ucha value on relations rom far way as a bulwark f one'sown identityhasrootsintraditionalAboriginalife (Myers1986). Infact,the tripitselfand the interestwhitesshowed in them would increase heirimportanceat home (as morefirstamongequalsthanothers). nterestingly,t lunchone dayafter hesandpainting,hetwo menbegan o discuss hepoliticsof theirhomecommunitywith me andexpresseda sensethat heirown positionsandcontrol shouldbe more significant han they currentlywere. Partlyon these grounds,thevideotapeIwas makingwas importanto them: to show others.Theycomplained hat whatyarnangu Aboriginal eople)do, suchas when the PapunyawomendancedinSydney, s notshownon the smalltelevisionstationatPapunya asit isatnearbyYuendumu).Theexplicitpurposeof theircomingandtheirconstruction f thesandpaintingwasto showAboriginalulture o peopleoftheworld,so peoplewouldunderstand ndrespect heirculture.Howeverobvious hismight eem,the communicationwas hardly traightforward.hentwomembers f the MacNeil-Lehrernterview eam arrived tthe artists' otelroom o meetthem,the interviewersttemptedo createrapport nd to begincommunicationby asking he menwherethey learned o speakEnglish.Atthatpoint,it seemed to me, BillyStockmanactuallytold them mostof what they would have wanted to know about the relationshipbetweenAboriginaldentity,painting,and the dominant ociety.Theydidnotrecognizethisas partofhisperformance,nfortunately. illy's esponseo theirquestionwasto saythathedidnot learnto speakEnglishn school, but at stockcamps.Beforeanyof that,however,he hadto learnceremony, heirown Law, romhis father'sLaw, nthebush:Ididn't o toschool... went toAboriginalchool,ceremony.Learned boriginal aw.SortofAboriginalhighschool,youknow?Not whitepeople'sschool. Learnederemony,painting,here.

Only later,he stressed,did he learnwhitepeople'sways.Ofcourse,thiswas notcapturedbyanycamera.Nordiditseem that hetwo interviewersaw how much heywerebeinginformedaboutthe value or priority f Aboriginal igh school, of learning our Law. ' After heirinterview,Michael Nelson was highlycriticalof the way he was asked questions in theinterview,inding hem too abrupt,oo sharp.This s, ironically, uitea common formulationAboriginal eoplemakeof theirdifferenceromwhites,especially nregardo theprocessesofrecognizingpersons,and of communicatingand acquiringknowledge(see Keeffe1992),processes hatwere fundamental,n fact,to the entireprojectof communication nd respectfor cultural ifference nvisagedbythe exhibition.Michaelhad an ideainhisheadof what hewanted osayandfelttrippedup bythequestionswhich,hesaid, madethard. Thequestionsdid notallow himto explainhissubjectas he wished.Thus,he criticized heway these bigcity peopleask too many questions ; theydon'tlisten, he said,noting heirdifference romthose of us (FranCoiseDussart,JohnKean,ChrisAnderson,and I)who had considerableexperienceof Aboriginalommunities.Thepainterswere clearabout heir ntentionswhentheyarrivedn NewYorkCity Fran~oiseDussart,telephone conversation, November 11). As Michael Nelson said when we had a lunch

culture-making 685




9/22

breakduring he sandpainting, I'mrepresentingAboriginal ulturehere, and he and BillyStockmanwantedthis to go well. I believe that this act of representinghas some of thesignificanceor hementhat he successfulperformancefceremonieshasinthelocalcontexts.Itcertainlywas an artistic hallenge oMichael,who insisted ncomingearly otheAsiaSocietyto check outthestageand conditions.Performinghisinwaysthatworkedwiththenewsmediawas distressing, iventhe disparity etween Michael'semergingcosmopolitan dentityas anartist ndtheir takeon himas an exotic. Michaelwas a bit distressedaboutthe day spentwith the MacNeil-Lehrernterviewers,whentheytook the mento the CarnegieDelicatessenandto theCentralParkZoo, a nearbyvenue wheretheycouldfilmthem visitingNew Yorkand beingAboriginal Billy alked o theanimals).Michael,a differentortof performerromBilly,wanted o talkabout he art ohn Kean, onversation,November12).Michael xpressedan expectationof beingpaidforappearingn a film, particularoncernaboutcontrolofimages ongan issuewithAboriginal eople.Atthesametime,he hadexpectedto see himselfon televisionin New Yorkand was initially omewhatdisappointedby the apparentack ofinterest.However,afterdiscussionwith some ofus,hedecidedthat hepublicityor heirwork,thatit wouldbe seen alloverAmerica, ightaround, wouldhelpsell paintings.

eventPrecededby a shortlectureon the firstday by anthropologistChrisAnderson curator fanthropology, outhAustralianMuseum) nd commentsbyBeatiGordon directorf perform-ances at the AsiaSociety), he event beganon each day at about1:00 p.m. andconsistedprincipally fthe two mensittingon a raised tage,eachworking t his own painting, pplying

acrylicpaintand a fluff wamulu)madefromwild daisies to a sand surface.Wearing ongtrousers utwiththeir orsosand facescoveredwith redochre,the two men weremostlyaloneon stage,althoughhe former rtadvisor o Papunya JohnKean)broughtmaterials n and offforthem.12On the firstday,the mendecorated hemselvesonly in red ochre andheadbands,buton the second day, they painteddesignson themselvesbeforecomingon stage.Drawnfrom herepertoiref the Tjartiwanpaeremony nvolving snake knownasjaripiri)ssociatedwitha placecalledWinparrku,hebodydesignshadnothing o do with thoseon theground,13but they stoodfor a bigger idea, of context-the relationof song, dance, and mythtosandpainting-thats,forceremony.Facingheseatedaudienceofthelarge lopingauditorium,thepainterswere surrounded ytins andsmallcontainersortheacrylicpaint heywereusingand bagsof fluff madefromplants hey hadbroughtromCentralAustralia.Thestagehadbeencoveredwith3 tons of specialreddish andbroughtn fromLongIsland.A singlebreakwas heldduring ach afternoon,duringwhich the menwentbackstage ora rest.Much of theemphasis n framinghisevent,from hose at theAsiaSociety,focusedon thedramaticdimensionof the men painting p andon the (eventual) disempowerment f thepaintings sthe climaxof the event.At wopoints, he men performed dance,a modificationofperformanceshatmenenactincontextsquitedifferentromhoseinvolvedwith hepaintingsthey were doing but which were chosen because they revealedno knowledgesubjecttorestriction. or heseperformances,MichaelNelson urnedhis backontheaudience14ndsangthe wordsof a song fromthe Tjartiwanpaeremonyand providedpercussionby clappingtogether wo boomerangs,while BillyStockmandancedthe conventionalmovementsacrossthe stagebehind he paintings.On thefirst uchoccasion,Billydidonlya singledance,but insubsequentappearancesof this sort,he did fourdifferentdance sequences.Theseconddaywas builttowardwhat was advertised s the disempowerment f the sacredimagesof thesandpaintings, hichwas performed yeach manthrowing andon anddisruptinghe imageof the other.





