ING: The Maker vs The Makee
- Yuna Kim
- Nov 17, 2024
- 5 min read
[Native American Heritage Month Special]
There is a painting I once saw at Scottsdale's Museum of the West, but unfortunately they do not have an online collection. It was a painting that struck me with its unity and cold beauty: two men on horseback, shown from the waist up, in the profile with sharp features against a cold, snowy mountain backdrop. Everything was cold, sharp, and blue. One man was the figural "white man," and the other the figural "Native American," each dressed in their respective cultural clothing and thus recognizable as two entirely different men and entirely different cultures, together in a scene where there is no other life present and thus a forced unity is evoked. It was symbolic of the sentiment surrounding the historic and contemporary relationship: distant, yet close, and ultimately unresolved.
But I can't find the painting, so here we will look at another one.
This is Jay, Jay by R. Brownell McGrew. I particularly love paintings of children, but this one spoke to me for another reason.
When it comes to popular images of the early Western American life, many are led to Migrant Mother by Dorothea Lange. In comparison, this painting is unique in that it brings the focus of human struggle to an age range not frequently depicted in this type of stark, individualistic, identity-granting portraiture within the theme of the human struggle. Babies and infants pluck the heartstrings, to put bluntly, and are unfortunately more present than one would think in images of disenfranchised communities (war photography is a good example). A child old enough to have this kind of look in his eyes, yet young enough to still have baby cheeks, looks straight at us with a determination that can be attributed to either knowledge or innocence of the history of his people. No matter which, the result is a captivated viewer. And if we are to further theoreticize, this image does not bring to mind "human struggle" if one unaware of Native American and American histories were to gaze upon it. This child representing a community that was abused and taken advantage of is depicted as a bold, healthy, fearless child (not "warrior," as that would be stereotypical). Whether that is a positive or negative thing depends upon the intention of the artist.
This sentiment of mine as to the child being a fascinating choice of model is, of course, not so black and white. After all, many artists choose to depict either what speaks to them or what they feel will speak to society (value). The majority of society capable or willing to give attention to art is an age range much above this child, so adolescents or adults tend to be the subject matter. With that said, I'm very curious as to what young children think when they see paintings such as this.
In short, this painting spoke to me because it made me feel affection towards it, then guilt. Affection in that it was a child, guilt in that it took an innocent child to make me look towards a people and history filled with so much displacement and human struggle. Would I have not look at the painting twice had it been a Native American adult?
Many popular paintings, either popular in public opinion or in the art market, of Native American depictions that circulate today appear to be from the twentieth century. Perhaps I haven't dug enough. However, my coming upon depictions mostly from this period suggests either an abundance or a preference. Either says a lot about our interpretation and reception of Native American Art as an American public (or any public, hello there).
Since Jay, Jay came from a later period (1900s) than the original period of Native American displacement (1700s) in the modern American consciousness (not including pre-eighteenth century older displacements committed by various explorers and/or groups, such as Amerigo Vespucci or Christopher Columbus, since they are not associated with the modern United States of America), I was not surprised that this "Native American Art" was a work by a non-Native American, because non-Native Americans now have more accessibility to Native American communities through technology, long-established relationships, and of course, the lack of general warfare and large-scale mutual violence. However, I came to question this coined genre of Native American Art -- because many works, in fact, most of the works on the market, were not works by Native Americans but rather of Native Americans. No matter how far you go back, this seems consistent: John White of the 1500s, John Verelst of the 1600s, Nathaniel Smibert of the 1700s. Of course, jewelry and rugs made my Native Americans are indeed "Native American Art." So is it a matter of a lack of paintings by Native Americans, paintings being a more popular product on the art market as a "fine art," or is it that we have somehow managed to give less exposure to painters from actual Native American communities? If this is all a matter of painting simply being not a form of art expresion that Native American communities prefer, then that is more simple. However, I find that hard to believe.
The National Archives in Washington, D.C. currently has an exhibition, also available virtually, on the Native Americans' role during the American Revolution called Road to Revolution. The virtual exhibition provides us a glimpse into this important perspective, even containing digitized primary sources showing war strategy cartography involving Native American communities and also entreaties for assistance or rejection of the war effort. I had not previously given much thought into how the Native Americans had been forced to choose between the British and the (new) Americans. The virtual exhibition is good food for thought.
If you wish to see further popular Native American Art in today's market, Freeman's | Hindman presents an excellent digital inventory, as well as Artsy's article on contemporary Native American artists. Jay, Jay is actually Lot 248 of a previous Freeman's | Hindman sale (2020). The latter might give more insight into my previous proposition on the lack of Native American painters. Many appear to use digital or multi-media, especially textiles. Maybe it really is a matter of preference. I might argue it is a taught preference, and discrimination in the acceptance process of "higher" institutions and art academies.
Leave thoughts below.
References:
Comments