10/22

The disempowerment was a new twist, owing considerably (I believe) to the Asia Society'sprevious performancesof Asian religious art.Nonetheless, the framework of such performanceshas become conventional in recent years for CentralAustralianpeople. Culturalimprovisationis not new, even for the bushiest and least experienced of Aboriginal people. Forexample,ground paintings were similarly produced to accompany an exhibition in Sydney in the early1980s, and paintersfrom Papunya accompanied an artsgroup sponsored by AboriginalArtistsAustraliathat performed throughout the United States in 1981. Aboriginal women, likewise,have been performing heir dances in artsfestivals around Australiawith considerable regularityand enthusiasm. These experiences, reportedback by participants o theircompatriots at home,provide the basis for a genre of culturalperformance that is still partiallyunfixed.Another dimension of the event, as experienced, was the alternation of long periods ofsilence (with the audience simply watching the painters)with the presentation of backgroundinformation by specialists, especially by Chris Anderson and Francoise Dussart (but onoccasion by me), and questions from the audience. Such questions were addressed, by requestof the painters,to those whitepeople who know about Aboriginal traditions. Unintentionally,this created a rather bizarre concatenation of meditative, observational silences and pedagogi-cal overlays on a distanced and (apparently)unattainable pair of performers.It led one visitingAustralianartist(ChristopherHodge) to complain, in writing as well as in the lobby of the AsiaSociety, that the event was likea diorama. '5Alluding to the lifelike scenes of figures behindglass in naturalhistory museums, commonly held to embody a view of non-Western peoplesas static and passive and as belonging to the natural environment as opposed to being humanagents, Hodge's complaint suggests that the presence of Aboriginals in the sandpaintingperformance, ironically, violated the contemporary convention that the Others hould speakfor themselves. (Thiswas, in fact, a convention rigorouslyobserved in the symposium that hadpreceded this event by two weeks.) An artist himself, Hodge had recently visited CentralAustralia and had combined his sense of Aboriginal painters' co-presence (Fabian 1983) withthe more general critical stance toward such representational practices.

Throughout the afternoon, as well, the audience changed to some degree, as people cameand went. They were also free to walk up to the stage to see more closely. Inthese respects, itis unlikely that everybody saw the same event, if ever one could say that.

performanceThe event described, however problematic from the point of view of Aboriginal practices,made perfectlygood sense in itsslot within the Asia Society, which has had all sorts of performersfrom differentcultural traditions, ranging from Kathakalidancers to Chinese singers.

whats going on? Beati Gordon, the Asia Society's director of performances, introduced theevent to the lecture audience by emphasizing distance, uniqueness, difference, andsacred ritual. Note how her own concern with authenticity is undermined by her unwittinglyironic emphasis on the newness of this event:Wehaveput ogether very nterestingemonstrationfsandpaintingytwo Australianboriginals hohave come hereexpressly ust o do thatforus. Thishas notbeendone everinthe UnitedStates.As amatter ffact, thason ybeendone twiceintheworld,once inSydney ndonce inParis,or ayaudienceslike ourselves.Because,as Dr.Andersonwill explainto you later, his is a sacred ritualwhich theAborigines o insecret,uh,placesand the one you'regoingto beseeingis notgoing o be a completelysecretone becauseapparentlyherearemany layersof thought hatgo into thesedreamings.AndMr.Anderson eing heexperton it,I will lethimtellyou exactlywhat it is. Ijustwant o letyouknowhowwe willproceed.]

culture-making 687




11/22

Atthis point, anthropologist Chris Anderson took up, attemptingto explain the inexplicable:what would people be seeing (or not seeing). Notice how he gets caught up in contradictionwith the prevailing frame of interpretation:Theperformanceoday,I'dlike o explain, s notreallya performances suchinthat t'snota dramaticevent.... It'snot a ceremony n that thisworkis normallydone withmanymoreAboriginal eopleinvolved. t'sverymucha social event. It'sa deeply religious vent,and it'san importantolitical vent.In hat ense,this s not a ceremonybecause herearetoo fewpeople.It'sa verystrange ontext or hemand so whatthey'vedone.... Ittooka longtime of talking,perhapsa yearor so of discussion.... Itwasn't usta matter f negotiatingwith two individual eopleabout hewholething.Therewasa muchlargerocialuniverse hathadto be consultedbefore.we ouldreallygetagreement n how it couldbedone [inotherwords, hepainters renotfully ndividuatedgents]....Ijust hought 'd mention hat t is specialand that heyhave modified hedesignsto some extentsothat heycan do them. ... Normallymendoingthis is secretandonly opento initiatedmen...They're nlyshowingyou the top part, he outsidepart.Other ayersaretoo important,oo powerful,toodangerousorsettingsike his.In act,any setting utside henormal ne inwhich heceremony hatthe event spartof would be toodangerous.Sotheyhave modified t.Anderson went on to tell the listeners that the painters had to make adjustments, which

representedthe flexibility, creativity, and ongoing continuity of an Aboriginal culture that wasonce conceived as static and doomed. For the men, he says, the performance is a denial of justthis view. Theirculture is alive; they are here. But how should one feel about this event? Theconditions of performancedo not interferewith theirunderstandingsof the sacred. As Andersonexplained,

Because t'ssacreddoesn'tmeanwe have to adopt hisreverential ttitudeowardst. The men see this,and this is the reasonthey'redoing it, they want to presenttheir culture and their world view tonon-Aboriginaleopleandparticularlyo Americans. otheyarehappy fyou havequestionsand wantto look. emphasis dded]performing The Aboriginal men regarded this performance very seriously, and they werevery proud of how they comported selves. They wanted approval and recognition, whichrequired sustaining an illusion: Billy Stockman was finished with his painting by the end of thefirstday but had to keep paintingover itduringthe second day; Michael Nelson was concernedthat people not be so close as to see how the ground had cracked, but felt that he had beenable to cover it sufficiently with paint to hide it.

Backstage at the Asia Society in the dressing room, with its mirrorsand makeup lights, thechatterand conversation were markedly different from the silence on stage behind which thepaintersmoved in their own space. Realizing how participants alk about ritualperformance inordinary contexts, I told them I was impressed that they were able to sing and dance alone,without shame or embarrassment kunta).Michael said it was hard, with so many people.But we [are]representingour country.Butthere was also an air of performance that was quite different from that of ritual, not justbecause sandwiches and soft drinks were brought inas refreshment.As partof the Asia Society'spublicity, a New YorkTimesphotographer arrived,and it was arrangedfor him to take picturesof the two men, painted up for their performance, with some small children. As the men kneltbeside theirboomerangs, several mothersbroughttheirratheranxious four-year-olds upto meetthe men (who are quite used to the presence of children generally and are comfortable withthem). The children were anything but comfortable or pleased to encounter these smiling,ochre- and paint-covered faces, however much the boomerangs might have interested them.The photographs were taken, but the embarrassment was palpable. At this moment, pressuredby the enticing potential for publicity, the Aboriginal performers were only exotic signvehicles, commodities, of something interesting and seen for the first time here. '6This objectification of their identity as Other contrasted powerfully with the way theAboriginalmen considered the relationships involved in puttingon this performance. Elatedbytheir success, the often-reserved Michael Nelson chose to address those of us whites who had





12/22

beenwith theminterms hat identifieduswiththem,17mphasizing connection, eferringopeople in affectionatekinterms.Billysaidhow hardwe had all worked(Chris, ohnKean,Francoise, ndI),includingus intheirentourage.Attimes,the men'sconceptionof performancenthis context and theirconcentration fefforthad unforeseeneffects.Quite significantly,he men had insisted hey did not wish toanswerquestionswhiletheywerepainting nstage;hiswou d interferewiththeir oncentrationon theirwork.Moreover,heydidnotseem to wantthis kindof intrusion.Theywere,theysaid,very happywith our help n thatrespect,although n listening o what we said, they hadsuggestedsome elaborationsof what they would like people to know. The resultsof thisinterpretive ractice,however,were the alternating eriodsof questionsand anthropologicaltalk about whatthe audience could see on the stage(andthe objectof attentionuncontactedby theaudience) n the lightsbeyondtheirreachand the periodsof hushedsilence as peoplejustwatched.The silence isvery untypicalofAboriginalitual vents,especiallyinthepreparatorytages,when formsof sociabilitysuch as chattingand cardplaying,as well as ceremonialsinging,accompany he groundpainting.Silence at the AsiaSocietyaddeda sense of what is to usreverential,meditationaloncentrationhat s not at allobvious,ifpresent, ntheoriginal itualcontexts.Manyof the audiencecommentedon thisqualityof the event,and ChrisAndersonanticipatedhis in the commentsIdescribedbefore.Andersonmay still have been forced oplayinto thisby notowning up fullyto thiseventas a sortof commodity,althoughhe didsaythatmen had left out parts, hattheydecided to show what was only a partof a larger vent.Despitethese disclaimers, o to speak,manyin the audience did not seem to grasphowdifferenthecontextreallywas. The womenoftendid seem behindglass,the glasswall effectof proscenium taging,although heywere listening ctivelyandoccasionally aughing-thuswas created heexperienceof the watcher mentionedwho complainedhat he eventwas likea diorama t the museumof natural istory, ithexpertsoutfrontexplainingand themeninthespotlighton thestage.Whatwas this,peoplewanted to know?Was it a ritualevent?A commodity?Thereweremanyquestionsaboutwhether power was being brought n, and so forth.Whatwasgoingon? What was being performed?Muchof the emphasisin framinghe event and discussionfrom the audience,especiallyon the second day, centeredon (1) the theme or dramaofdisempowerment f the paintingsat the end, a theme thatcame fromthe Asia Society'sadvertisementortheeventandthatItaketo be from he comparative eligion raditionhat ssignificant t the AsiaSociety,or (2)on the men'spainting hemselveswithdesigns,althoughthe bodydesignswere not from hesameDreaming s the sandpaintings.Nobodysaidthistotheaudience,althoughAnderson id state hat hisperformance asonly showing glimpse.For he men,this fusedgenrewas not a ritual,although t sharedmanyfeatureswiththatgenreof performance.As if it were a ritual,beforecomingto New York, he men hadmadecertain o obtainpermissionor heperformancef thisknowledgeanddesignwithotherswhohadrightso itback at Papunya.And while it was not,therefore, xactlya ritual,he men sawitas a performancehat,as withritual,wasexpressiveof theiridentity:heir ocal identities spersonsdefinedbytheirrelationshipo land-basederemonial orms, heir dentities s mature(initiated)men withceremonialknowledge,and theiridentityas Aboriginal incontrastowhites).18 omeofthepolitically omplexconnectionsbetweenthese linked dentities ndtheactualpersonsandhistorieswhoembodied hem,however,wereexposedduringheeventandprioro it.InAdelaide,duringheplanning tageof the AsiaSocietyexhibition,urbanAboriginaleoplewere reportedly eryangrywithPeterSutton, he curator rom he SouthAustralianMuseum,because theirworkwas notinthe show.MichaelNelsonapparently efendedSuttonhen. Hebelievesthatpeoplearereally nterestedn hisworkandthe workof traditional eoplebecause

culture-making 689




13/22

itderivesfromTheDreaming,he sourceof value fromwhich most urbanpeople havebeenseparated. They whites]want to see [art] romthe Center, he told me, in explaininghisunderstanding of the situation. UrbanAboriginal people ngurrpaya nyinanyi ('they are igno-rant' ofAboriginalLaw]). hus,he feelssorry orthem.There s a considerablepoliticalchargeto suchviews. Thesedifferenceshave historicallypresenteda significantobstacle to Aboriginalpoliticalmobilization,and the separationoftraditional nd urban Aboriginalpeople is viewed by many activists not only as thecontinuingproductof a racistcolonialhistory,but also as thecurrentormof racialmanipula-tion.Infact,such differencesand gapsbetweendifferent sorts f Aboriginalbeing maybedeniedby urban nd traditional eoplealikein varyingcontexts n favorof assertions fsimilarityand identity.At one pointduring he sandpainting, orexample, LorraineMafi-Williams,an urbanAboriginalwomanandfilmmakerwho attended heevent,spokeupfromthe audience anddisagreedwiththe FrenchanthropologistrancoiseDussart's escription fhow Aboriginal ulture s learnedby children.Thisdisagreement,ssentiallya challengetoDussart'sthnographic uthorityromone who sees herselfasanAboriginalalthoughnotfromthecommunitybeingdiscussed),was viewed as a potentialdisruption f the performance ya differing oliticalagenda.Michaelsaid he hadbeen worriedwhen she got up to speak;hefeared hatshe might upsetthings.Thiscommentalmostcertainlyderivesfrom the criticism(discussed bove) hathe hadreceived rom omeAboriginalctivistswhosepoliticalpurposesand cultural ircumstancesdiffer rom his. LikemanyothertraditionallyrientedAboriginalpeople,he believes that urbanpeople have lost heirlaw,or had itdestroyed he does notplacethe blameonthem).But,as he toldme, We'reucky.WestillhaveourLaw, verything.So it is natural orpeopleto be interestednthemandtheirart.Themenwereauthentic,but conventionsof authenticity ereproblematichroughoutheevent,asthemen foundwhentheyconsideredoregoinghe AsiaSociety'shard-sought tonsof CentralDesert-lookingand ruckedn fromLong sland.Because hesanddidnot akewaterandproducea smoothsurface hewayCentralAustralianoildoes,the men saidthey preferredto paintthe designson the masonite-boardloor,which itselfhad a reddish one. The AsiaSociety representative reatheddeeply for a moment and said Thisis supposedto besandpainting; e advertisedandpainting. acedwiththis,the mengraciously ave in.

audienceTheresponse othesandconstructionwascomplexandvariedamong he audienceandtheperformers. ross-culturalommunications, in any case, complexand difficult.We cannotsatisfy urselves naccountingorthiseventby simplerecourse otheAboriginal ointof view.We may know theirintentionsand goals,but in this sort of improvisation, o use a wordappropriateor such performances, o one quiteknowswhatthe categoriesare. Neither heartistsnorthe audience had a fixedandaccepted rameworkwithinwhich to placethis event.Theanthropologistseemeduncomfortable,s well, with thedepartureromconventionandfrom he authentic r, at least,uncomfortablehatthe audiencemight ake the new for theauthentic ontext.Theaudiencebroughto this eventa number f frames,ncluding 1)that twas a ritualwasthis going to bring power to New York?), nd (2) that religiousactivitywas intrinsicallymeditative,ontemplativethesilencewaswonderful).One womanasked,forexample, Howshould we think aboutthe makingof this constructionhere now? Does it include us? Is itsomething .. is it just forAboriginalpeople or is it forthe good of everybody?And is itparticularlyone for us? 19 notheraskedChrisAnderson,





14/22

Iguess, that knowing thatthey are sharing something of their culture that is sacred, you did say they werenot going below a certain point.... I understand that. But yet they are still sharing something that issacred. Is it necessary for us in some way to give something back?Others eemedmoreconcernedwiththe nature f aestheticproduction:Are heimagespassedon fromgeneration o generation n a staticway or is theresome sort of individual reationinvolved neach stage?For he AsiaSociety,the directorof performancestressed he unusualuniquenessof thisevent(neverseen in UnitedStates).Some viewerssaw it as thecontradictoryvent it was butenjoyeditanyway.A numberof spectatorswereanthropologists,ome were artists,butmostwerepartof the cultured middleclasswho attend imilarkindsof educational ventsinNewYork.20Not manyof the peoplewe encounteredknew much aboutAboriginal rt. The AsiaSociety's ypicalevents,Kathakaliancers,forexample,are moreclearlyperformancehanthis. What audience memberstook from theirparticipationwas varied,undoubtedly,butsuggesteda set of frameworkshatbelongcomfortablywithin hecategories f Western ulturebutwhichrecognize he limitations f theirknowledge.

Letmegiveas illustrationswo moreexamples:Audience: What I like about it also, is that you are dealing, Idon't know if this is characteristicwhen it'sreally done in Australia,but there is this mixture of a casualness and a precise attention at the same time,so thatyou can come in and out. They seem to have a sortof relaxed attitude about it, so there is that sortof aspect to it. They are both very precise and concentrated but also sort of relaxed, get up, go around,and get things to drink. [interview by ElaineCharnov, November 5, 1988]

And finally:Audience: I'dnever seen it, of course none of us has ever seen anything likethis, since this'isthe first imeit's been done in the United States. I think the show is a major show, in this country. Idon't know thatmuch about he artmyself,butaesthetically finditverypleasing. also like the idea of art,culture,artbeingpartof thewholeculture,hewholesociety.ToomanyWesternersendto separatetintoseparatecategories.We forget hat,evenforourselves,artgrewout of ourreligion, urhistory. twas partof ourwhole life,not one separate ategory.But t'swonderful o see thesethingsandto learnabout hem.Togetthisone-worldglobalpicture. interview y ElaineCharnov,November , 1988]Thiswascertainlynot the lastperformancef Aboriginalulture nthe UnitedStates,andthe genre and its conventions are only now emerging.Subsequentevents, such as theWalkaboutour n 1991, which involved wo otherPapunyapainterswith two Euro-Austra-lianpoets,have attemptedo evoke other,perhapsmoreavant-garde, elationships etweencultural raditions.New Age contextsrepresent notherarenaforelaboration.Thisemerginggenre, hen,seemsa good exampleof the necessityofdifferentiatinghe phasesof encodingand decoding Hall1993) inthe processof culturalproduction.Muchmightbe saidaboutsuch events,but one shouldrememberhat,howevertroubledand imperfect hey maybe as incidentsof representation,heireffects outlast he moment.Ithinknoone reallyknowswhat happened n thestage,whether piritualnergyanddangerwere invokedor negotiated,or whetherAboriginal elationso placeweresecurelysignified.It is not insignificant, think,that a 7-year-oldboy whose motherbroughthim to see thesandpainting as so captivatedhathe is now,fouryears ater,planningo do a schoolprojecton an imaginaryrip o a foreigncountryon AboriginesnAustralia.

conclusionMyprincipal oncerninthis articlehas been to sustain he sense of the Aboriginal erform-ance at the Asia Societyas an event, a social engagementamong participantswith variedcultural ndpoliticalbackgrounds,rajectories,ndpurposes.First ndforemost, argue, t isparticularlymportanto sustain hisperspectivef one is tograntanyrealvalue o theposition(s)adoptedbytheAboriginal erformersntheir mprovisations.heview of theseeventssimply

culture-making 691




15/22

as moments n a longerhistoryor structure f dominationor subjugation, oweveraccuratethey mightultimatelyproveto be, ignores he playandpossibilities f the event as a formofsocialactionthat s notnecessarily educible o a pastorfuture ocial state.21Notonly istheremuchforusto learnabout heexperienceof such interculturalransactionsysuchattention;there also seems to be littlealternative.A postcolonial thnography, ne that does notarticulate tselfwithin he alreadyexistingrelationsof knowledgeandpower,must attend othese actors'considerationsver our own critical udgments.Secondly, hen,theethnography f such unsettled vents is importants anexampleof theincreasinglyommonsituationn whichcultural translation s no longerconfined eithertoanthropology r to theacademy.Asongoingandpassionatedebatesaboutculturalhomoge-neity or heterogeneity,about multiculturalism,ulturalpluralism,and the recognitionofdifference uggest, uchtranslation onstitutes majordimensionof social life itself.Itgoeson regularly, ommonly,if imperfectly.The statusof culturalproductions inflectedwith afurther onsciousness: orAborigines o make a paintingnow, in the new context, is alsosometimes representingne's culture. Theydo so, of course,not alwaysin the times andplacesof theirown making r choosing;instead, hey-and I,as ethnographer-operatenavariety f localsettings ndmediatepragmaticallyndintellectuallyetweencultural raditions.Aboriginal eopledo indeedproduce heir dentitiespartlynrelationo discourses manatingfrom he West,but thesediscoursesare notmonolithic,not invariant,ndthe social contextsinwhichpracticesof representationperatehavevarying ffectsandsignificance.Both Michael Nelson Tjakamarrand Billy StockmanTjapaltjarriold complex viewsconcerninghe domination fAboriginalAustraliansythe largerwhitesettler ociety.Indeed,sincethe 1970s, Billyhasfrequently eployedthe imageof anAboriginaltrugglewith whitesfor controlover resources n local- and national-leveldisputes.Nor is Michael Nelson naiveaboutthesocialand culturalnequalitiesnwhichhisdaily ifetakesplace.Theseareasobviousto both men as have been the negativeevaluationsof Aboriginalife and culture,of theirnakedness nd ignorance. etin theirperformance t the AsiaSociety,theyconstructedthemselvesand enacted this culturalpoliticsin a nonconfrontationalashion,drawingon anongoing ndigenousradition f practicewhose importanceheycontinue o uphold n its ownright,and not just as a counterto externaljudgments.In this subjectivity,demonstratingsomething hey hold as self-evident,hey resembleotherAboriginal eoplewho havefoundAustralianolonialismo be morallyunintelligiblesee Rose1984;Rowse1994).ForMichael,at leastuntilrecently, here still seems to remainthe possibility hat white AustralianswillrespondmorallyothedemonstrationfAboriginal wnershipof landself-evidentlymbodiedinritualandpaintingseeMyers1991:51-52),thatthey mightrecognizeAboriginal Law.ThisformofAboriginalityepresents partof the identityperformed t the AsiaSociety.Intheiragreemento perform versionof an indigenousritualpractice,one could say that themenaccepted hepositionassigned o them as primitives, utindoingso, theyset the terms:(1)they madethe decisionto come, bothindividually ndas partof anAboriginalollective;(2) they chose not to talkduringthe performance.Additionally,n the constructionandevaluation fwhatcountedas a performance,3)theyassumed heidentity fperformersndartists ndtherebyadded a degreeof discursive onsciousnessand interculturalwareness othe availableconceptionof whatindigenouspersonsare like.

The event itself is a fusedgenre;it is demonstration nd workdisplay used with theaestheticsof performancert. 22tscommentary, idacticism, nddocumentaryspects ikenit to demonstrationndworkdisplay,but,as with performancert,we are invited o watchrealpeople (notactors) n processin realtime,unscripted, ngagedin activities rom heireveryday ivesand conducted nopenview. To thedegree hat heseprocessperformancesreframedas an aestheticevent andenjoyedin themselves ratherhanas a vehicle forcommu-





16/22

nicating omething lse),theyare likeperformancert.Thisaccounts npart ortheresponses,whichranged rom learning curiosityatisfied)o aesthetic xperience transport).Whatrelevance, hen,do theseevents, akingplaceon another ontinent,haveforAboriginalpeople living in remote desert communities uch as Kintore,Papunya,or Yuendumu?Therelevancesareseveral,directandindirect, conomicandcultural.The mostconcretematerialeffectsof theirperformance,f course,were feltinthemarket,whereconvincingappearancesestablishvalueforAboriginal rt,one ofthefewavailablenondegradingconomicpossibilitiesthey have. Events uch as this performancemake the exhibitionnewsworthy,and from hatpointof view increasenon-Aboriginal eople's exposureto Aboriginal aintingsand culturemoregenerally.Perhapsmoresignificantlyn thiscase, the abilityof the performerso enactthe ritual oundationof contemporary crylic paintingprovidesan anchorof commerciallyvaluable authenticity or this morehybridwork as a productof the indigenous magination(seePrice1989).However, hesignificance fthese material ffectsdoes notendthere,becauseAboriginal rtproducers learlyfeel thatsuchrecognition nhances theirculturalpower.Aswith indigenouspeopleelsewhere,Aboriginal eople see themselvesoftento be takenmoreseriouslyoverseasthanat home.Thus, heconstructions f Aboriginalulture hattakeplacein foreignvenues have significant onsequences orprocessesof Aboriginal elf-production.Ironically,manyAboriginal ttemptso sustain he realmof localmeaningsandvalues-and afocus on the immediate ndlocal, incontrasto obligationso somesuperarchingocialentity,is a longstandingoncern of Aboriginal ultural ife-may be occurringnow in these newlydeveloping ormsof socialpractice hatareinotherwaystransnational.Ofcourse, hese social relations re not hose nwhichstill-dominantndigenous onceptionsandpractices fAboriginal ersonhoodwerepreviously eproduced.And hisispreciselywhatarouses hesuspicionsof critical heory hatcondensearounddebatednotionsof authenticity,

commodification, spectacle, r hybridity. obeuseful,critical eadings femergingormsofcultural roductionmustovercomenotonlythecontinuingnostalgiaoraculturalwholeness,butalsotheconcomitant eification ftheconceptof culture s moreof a structurediven23than an imperfect iction that is ambiguouslymediatedby multipleand shiftingdiscursivemoments.Thequestions hatought o be askedabout hepoliticsof current ormsofAboriginalulturalproduction rewhetherand to whatextent ocal(community-based)ocialordersaredefiningthemselves-their meanings,values, and possible identities-autonomouslyin relation oexternalpowersandprocesses;whetherandhowtheyare ransformednrelation onewpowersand discourses;and how or whetherwhat hadbeen local meaningsare now beingdefineddialecticallyoroppositionally)withrespecto discoursesavailable rom he largerworld.Thatis, our interestnsuchevents as the AsiaSocietyperformancehouldbe a closerexaminationof culturalmediationas a form of social actionin uncertaindiscursivespaces, of unsettledunderstandings,n short,of culture-making. he concept of culture-making, s Ortner(1989)shows,allows a moredirect ocuson relationshipsetweencollectivesocialexperienceand the performanceof individual dentity.Thisperspectivecan go beyond the commonpostmodern iews on interculturalerformanceshatlimits he interpretationf such events otheir ronicaspectsanddenies thedistinctive gencyoftheculture-makerss well. Suchaviewsuggestshedifficultyhatoccurswhenonce-standardnthropologicalotionsof culture ndof the passive culture-bearer reimportednto theprocessesof interculturalransaction.24Inaskingwhatsuchperformancesf Aboriginality ccomplish,one facesthe problemofconceptualizinga type of interculturalransaction hat has raisedsuspicionon two fronts.Anthropologistsave been disdainful f theapparentnaiveteandethnocentrism f audiences,while avant-garde ritical culturaltheoristshave concentratedon the representationanddisplay)of cultural others s an ideological unctionwithinthe dominant Western)ystem(forexample,Clifford1985; Foster1985; Manning1985; Torgovnick1990; Trinh1989).25

culture-making 693




17/22

Despite heirpower odiscern nequality,uchinsightshave notcapturedhe moreshifting ndsubtleconstructions nddisjunctionsf actualcommunicativeorperformative)ractice.Thus,my recourse o the notion of such eventsas occasions of culture-makings an attempt orecuperateheethnographicxperienceofthisinterculturalerformancendmyownengagedexposure o the perspectives f itsparticipants. o ask where(orhow)culture s beingmadebringsus closerto theAboriginal ointof viewandpracticeand thesignificancetgivesto theinterestsof Westernaudiences.26Theemphasison how dominantcultures produce heirothershas,itseemstome,goneas farasitcan withconfident ermonzingoncolonialprocesses;what is needed is a moreethnographicattention o the meaningof such transactions oparticipants,27o whatthese othersmakeof us,howeverunequal hepowerrelationshroughwhichsuch mediation akesplace.Ifculture-makings takingplace,then one must akeseriously he audienceand itsrole,astheAboriginal erformersid.Incontrasto stances hatmight endertheAboriginalarticipantstoo simplyaspassivevictimsof thesubjectivity,r gaze, fothers,one needsa morecomplexapproachoarticulatinghepowersandprocesses hroughwhich discursive ormationsperateandarerealized npeople's ives.Far rombeing he conditionof their ubjection,heaudience'sgaze iscrucial o theAboriginal erformerssanauthentication f theirexperience.To ignorethisexchange analyticallys to excludearbitrarilymuch of what is an Aboriginalelf-definedhumanity, s one who shouldbe respectedandheard, heirown powersandunderstandings;this wouldbe a double erasure.

Indeed, he circumstances f thisperformance uggest hatmanyviewerssimply ndulgedtheircuriositywithoutneeding o forma coherent dea of whatthe Aboriginalmen were orshouldhave beendoing.Itwouldnothave been too difficult o turn hishistoryof Aboriginaldentities ndgropingstowardranslationnto farce, o fullof ironiesandfabricationss it.Inplaceof suchtreatmentsof exhibitions s textsoutside he realactivityof participants,suggestone consider vents likethis as formsof communicative ction,performance,nwhichparticipants ttempt toencom-passwhat is aliento one's imagination Rowse1991:2),performancesn which neither herulesofproduction orreception reestablished. tmaybe difficultorcriticalheorygroundedinWesternhought o grasp uch performance nd itstheatricality ithout uspicionsaboutitsauthenticity, s Dening(1993)recentlyargued.Toforegroundhe disjunctions, umorousas they undoubtedlyare, fails to recognize the sincerityand purposeof the Aboriginalparticipantso makesomethingof themselvesand theirculturesknown,to objectify hem-selves as notonlyas a typeof people,but also asworthyof internationalttention ndrespect.It fails, as well, to capture what is the important quality of performance itself:to connect (V.Turner 982).Suchpragmatic ndcontextuallypecificmediations fcultural raditions rethestuffof culturalproduction rom which we shoulddrawour understandingf postcolonialrealities.notes

Acknowledgments. A shorter version of this article was prepared for participation in the symposiumPublic Discourse and Collective Selves, at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meetingsin San Francisco, December 2-6, 1992. 1would like to thank Michael Nelson, BillyStockman,PeterSutton,ChrisAnderson, Francoise Dussart,John Kean,and Andrew Pekarik,not just fortheir help and openness inallowing me to participate in the events at the Asia Society, but also for sharing their knowledge andexperience. I thank ElaineCharnovfor her assistance in interviewingaudience members, and Iamespeciallyindebted to Francoise Dussart for the many discussions we have had about this event and similar scenes ofAboriginal performance. I have benefited enormously from comments from James Clifford, BarbaraKirshenblatt-Gimblett,Don Brenneis, and anonymous reviewers. Finally, I want to acknowledge FayeGinsburg's many contributions to the conceptualization and the form of this article. The flaws are certainlymy own.1. See, for example, Fryand Willis's (1989) discussion of the spectacularprimitive n reference to theAsia Society show and the exhibition in Paris, LesMagiciens de la Terre.





18/22

2. See T. Turner(1992) for a similar argument.3. Arguments of this sort may be found in Fryand Willis (1989) and Taylor(1989), but there are manyother examples.4. My conception of identity(see Myers 1993)-as a construction of similarityand difference producedin sets of contrasts-draws most immediately on L6vi-Strauss(1962, 1966) but also owes much to thetradition of social theory in the creation of a self in relationship to an other (Mead 1934; Sartre1948;Taussig 1993).5. The Aboriginal political activist Paul Coe articulated a form of this in an on-camera interview in thedocumentary forAustralianTVproduced by Frances Peters (1992), TentEmbassy:Iwas a young child growing up on a small Aboriginalreserve, a mission. Ifeltcontented, Ifelt safe becausewhilst I was on the reserve-mission, I was just another person. Itwas only when I went into the whitecommunity that I became an Aboriginal. Whilst I was at my community, I was just treated as anotherhuman being.6. Fundingfor the exhibition was provided by several institutions: National Endowmentforthe Humani-ties, Friends of the Asia Society Galleries, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, the StarrFoundation, WestpacBankingCorporation.However, the final form of the exhibition inevitablywas constrained by material limitsand the enormous costs of insuringand transportingvaluable objects.7. These intentions are recorded in the application materials describing the plans for the exhibition sentto NEH and also in the catalog edited by Peter Sutton(1988).8. I intend to undertake a more intensive discussion of the reflexive dimensions of my involvement inproducing this knowledge and the event in the longer monograph of which this article is a part. I addresssome of the questions, however, in another article on the Asia Society show (Myers1991).9. This discussion did not appear in the final version of the interview that was aired. Ivideotaped thediscussions myself, however, as an ethnographic record.10. This was itself a significant political event. For this collaboration with white Australia, MichaelNelson not only received criticism fromsome urbanAboriginalactivists,but also believed that he had beencursed by one. The basis of this controversy,which was widely reportedin the Australianpress, formulatedcurrentpolitical differences in terms drawn fromindigenous Aboriginal culturalpractice. Essentially,KevinGilbert, a well-known urban Aboriginal activist, opposed legitimizing the Australian government byallowing them to deploy Aboriginalicons as partof their own nationhood. Initially,he was reportedto havesaid that Michael Nelson's design was a curse against the government, and when Michael vehementlydenied this, Gilbertcomplained that Michael had violated Aboriginal Lawby placing his design, one froma distant country, n what was the traditionalcountry of people fromthe Canberraarea.More recently, the artist hreatened to remove a piece of his painting from its place at ParliamentHouse,protestingthe Australiangovernment's alleged weakness in upholding Aboriginal rights n response to whitebacklash against the Supreme Court's Mabo decision.11. How much this was on their minds is clear. Before the performanceof the second day, when Ispokealone to Billy, Ireportedto him how people had been very happy. He explained to me thatthey were doingthe sandpainting to show they have Law, that it is still there: AboriginalLaw, like a river [runs forever].Keeps going. They want to teach it to the next generation and so on.12. Here, working as a technical aide, Kean has also written about Papunya painting, illustratingquiteaptly what kind of relationsare embedded in this art world.13. I am not entirely sure why the Tjartiwanpa designs were selected. However, they are consideredviewable by women and noninitiates,and rightsto them are shared by Michael Nelson and BillyStockman.Therefore, they make an appropriateform for their joint display.14. I do not think this positioning had any particular significance, other than reflecting the painter'sshyness and need to make visual contact with Billy Stockman.15. An interview conducted with another viewer of the performance presents this concern moreelaborately. In answer to the question, How did you like the event? he replied:Well, I just had a funny feeling that I sometimes get going to the museum of naturalhistorywhere yousee aboriginal peoples fromother partsof the world in glass cases. And Ihad the feeling of Herewe aresittingand talkingabout these people and asking questions, and they're there and we're talkingover theirheads in such a funny way, as though they were partof an exhibit of some sort, and they weren't realhuman beings there. And it made me a bit uncomfortable, feeling that they weren't, you know, alsoparticipatingand we knew that they understood.Interviewer: Do you think it might have been different were they not on stage?Yes, possibly it could be if they were on the floor and everyone were seated around them. Idon't thinkpeople would have this notion of treatingthem as though they weren't there.They were almost as thoughthey were behind a glass and separated from the audience. So that, if we were all seated on the flooraround them, perhapsthatwouldn't have happened. And maybe they would have said something oncein a while, too. That made me uncomfortable.16. When the painterssaw this scene on the videotape Imade forthem, they laughed. Michael thoughtthe girl brought to meet him wasn't frightened, but he joked at the point when they tried to show thechildren their boomerangs, it won't bite you.17. Inmy case, thisexpression requireda knowledge of the use of mythology to formulate shared identity.Michael expressed connection with me by talking of his country connections with Pintupi, who are my

culture-making 695




19/22

closest associates in the Papunya area, through the Possum Dreaming and through his mother's mother'sbrother.18. To some extent, too, the performance bore traces of indigenous ceremonial organization, withMichael and Billy,who areclassificatory brothers-in-law, defining themselves inthe complementary rolesof owner (kirta)and manager (kurtungurlu) o each other (see Maddock 1981, Meggitt 1962, Munn1973, or Myers 1986 for more detailed discussion of these statuses).19. As chance would have it, since I was present and filming, I ended up providing an answer to thisquestion, which, to some extent, explains my currentproject.According to a transcriptionof the tape, whatIsaid was this:And I, in a way, I don't presume, I can't presume to know why. I think that in general when Aboriginalpeople do ceremonies that I have attended, they regardthem as for the good of everybody. They don'tregardthem distinctively for that, they play a part in the world as a whole. I think that one meaning ofwhat's happening here thatwe haven't really discussed but was discussed much more in the symposium[on October 22, 1988]: you have to remember that Aboriginal people in Australia have been facingdispossession from the land and real oppression for quite a long period of time. And they find it verysurprisingthat Europeansettlers don't recognize their relationshipto the landscape, which in their ownsociety is almost taken forgranted.It'sunderstood. Andpartof what we are seeing here is theirrelationshipto these places. Forthem, they are inalienable relationshipsto the places where these stories took placeand The Dreaming there. And so the claim of their role in that partof the world has importantpoliticalsignificance now inthe context inwhich landrights nAustralia s threatenedagain. Inthis partof Australia,people have been very fortunatein that the federal government found it possible to grant land rights,butin many partsof Australia hat is not true. So, there is, this is partlyan expression of some real interculturalconflicts.20. The Asia Society's own surveyof visitors to the Dreamings ndicate thatthe audience was relativelyyoung, with half under40 yearsof age and only 12 percent over 60. They were highly educated and literate:half had postgraduatedegrees. Fortypercent of the visitorshad learned of the exhibition throughthe media,principallythe New YorkTimes Magazine, TimeMagazine, and New YorkMagazine.21. Iam thinking of the example of Fryand Willis's (1989) criticism of spectacles of the primitive asformsof ethnocide. However, this genre of judgment and criticism is fairlycommon in the aftermathofcritical theory emanating from Foucault'swork on classification, knowledge, and power (1971, 1980) andSaid's related critique of Western knowledge of the Other as a technology of subordination (1978). Itseems possible as well that the current focus on history n anthropology, while generally laudable and

important, might similarly have the consequence of reducing the meaning of events to their historicalconsequence (see Asad 1987; Taussig 1987).22. I am gratefulto BarbaraKirshenblatt-Gimblettor this formulation.23. Fora discussion of contemporary reificationsof culture in the discussions of multiculturalism,see T.Turner1993.24. I am indebted to James Clifford's (1985, 1988a, 1988b) lucid discussions of these processesthroughouthis analyses of art and culture. However, the perspective offered here emphasizes the events ofculturalproduction and the adequacy of different models fortheir conceptualization.25. A good deal of this critical orientation about what is known as culturalothering derives fromFoucault's(1971) The Orderof Things,with itsemphasis on the human sciences as a form of classification,and fromSaid's(1978) Orientalism,with its concern forrepresentationof difference as a technique of power.One mightarguethat the monolithic approachto discourse of Foucault's archaeologyof knowledge (1971)is itself replaced in his later work by a more wily sense of power and knowledge, of multiple discursiveformations Foucault1980) thatmay be more suitableto understanding he processes of a culturalproductionthat is, if you will, intercultural.26. Indeed, as David Halle (1993) recently argued in a studyof primitive artin New Yorkhouseholds,avant-gardeculturalcriticism has largely ignored the role of the audience, which appears to be a more orless passive recipient in their view, either following the aesthetic judgments of artists and other experts orbeing dominated by the ideologically motivated manipulations of museums and their directors(1993:398). Thereare few studies that inquirehow exotic objects acquire meanings inthe complex processesof the everyday lives of the audience.27. See, for example, the work of James Clifford hat followed on the (1985) criticismof the Museum ofModern Art's Primitivism xhibition. The paper on Northwest Coast museums (Clifford1991) and hisattemptat an ethnographyof the production of culturalidentity in the Mashpee case (Clifford1988c) bothattempt o interrupt he reificationsof culture thatrelyon an impermeable boundarybetween the authenticand its audience.

references citedAbu-Lughod,Lila1990 The Romance of Resistance:TracingTransformation f Power through Bedouin Women. Ameri-can Ethnologist17:41-55.





20/22

Asad, Talal1987 Are There Histories of Peoples without Europe?A Review Article. Comparative Studyof Societyand History27:594-607.Bardon, Geoff1979 AboriginalArt of the Western Desert. Sydney: Rigby.Benjamin, Walter1968 The Work of Artin the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. InIlluminations.HarryZohn, trans. Pp.217-251. New York:Schocken.Bhabha, Homi1986 The Other Question: Difference, Discrimination and the Discourse of Colonialism. In Literature,Politics and Theory. Francis Barker t al., eds. Pp. 148-172. New York:Methuen.Blackstone, Sarah1985 Scalps, Bullets, and Two Wild Bills:An Examination of the Treatmentof the American Indian inWild West Shows. Bandwagon:Journalof the Circus Historical Society, September-October:l 8-23.Butler,Judith1990 Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversionof Identity.New York:Routledge.Clifford,James1985 Histories of the Tribal and the Modern. Artin America (April):1 4-1 77.1988a Introduction:The Pure Products Go Crazy. Chapter in The Predicament of Culture. Pp. 1-17.Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress.1988b On Collecting Artand Culture.ChapterinThe Predicament of Culture.Pp. 215-251. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.1988c Identityin Mashpee. Chapterin The Predicament of Culture.Pp. 277-346. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.1991 FourNorthwest CoastMuseums: Travel Reflections. InExhibitingCultures:The Poetics and Politicsof Museum Display. IvanKarpand Steven D. Lavine,eds. Pp. 212-254. Washington, DC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.

Dening, Greg1993 The Theatricalityof History Makingand the Paradoxes of Acting. CulturalAnthropology8:73-95.Fabian,Johannes1983 Time and the Other. New York:Columbia University Press.Foster, Hal1985 Recodings: Art,Spectacle, Cultural Politics. PortTownsend, WA: Bay Press.Foucault, Michel1971 The Orderof Things:An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York:Pantheon Books.1980 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Colin Gordon, ed. New York:Pantheon.Fox, Richard1985 Lions of the Punjab:Culturein the Making. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.Fry,Tony, and Ann-MarieWillis1989 AboriginalArt:Symptomor Success? Artin America (July):109-117, 159-160, 163.Geertz, Clifford1983 Foundin Translation:On the Social Historyof the MoralImagination.Chapter nLocalKnowledge:FurtherEssaysin InterpretiveAnthropology. Pp. 36-54. New York: Basic Books.Ginsburg, Faye, and Anna Tsing, eds.1991 Uncertain Terms: Negotiating Gender in America. Boston: Beacon.Graburn, Nelson, ed.1976 Ethnic and Tourist Arts: Cultural Expression from the Fourth World. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.Hall, Stuart1990 CulturalIdentityand Diaspora. InIdentity:Community, Culture, Difference. J.Rutherford, d. Pp.222-237. London: Lawrenceand Wishart.1993 Encoding, Decoding. InThe Cultural Studies Reader.Simon During, ed. Pp. 90-104. New York:Routledge.Halle, David1993 The Audience for Primitive Art in Houses in the New YorkRegion. The Art Bulletin75(3):397-414.Keeffe, Kevin1992 From the Centre to the City: Aboriginal Education, Culture, and Power. Canberra:AboriginalStudies Press.Kimber,Richard1977 Mosaics You Can Move. Hemisphere 21(1):2-7, 29-30.Kirshenblatt-Gimblett,Barbara1992 PerformingDiversity.Departmentof PerformanceStudies, New YorkUniversity, unpublished MS.Levi-Strauss,Claude1962 Totemism. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.1966 The Savage Mind. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

culture-making 697




21/22

Lippard,Lucy1990 Mixed Blessings: New Artin a MulticulturalAmerica. New York: Pantheon.MacNeil-LehrerNews Hour1989 Interviewwith Michael Nelson and Billy Stockman. BroadcastJanuary12, 1989. PBS,Channel13, New York.Maddock, Kenneth1981 WarlpiriLandTenure:A Test Case in LegalAnthropology. Oceania 52:85-102.Manning, Patrick1985 PrimitiveArtand Modern Times. Radical HistoryReview 33:165-181.Mead, George Herbert1934 Mind, Self, and Society fromthe Standpointof a Behaviorist.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.Megaw, Vincent1982 Western Desert Acrylic Painting-Artefact or Art?ArtHistory5:205-218.Meggitt,Mervyn J.1962 Desert People. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.Morphy, Howard1983 Now You Understand -An Analysisof the Way Yolngu Have Used Sacred Knowledgeto RetaintheirAutonomy. InAborigines, Landand LandRights.N. Peterson and M. Langton,eds. Pp. 110-133.Canberra:Australian Instituteof AboriginalStudies.1992 Ancestral Connections. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.Munn, Nancy1973 Walbiri Iconography. Ithaca,NY:Cornell University Press.Myers, Fred1986 Pintupi Country, PintupiSelf: Sentiment, Place, and Politics among Western Desert Aborigines.Washington, DC:Smithsonian InstitutionPress;Canberra:Aboriginal Studies Press.1988 Burning he Truck,Holdingthe Country.InHunters and Gatherers:Property,Power and Ideology.T. Ingold et al., eds. Pp. 52-74. London:Berg.1989 Truth,Beauty and Pintupi Painting.Visual Anthropology 2:163-195.1991 Representing Culture:The Production of Discourse(s) for Aboriginal Acrylic Paintings. CulturalAnthropology 6:26-62.1993 Place, Identity,and Exchangein a Totemic System. InExchangingProducts,Producing Exchange.J. Fajans,ed. Pp. 33-58. Oceania Monograph, 43. Sydney: Oceania Publications.Ortner, Sherry1989 CulturalPolitics. Dialectical Anthropology 14:197-211.Paine, Robert1981 Norwegians and Saami:Nation-Stateand FourthWorld. InMinoritiesand MotherCountry.GeraldL.Gold, ed. Pp. 211-248. St.Johns, Newfoundland: Instituteof Social and Economic Research.Peters, Frances1992 Tent Embassy.AustralianBroadcasting Company. Sydney, New South Wales.Price, Sally1989 PrimitiveArtin Civilized Places. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.Rose, Deborah Bird1984 The Saga of Captain Cook: Morality in Aboriginal and European Law. Australian AboriginalStudies, 2:24-39.Rowse, Tim1991 InterpretivePossibilities :AboriginalMen and Clothing. CulturalStudies 5(1):1-13.1994 Mabo and MoralAnxiety. Meanjin 52(2):229-252.Said, Edward1978 Orientalism. New York:Pantheon.Sartre,Jean-Paul1948 Anti-Semite and Jew. George J.Becker, trans. New York:Schocken.Spivak, GayatriChakravorty1987 InOther Worlds: Essayson CulturalPolitics. New York:Routledge.Sutton, Peter, ed.1988 Dreamings:The Artof AboriginalAustralia. New York:Brazilier/AsiaSociety Galleries.Taussig, Michael1987 Historyas Commodity inSome RecentAmerican(Anthropological)Literature.Food and Foodways2:151-169.1993 Mimesis and Alterity.New York:Routledge.Taylor,Paul1989 PrimitiveDreams Are Hittingthe BigTime. New YorkTimes, May 21 :C1, C3.Torgovnick,Marianna1990 Gone Primitive:Savage Intellects,Modern Lives.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.Trinh,T. Minh-Ha1989 Woman, Native, Other. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Turner,Terence1992 Defiant Images:The KayapoAppropriationof Video. Anthropology Today 8(6):5-16.





22/22

1993 Anthropology and Multiculturalism: What Is Anthropology That Multiculturalists Should BeMindful of It?CulturalAnthropology 8(3):1-19.Turner,Victor1982 From Ritual o Theatre. New York:PerformingArtsJournalPublications.Williams, Nancy1976 AustralianAboriginalArtat Yirrkala: ntroduction and Development of Marketing.In Ethnic andTouristArts.Nelson Graburn,ed. Pp. 266-284. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

submittedJuly27, 1993accepted September 10, 1993

culture-making 699

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	deborah-gambs
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Meyers Culture Making

Documents